Council Minutes - Cambridge€¦ · COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2018 H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\18 MINUTES\FEBRUARY\A Council Front.docx ii Community and Resources Committee

$Page 1: Council Minutes - Cambridge€¦ · COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2018 H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\18 MINUTES\FEBRUARY\A Council Front.docx ii Community and Resources Committee$
Council Minutes 27 February 2018

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\18 MINUTES\FEBRUARY\A Council Front.docx i

MEETING OF COUNCIL 27 FEBRUARY 2018 INDEX OF MINUTES

1. Opening ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Attendance ...................................................................................................................... 1 3. Public Question Time...................................................................................................... 2 4. Petitions ........................................................................................................................... 9 5. Deputations ..................................................................................................................... 9 6. Applications for Leave of Absence ................................................................................ 9 7. Confirmation of Minutes ................................................................................................. 9 8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion .................................................... 10 9. Committee Reports ....................................................................................................... 11

Development Committee 12

DV18.1 Lot 379 (No. 40) Challenger Parade, City Beach - Side Boundary Privacy Screen - Retrospective - State Administrative Tribunal Reconsideration 14

DV18.2 Lots 147-149 (No. 177) Cambridge Street and Lot 800 (No. 12) Salvado Road - Construction of Temporary Car park 20

DV18.3 Lot 148 (No. 62) Chipping Road, City Beach - Three Storey Dwelling 29 DV18.4 Lot 700 (No. 60b) Marlow Street, Wembley - Two Storey Dwelling -

Referred Back 41 DV18.5 Lot 187 (No. 25) Templetonia Crescent, City Beach - Illuminated Sign 48 DV18.6 Local Planning Policy Review Schedule 54 DV18.7 Amendments to Local Planning Policy 5.1 - Parking - Adoption for

Advertising 59 DV18.8 Amendments to Local Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape - Adoption 66 DV18.9 Review of Local Planning Policy 2.3: Public Notification of Planning

Proposals' - Consent to Advertise 67 DV18.10 Ocean Village Shopping Centre - Proposal to require a Local

Development Plan 75 DV18.11 Lake Monger Community Garden Occupation Licence Review -

March 2018 85 DV18.12 Town of Cambridge Parking Amendment Local Law 2018 - Adoption 89 DV18.13 Lot 308 (No. 5) Lentara Crescent, City Beach - Objection to Local

Government Act Notice 95 DV18.14 Upgrade of Parking Ticket Machines to be credit card compliant -

Sole Supplier 103 DV18.15 Delegated Decisions and Notifications Report for December 2017

and January 2018 107 DV18.16 Building Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority - December

2017 and January 2018 110

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2018

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\18 MINUTES\FEBRUARY\A Council Front.docx ii

Community and Resources Committee 113

CR18.1 Tender for Civil Drainage Works at McCourt Street - Woolwich Street 116 CR18.2 Five Year Program - 2018 to 2019 - 2022 to 2023 - Footpaths 121 CR18.3 Marapana Road - Templetonia Crescent - Local Area Traffic

Management Stage 1 128 CR18.4 Rutter Park Public Toilets - Outcomes of Consultation 133 CR18.5 North Lake Monger New Toilet Facility 141 CR18.6 Mindarie Regional Council Meetings - 14 December 2017 and 25

January 2018 148 CR18.7 Annual Waste Report 2016 17 154 CR18.8 Cambridge Library Customer Survey 2017 164 CR18.9 Floreat Salvation Army Homeless Project 174 CR18.10 Perry Lakes Water - Award of Consultancy Services RFT25-17

Updated Report 177 CR18.11 Underground Power Wembley West Leederville Works Agreement

and Outcomes of Property Owners Surveys 181 CR18.12 Documents Sealed - February 2018 186 CR18.13 Review of Local Government Act 1995 - Submission to Department

of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries 189 CR18.14 Delegation of Authority - Annual Review 193 CR18.15 Review of Standing Orders Local Law 205 CR18.16 Annual Insurance Review 208 CR18.17 Tender RFT34-17 for Microsoft Agreement 212 CR18.18 Relationships Australia - Exemption from Rates 215 CR18.19 Payment of Accounts - December2017 and January 2018 218 CR18.20 Investment Schedule - January 2018 220 CR18.21 Budget Review 2017- 2018 227

10. Council Reports 234

10.1 Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation - January 2018 234 10.2 Underground Power Projects: Ownership of Street Lights 237 10.3 Telethon and Speech and Hearing Centre - Permission to hold

Gaming Night 244 10.4 Submission to WALGA on Third Party Appeal Rights in Planning 247 10.5 Town of Cambridge Transition of Home and Community Care

Services - Expressions of Interest (EOI 45-17) Outcome 255 10.6 RFT46-17 Legal Services Litigation - Lot 501 Omaroo Terrace, City

Beach 256

11. Urgent Business 259

12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given 260

Cr Powell - Rescission of Item 4.1 Decision of Special Council Meeting on 7 February 2018 (Confidential) 260 Cr McKerracher - Alderbury Reserve - Drinking Fountain with Dog Watering Bowl 261 Mayor Shannon - Greening Laneways and Streets 264 Mayor Shannon - Bamford Lane 276 Mayor Shannon - Transparency and Accountability 278 Mayor Shannon - Traffic Study for West Leederville and Wembley 281 Mayor Shannon - Locals First Approach 284 Mayor Shannon - Collection of Performance Benchmarking Data 288

12.1

12.2

12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 Cr Timmermanis - Investigation of Potential Claim (Confidential) 290


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\18 MINUTES\FEBRUARY\A Council Front.docx iii

13. Confidential Reports 292

13.1 St Pauls Church - Parking Arrangements 292 13.2 Review of Legal Advice - Ocean Gardens Constitution Changes 292 13.3 Executive Matters - Director Projects 292

14. Closure 293

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\18 MINUTES\FEBRUARY\A Council Front.docx 1

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2018. 1. OPENING The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.00 pm. The Mayor advised that the

meeting is being recorded and the recording will be on the Town's website. 2. ATTENDANCE Present:

Mayor: Keri Shannon

Councillors: Rod Bradley Louis Carr Ian Everett Jo McAllister Kate McKerracher James Nelson Jane Powell Andres Timmermanis

Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer

Brett Jackson, Director Projects Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Jason Lyon, Director Corporate & Strategic Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Marlaine Avery, Director Planning & Development John Giorgi, Manager Compliance Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Assessment Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Karen Exley-Mead, PA to Chief Executive Officer Apologies: Nil Leave of Absence: Nil Adjournments: Nil



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME The record of Public Question Time is a summary of the questions and answers provided at the Council meeting as per Section 11 (e) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. Written Questions Sabrina Klinger, 137 Tower Street, West Leederville Responses are provided by the Director Corporate & Strategic Question 1 The Auditor General (OAG) has been appointed to perform all financial audits for local governments. When will TOC start to have their financial audit carried out by the OAG? Response Audit planning has already commenced with the OAG and the interim audit will be undertaken in May. Question 2 What are expected cost implications for having the OAG now being the auditor? Response The OAG will invoice the Town based on the hours committed. It is expected this will be in the range of $30,000 to $40,000 for the interim and final audits. Question 3 Does TOC have any knowledge who will actually carry out the financial audit as the OAG has contracted out all financial audits to audit firms? If yes, who will be the contractor? Response The OAG will be undertaking the Audit. The OAG is assuming responsibility for all Local Government Audits, which is occurring over three years as current Local Government Audit contracts expire. The current audit contract for the Town of Cambridge expired this year. This year, the OAG is assuming audit responsibility for 47 local governments. They have selected three local governments to carry out the audits with OAG personnel - the Town of Cambridge, City of South Perth and Shire of Brookton. The basis of their selection is that they wanted two metropolitan local governments of small to medium size, offering diversified services and one rural local government within proximity of Perth. Their intent is to gain a good understanding of how Local Governments operate utilising the current resources of the OAG.



Graham Hornel, 91 Empire Avenue, City Beach Responses are provided by the Chief Executive Officer Question 1(a) On what date does the CEO’s current Contract end? Response

31 December 2020 Question 1(b)

On what date was this Contract Extension approved? Response 29 November 2016 Question 1(c)

Which Elected Members who are current Councillors approved this Contract Extension on that date. Response The minutes of the Council Meeting of 29 November 2016, the vote is recorded as:

For: Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, O'Connor and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Bradley

Question 1(d) Does this Contract include a Further Extension Clause?

Response The employment contract states that:

"this contract is renewable by agreement between the CEO and the Town" Question 1(e) Per the Local Government Act, is a full copy of this Contract available at Administration for review upon Ratepayers’ requests? Response Yes



Graham Hornel, 91 Empire Avenue, City Beach (continued) Responses are provided by the Director Corporate & Strategic Question 2(a) What is the exact total of the Town’s payments to lawyers and similar entities for legal advice: i. during the years that Simon Withers was Mayor and ii. since our current Mayor was elected? Response As this question requires research, a written response will be provided and recorded in the minutes of the March Council meeting. Question 2(b) Of that amount, what is the exact total paid to McLeods from the date Mr. Withers was first elected as Mayor? Response As this question requires research, a written response will be provided and recorded in the minutes of the March Council meeting. Question 2(c) Of the total payments made, what is the exact total that the CEO approved under delegated authority? Response All payments made are approved under delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with Policy 3.2.2, which is considered at the time of budget adoption. The Policy stipulates that:

Approval is expressly given by the Council to the Chief Executive Officer for all items of expenditure to be committed without further authorisation except:- (i) Major projects requiring Council design approval, but does not include preliminary work in preparing design for approval; (ii) Works subject to tenders that require Council approval in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and have not been delegated to the Chief Executive Officer under Section 5.43(b) of the Local Government Act 1995; (iii) Any other items specified by the Council at the time of adopting the Annual Budget requiring the approval of the Council;



Question 2 (d) Of the remaining total, how much exactly was directly approved by Council and how much exactly by Directors? Response The scope of this request is too broad to complete with current resources. It would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of resources away from other functions, as outlined in section 5.95(b) of the Local Government Act 1995. Question 3 (a) What is the exact total of the Town’s payments to all providers under Contract Agreements and similar: i. during the years that Simon Withers was Mayor and ii. since our current Mayor was elected? Response

The following table is the list of materials and contracts from the operating statement and the capital works from the Town's audited financial statements. The capital works includes capital expenditure on Buildings, Plant and Equipment, Parks and Reserves, Roads and Lanes, Drainage and Footpaths. Year Operating Capital Total 2007/2008 $8,079,822 $7,018,968 $15,098,790 2008/2009 $9,394,289 $9,727,699 $19,121,988 2009/2010 $11,373,092 $14,027,347 $25,400,439 2010/2011 $11,181,724 $9,141,874 $20,323,598 2011/2012 $11,375,115 $14,348,985 $25,724,100 2012/2013 $12,697,584 $22,879,802 $35,577,386 2013/2014 $12,947,845 $15,252,526 $28,200,371 2014/2015 $14,202,022 $26,212,449 $40,414,471 2015/2016 $14,955,806 $30,984,653 $45,940,459 2016/2017 $14,665,292 $17,828,029 $32,493,321 Total $120,872,591 $167,422,332 $288,294,923



Question 3(b) Of the total payments made during these periods, what is the exact total that the CEO approved under delegated authority? Response The scope of this request is too broad to complete with current resources. It would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of resources away from other functions, as outlined in section 5.95(b) of the Local Government Act 1995. Question 3(c) Of the remaining total, how much exactly was directly approved by Council and how much exactly by Directors? Response The scope of this request is too broad to complete with current resources. It would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of resources away from other functions, as outlined in section 5.95(b) of the Local Government Act 1995. Graham Hornel, 91 Empire Avenue, City Beach (continued) Responses are provided by the Director Community Development Question 3 (c) What is the exact total being paid to the provider under the current Walking Trails Contract Agreement? Response This year, $4,000 is estimated to be paid to the provider under the current Walking Trails (Master Trails Plan) Contract Agreement. An amount of $5,000 was paid last year. The current draft Plan is written in line with Lotterywest and Sport and Recreation funding requirements, ensuring that the Town is ready to access funding as it becomes available. A report is due to be submitted to Council in March to consider the draft Plan and recommending a period of public comment. Question 3 (d) Why has this information not been willingly disclosed to our Mayor, despite her repeated requests? Response It is our understanding that the email queries from the Mayor have been responded to, apart from one received in February this year, which is pending confirmation of information.



Verbal Questions Gabriel Tana, Giorgi Architects and Builders

Question In relation to Item DV18.3 Lot 148 (No. 62) Chipping Road, City Beach - Three Storey Dwelling, there has been an enormous amount of consultation and design work being done behind the scenes to put forward a position that I believe will be palatable for all parties concerned. Accordingly, would Council consider a Development application, which is over height but everything else on the side setbacks is bought within deemed to comply? Response The Mayor advised that this item will be considered at tonight's meeting. Celia Duffall, 13 Alexander Street, Wembley Question 1 Given the recent experience in other Councils and with the acknowledgement of the views of Taylor Burrell Barnett that a strict development reflects poor planning strategy and will likely result in future development being approved in residential areas, will the Town be transparent on a likely longer term outcomes for the proposed draft LPS particularly the probability that high density will move into residential streets, North of Cambridge Street in Wembley and in West Leederville? Response Director Planning and Development advised the will be full transparency. The density targets for the Local Planning Strategy have been reviewed, the consultants TBB who are engaged by the Town are currently drafting up the Local Planning Strategy and the draft Local Planning Strategy will be advertised. Mayor Shannon advised she believes it is certainly the Council's position, coming out of the various forums and strategy sessions that we have had, they we are going to try and not emulate Nedlands and we are going to obviously have a different communication strategy for our draft LPS Question 2 I would like just to acknowledge that with the approval of Amendment 33, excluding modifications, combined with the stripping out of controls on the hotel site on the Wembley Activity Centre Plan, this development site is now at real risk of poor planning outcomes, something that the local community has lobbied to prevent over the last two years. Can Cr Carr confirm if he has had discussions with the owners or with the prospective purchaser of the hotel site and, if so, can he please confirm when these discussions took place, what was the substance of discussions and why he has not declared an impartiality interest to date? Response Cr Carr advised he has not had discussions with the current owner, certainly not in the last couple of years. In fact, he could not recall having had a conversation with them, however, he advised he did know the owner many years ago. He has not spoken to any person who was a likely purchaser and therefore has no interest to declare.



Paul Kotsoglo, Planning Solutions Re: Item DV18.2 Lots 147-149 (No.177) Cambridge Street and Lot 800 (No.12) Salvado Road - Construction of Temporary Car Park Question Are the Mayor and Councillors aware of an email sent this morning from Ross Underwood, Planning Solutions and, if so, are you aware that we have requested that Item DV18.2 be deferred for a month to address points that were raised at last week's Development committee meeting? Response Mayor Shannon advised she had spoken with Mr Underwood today and advised that she was aware that he had sent an email to Elected Members asking for a deferral. The matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting. Andrew Thomson, 137 Tower Street, West Leedervile Question 1 In relation to Item 12.6, on behalf of the West Leederville Residents Association of which I am the Vice Chairman, a submission was sent to the Mayor and West Leederville Councillors on the 8 February. The space provided by the Mayor and the Motion as read in the agenda does not detail how the study might address matters raised in that submission. Is it possible to publish the scope and guidance given for the traffic study proposed for comment prior to commencement assuming it is voted up tonight? Response Mayor Shannon advised it will be a matter of public record because the scope will be determined by the Elected Members when the item is dealt with at tonight's meeting. Question 2 Will a scope be available for comment prior to award or prior to issuing out? Response Mayor Shannon advised she would not have thought so. Question 3 When should the public expect to see outcomes from Elected Member Forums on the Lake Monger Development Plan including the safe crossing of Lake Monger Drive and the new toilets? Response Mayor Shannon advised the toilet item was recommended for deferral by the Community and Resources Committee. The Lake Monger underpass or the traffic management across Lake Monger, there is obviously Director Infrastructure advised that the Lake Monger underpass or the traffic management across Lake Monger Drive was being deferred until we have the Lake Monger Plan.



Director Projects advised the intent is to provide a report to the March Committee and then March Council on the outcomes of the consultation on the Lake Monger Activity Plan and a proposed set of next steps. Question 4 At the last Council Meeting in December I asked if it were possible to have community representation at the February LPS workshop. The answer given was that it would be put to the Elected Member Forum. Given no community representation took place, is it fair to assume that Elected Members do not wish to be transparent with the community about what has been undertaken at these workshops? Response Mayor Shannon advised the Elected Member Forums are not so much workshops, as briefings essentially from TBB. There was discussion at the Elected Member Forum about pre advertising to the community and we are not going to come out and put up the draft LPS without an opportunity for people to at least make some comment. 4. PETITIONS A petition containing 12 signatures has been submitted by Lisa Buckingham, 186 Ruislip

Street, Wembley objecting to the Rutter Park Public Toilet proposal and requesting that it does not proceed.

Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Cr Nelson That in accordance with Clause 3.5 of the Standing Orders, the petition be received. Carried 9/0

5. DEPUTATIONS Nil 6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 19 December 2017 be confirmed. Carried 9/0 The Mayor advised that as the Special Meetings of Council held on 7 February 2018 and 20 February 2018 were confidential, the Minutes for these meetings will be discussed at the end of the meeting.



8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Despite my concerns raised in April 2016 that allowing a Scheme amendment over the the Wembley foodcourt carparks to have their zoning changed from carpark to Local centre when we have no height controls in Wembley was wrong and was not simply “correcting an administrative error” as the planner at the time had led the Town to believe, and as was in fact incorporating significant changes for the Town. I now understand that the reserving of land as carpark is a normal and orderly part of planning. Despite that, in August 2016, I sought a revocation of the Scheme Amendment on the basis that the process had actually not been followed as it had been initiated on the request of a prospective purchaser and not the actual landowner, as required by the legislation. Despite the assurances of Cr MacRae at the time that we could put the controls in the Scheme, it would appear that the WAPC has decided to remove the controls in Amendment 33. The Minister has asked the Town to modify the Amendment to remove the controls and has suggestd that controls in the Wembley Activity Centre Plan and the development of a Local Development Plan for the site would be sufficient. We all know the WACP has suggested controls for height but they are not in the Scheme. As such, they are not binding. And we all know that the Development Assessment Panel views non-binding controls in policy as ineffective and certainly not something that will bind them to height and setback controls. We only have to ask the residents of Blencowe Street about the enforceability of the residential transition zone in policy. It really is quite useless in terms of protecting residential amenity when an application is made to the Development Assessment Panel. It gives no protection – no guarantees. Today, I finally was given a list of all the meetings between the Town’s officers and the prospective purchaser and developer's representatives. All up there were ten meetings to discuss the beneficial zoning or rezoning of this property from March 2015 until May 2017. Again, as I've said before, it's the repeat player advantage in lobbying. It gets a result but the applicant would rather have instead of what is best for the community. The value of the land will have been significantly increased as a result of the rezoning of land with no height controls or setback controls. I know that two of the Wembley Ward Councillors were in favour of the scheme amendment with controls but it has failed. I hope you are pleased with the result because I know I am not. I am very dissappointed for the residents of Wembley. Anyway, I guess we have done everything we can up until now. We will just have to really make sure that the Wembley Activity Centre Plan and full controls are put inot the Scheme as a result of that. Again we have put the horse before the cart and unfortunately it is the residents in Alexander Street that are going to suffer. Can I remind the elected members that they should confine their comments to the motion tonight. I would seek your cooperation by providing concise and relevant commentary. We have obviously got a full Agenda and we would all like to make effective decisions and get home on time tonight. I am very conscious of the fullness of the agenda and therefore I would like to advise now that I intend finishing the meeting by about 9.30pm or 10pm whether or not we have got through the Agenda. If there are items on the Agenda that we have to push off to the next month, that is what we should do because we all have work tomorrow and I don't want the quality of the decisions to go down as the evening goes on.



9. COMMITTEE REPORTS

Members of the public present at the meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification of Council’s position. They were advised to wait for written advice from the Council before taking any action on any matter that they may have before the Council.

Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted en bloc, with the exception of the following items which were nominated for individual debate. Development: Items DV18.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 13 Community and Resources: Items CR18.2, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18 and 20 Declaration of Interest: Item DV18.2 - Cr McKerracher - ImpartialityInterest Item DV18.10 - Crs McKerracher and Everett - Impartiality Interest Item DV18.13 - Mayor Shannon, Crs McKerracher and Everett - Impartiality Interest Item CR18.11 - Crs Carr, Everett and McAllister - Financial Interest 10.1 - Cr Carr - Financial Interest 10.5 - Cr Timmermanis - Impartiality Interest 10.6 - Cr Carr - Financial Interest 12.5 - Cr McKerracher - Impartiality Interest 13.3 - Mr Brett Jackson, Director Projects - Financial Interest The remainder of the items of the Development Committee and Community and Resources Committee were then carried en bloc.


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\18 MINUTES\FEBRUARY\B DV.DOCX 12

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The report of the Development Committee meeting held on Tuesday 20 February 2018 was submitted as under:

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.00 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Mayor Keri Shannon (Presiding Member) 6.00 pm 8.05 pm Cr Ian Everett 6.00 pm 8.05 pm Cr Kate McKerracher 6.00 pm 8.05 pm Cr James Nelson 6.00 pm 8.05 pm Cr Jane Powell 6.00 pm 8.05 pm

Observers: Cr Rod Bradley Officers: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Assessment Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic Development John Giorgi, Manager Compliance Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 8.05 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil



4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item DV18.1 Les Mumme, neighbour Murray Casselton, applicant Item DV18.2 Ross Underwood, applicant Item DV18.3 Gabriel Tana, applicant Item DV18.5 Schoen Jahn, neighbour Item DV18.8 Helen Drummond, 36 Peebles Road, Floreat Item DV18.10 Tayne Evershed, Planning Solutions and Jordan Ennis, Pindan Item DV18.13 Stephen Allen, No. 5 Lentara Crescent, City Beach Lally Majors, No. 3 Lentara Crescent, City Beach


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 12 December 2017 as contained in the December 2017 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Item DV18.2 Cr McKerracher - Impartiality Interest Item DV18.10 Cr McKerracher - Impartiality Interest Cr Everett - Impartiality Interest Item DV18.13 Mayor Shannon - Impartiality Interest Cr McKerracher - Impartiality Interest Cr Everett - Impartiality Interest

7. REPORTS



DV18.1 LOT 379 (NO. 40) CHALLENGER PARADE, CITY BEACH - SIDE BOUNDARY PRIVACY SCREEN - RETROSPECTIVE - STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL RECONSIDERATION

SUMMARY: Council's decision to refuse the retrospective application for a side boundary privacy screen at No. 40 Challenger Parade, City Beach at its meeting held on 25 July 2017 has been appealed. The application was refused as it was considered that the appearance of the screen has an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the north-west. Following State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) between the Town, applicant and adjoining owner at No. 42 Challenger Parade, the plans have been amended to show the installation of fibre cement sheeting, rendered and painted to match the brick dividing wall, to finish the screen wall on the neighbour’s side. SAT has invited Council to reconsider its decision to refuse the application pursuant to section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). The fibre cement sheeting will conceal the back of the privacy screen and provide a consistent appearance to the dividing fence as viewed from the adjoining property to the north-west. The fibre cement sheeting is therefore recommended for approval. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the 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. e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.

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

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by Officers for appeal purposes.

Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects 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 (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.

Information For the Council/Committee to note.

BACKGROUND: Application: 0135DA-2017 Owner: K Beament Applicant: TPG + Place Match Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 1148 m²



At its meeting held on 22 November 2016, Council approved a retrospective application for a side boundary privacy screen and modifications to the upper floor privacy screening at the subject site subject to the following conditions: (i) the privacy screen facing the adjoining property to the north-west to be finished to the

satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the dwelling;

(ii) the privacy screen to be a maximum height of 3 metres as measured from the adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Town.

The approved north elevation showed 30mm x 30mm cedar vertical battens with 10mm spacings facing the neighbouring property to the north-west, which was acceptable to the Town and the adjoining neighbour. The owners have since moved in to the dwelling and the privacy screen, as constructed, has vertical cedar battens facing the subject site and a metal frame (vertical posts and two horizontal rails) facing the neighbouring property to the north-west. The privacy screen has not been constructed in accordance with the plan approved by Council and includes a metal frame element that was not identified in the previous elevation to Council. The privacy screen as constructed was considered by Council at its meeting held on 25 July 2017. Council decided: That:- (i) in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge

Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the retrospective application for a side boundary privacy screen submitted by TPG + Place Match at Lot 379 (No. 40) Challenger Parade, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 16 May 2017 for the following reasons:- (a) the screen does not satisfy the design principles of the Town’s Local Planning

Policy 3.14 Minor Structures Behind the Street Setback Area and part 5.1.3 P3.2 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia as the appearance of the screen has an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the north-west; and

(b) the screen does not satisfy the requirements of clauses 67(a), 67(m), 67(n)(iii) and

67(y) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as the appearance of the screen has an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the north-west and the owner of this property has objected to the proposal.

(ii) the privacy screen to be modified to comply with the planning approval dated 26

November 2016 (which required the privacy screen facing the adjoining property to the north-west to be finished to the satisfaction of the Town, prior to the occupation of the dwelling) within sixty (60) days of the Council’s decision. To clarify what is to the Town’s satisfaction, the privacy screen facing the north-west property is to be:- (a) clad in 30mm x 30mm cedar wood vertical battens with 10mm spacing on both

sides of the screen, with the height to match the adjacent existing garage height (3 metres); and

(b) the metal steel frame which is exposed and visible to the adjoining property is to be painted to match the cedar wood battens (i.e. timber look).



There were two on-site mediation sessions held on 13 September 2017 and 1 December 2017, during which options for the privacy screen were discussed. The applicant’s chosen option was submitted to the Town on 15 January 2018 and forwarded to the adjoining neighbour for comment. It is this option which is the subject of the following report. DETAILS: Development description The subject site is located within the City Beach precinct. The streetscape in the vicinity of the subject site has a mix of single and two storey dwellings overlooking the Parks and Recreation Reserve on the west side of Challenger Parade. The site comprises a two storey dwelling with undercroft and a swimming pool and pool house at the rear. This dwelling was approved at the Council meeting held on 23 April 2013. The privacy screen, which is the subject of this report, was not required as a planning condition on the original application for the dwelling at No. 40 Challenger Parade. The intent of the privacy screen is to provide additional privacy to the backyard of both Nos. 40 and 42 Challenger Parade. The existing privacy screen is: • a freestanding screen 3.0 metres high and 16.4 metres long with a steel frame and cedar

battens. 15.3 metres of the screen is visible from the north-western neighbour’s property; • the screen extends from the north-western neighbour’s rear garage to the new rendered

brick dividing wall and is adjacent to the neighbour’s driveway; • facing the north-western neighbour is the back of the privacy screen, being the steel

frame (seven vertical posts and two horizontal rails). The screen is 0.9 metres higher than the existing 2.1 metre high brick dividing wall.

The applicant’s proposed finish of the screen wall on the neighbour’s side is fibre cement sheeting rendered and painted to match the boundary wall extension. The proposed works include: • installation of an additional hardwood rail and fixings and rendered and painted screen;

and • painting of the vertical posts to match the painting of the sheeting and existing wall. Community consultation The Tribunal required revised details for the side boundary privacy screen to be submitted by 15 January 2018. There was no requirement to consult, however, the revised details were forwarded to the owners of the adjoining property at No. 42 Challenger Parade to view and provide comment. The owners of the adjoining property to the north-west object to the proposed fibre cement sheeting finish for the privacy screen due to its bulky appearance. They would prefer the privacy screen to be finished in accordance with part (ii) of the Council’s resolution dated 25 July 2017. The submission is summarised in Attachment 1.



Applicant’s submission The applicant believes the proposed finish is the optimal solution that: • best matches the appearance of the neighbouring wall; • maximises the setback between the approved structure and the fence to provide visual

relief; and • minimises the amount of any ongoing maintenance required. The applicant highlights that the only planning consideration is that of appearance. The fence has been extended at its western end and is painted and rendered. The proposed screen finish will be painted and rendered to match this extension. The applicant believes that the contrasting material to the existing ‘rough finish face brick’ combined with the setback to the screen will assist in providing visual relief when viewed from the neighbour’s side. Also, the smooth finish proposed will also easily allow for any maintenance to occur if and when required. Comment The preferred finish for the privacy screen on the neighbour's side for both the Town and north-west neighbour is in accordance with part (ii) of the Council’s resolution dated 25 July 2017. However, this is not the option the applicant wished to pursue with the SAT application. In reconsidering the application, an assessment has been made on whether the proposed finish of the privacy screen has a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the north-west. Advantages of the fibre cement sheeting are that it will conceal the horizontal rails (‘back of screen’) and provide a flat surface for easy maintenance (e.g. repainting). Disadvantages are that the solid sheeting will increase the bulk of the screen and the vertical posts will still be visible. The proposed finish is neater in appearance than the back of the timber batten screen and its light colour and texture matching the existing dividing wall will reduce its prominence and bulk impact. It should be noted, that the SAT has directed the Town to consider the application on town planning matters alone and on this basis, there are limited reasons to recommend refusal of the application. Accordingly, the fibre cement sheeting is considered to be a satisfactory means to conceal the back of the timber screen and is therefore recommended for approval to Council in accordance with the orders from the Tribunal dated 1 December 2017.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

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



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

It should be noted that if Council were to resolve to refuse the application and the matter were to proceed to a full hearing in the State Administrative Tribunal, that there would be financial implications of approximately $10,000 through the appointment of a Town Planning consultancy to assist the Town on the matter.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the

character and responsive to future needs Strategy 4.2: Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and

retains a sense of place

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Assessment Contributors Sonya Hayes, Senior Planning Officer ATTACHMENTS:

1. CONFIDENTIAL - Development Application plans 2. CONFIDENTIAL - Summary of neighbour comment

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, in response to the invitation of the State Administrative Tribunal to reconsider its decision under s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), vary its previous decision of 25 July 2017 under s 31(2)(b) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) as follows:- That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the retrospective application for a side boundary privacy screen submitted by TPG + Place Match at Lot 379 (No. 40) Challenger Parade, City Beach, as shown on the amended plans and photo dated 15 January 2018, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the fibre cement sheeting, rendered and painted to match the existing rendered brick

boundary wall to the satisfaction of the Town, is to be installed within sixty (60) days of the Council’s decision and maintained accordingly by the landowners;

(ii) the existing steel posts which are exposed and visible to the adjoining property to the north-west are to be painted to match the existing rendered brick boundary wall within sixty (60) days of the Council’s decision.



Committee Meeting 20 February 2018 During discussion, Members agreed that the steel posts and rails of the screen shall not be painted. Amendment Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Cr Everett That the motion be amended to read as follows:- That Council, in response to the invitation of the State Administrative Tribunal to reconsider its decision under s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), vary its previous decision of 25 July 2017 under s 31(2)(b) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) as follows:- That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the retrospective application for a side boundary privacy screen submitted by TPG + Place Match at Lot 379 (No. 40) Challenger Parade, City Beach, as shown on the amended plans and photo dated 15 January 2018, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the steel posts and rails of the screen shall not be painted. Amendment carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That Council, in response to the invitation of the State Administrative Tribunal to reconsider its decision under s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), vary its previous decision of 25 July 2017 under s 31(2)(b) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) as follows:- That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the retrospective application for a side boundary privacy screen submitted by TPG + Place Match at Lot 379 (No. 40) Challenger Parade, City Beach, as shown on the amended plans and photo dated 16 May 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the steel posts and rails of the screen shall not be painted. Carried 9/0



DV18.2 LOTS 147-149 (NO. 177) CAMBRIDGE STREET AND LOT 800 (NO. 12) SALVADO ROAD - CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY CAR PARK

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for the construction of a temporary carpark at Lots 147-149 (No. 177) Cambridge Street, Wembley and Lot 800 (No. 12) Salvado Road, Subiaco. This application is being presented to Council following the Metro-West Joint Development Assessment Panels (JDAP) decision to approve the construction of a six-storey carpark at No. 12 Salvado Road, Subiaco. This application included reference to the construction of a temporary car park. The Administration recommends that the application should be conditionally approved. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the 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.

e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.

Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies. Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions

made by Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly

affects 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 (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.

Information For the Council/Committee to note. BACKGROUND:

Application: 0003DA-2018 Owner: St John of God Health Inc. Applicant: Planning Solutions Pty Ltd Zoning: Medical Precinct: West Leederville Use class: Hospital ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 3059m2 On 24 March 2017, a demolition permit was issued for the demolition of St. John of God House which was located on lots 147-149 (No. 177) Cambridge Street, Wembley. The demolition was completed by 29 June 2017 and the site has remained vacant since this time. On 21 June 2017, a Development Assessment Panel application was submitted for No. 12 Salvado Road, Subiaco which proposed to construct a six storey multi-level car park. The



application was initially considered by the JDAP on 30 September 2017, however, the application was deferred for a period of 3 months. On 8 January 2018, the proposal was further considered by the JDAP. The Responsible Authority Report (RAR) recommended that the application be refused (refer to Attachment 3 for further information), however, the application was conditionally approved. At the time of writing the RAR, the application for a temporary car park had not been submitted by the applicant and was not considered as part of the application, however, was indicated on the plans.

DETAILS:

Site Context The proposed development is located on Lots 147-149 (No. 177) Cambridge Street, Wembley and Lot 800 (No. 12) Salvado Road, Subiaco (the subject site), and within a street block bound by Cambridge Street to the north, Station Street to the west, McCourt Street to the east and Salvado Road to the south. The subject site is zoned Medical and is located within the West Leederville Precinct. The site is currently vacant with portions of vegetation on the northern and western boundaries and some portions of bituminised car parking spaces, orientated east-west, comprising of 55 bays. There are two existing crossovers, a 3 metre wide crossover on Lot 147 ('crossover 1') and a 9 metre wide crossover on Lot 12 ('crossover 2'), both accessible from Cambridge Street and vehicle access from D'Arcy Lane, which is accessible from Station Street. D'Arcy Lane is a public thoroughfare servicing No. 12 Salvado Road and 181 and 187 Cambridge Street respectively, however, it only extends for a length of 130 metres and then falls within the private property of the subject site. The subject site is surrounded to the east and south by the St John of God Hospital, and multiple dwellings to the west (181 Cambridge Street). Properties on the opposite side of Cambridge Street are predominantly commercial ranging in height from one to four storeys. Development description This application was submitted on 5 January 2018 and proposes to use the subject site as a temporary carpark by: • Adding 103 car bays to the existing 55 car bays on site, resulting in 158 car parking bays.

These bays will be used solely for staff and contractors car parking to compensate for the loss of Kitchener Park;

• Consolidating Vehicle access from Cambridge Street (Two crossovers exist, only one will be used during the lifetime of the car park) and D'Arcy Lane; and

• Using of an entry boom gate and card reader (located at the end of D'Arcy Lane) and an exit boom gate (using the Cambridge Street crossover).

The applicant has advised that the car park is required for 4-5 years before it is ultimately redeveloped for medical purposes.



In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a Transport Impact Statement (refer to attachment 2) which addresses: • Car parking provision, access and layout; and • Daily traffic volumes and vehicle types. On 24 January 2018, the applicant was requested to provide additional information regarding: • The provision of landscaping; • Drainage; • The provision of motorcycle bays; and • The width of the existing crossover located on the Cambridge Street frontage of Lot 800

(No. 12) Salvado Road. On 30 January 2018, the applicant provided additional information outlining responses to these matters (refer to attachment 2). Where relevant, these matters and the information provided in support of the application, have been incorporated into the assessment. An assessment of the application has been conducted against the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of Schedule 2, Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and the following Local Planning Policies: • 4.1 (Design of Non-Residential Development); • 5.1 (Parking); • 5.3 (Landscaping and Water Sensitive Urban Design); and • 6.5 (West Leederville Precinct). The proposal complies with all the requirements of the Scheme, and provisions of the aforementioned policies with the exception of the following key issues outlined below. Assessment against Schedule 2, Part 6 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Local Development Plan On 11 October 2017, the Town requested that the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) agree to require that a Local Development Plan (LDP) be prepared for the site. A LDP is a plan that sets out specific and detailed guidance for future development including one or more of the following: a) site and development standards that are to apply to the development; b) specifying exemptions from the requirement to obtain development approval for

development in the area to which the plan relates. Part 6 of the deemed provisions sets out the requirements for a LDP, including when a LDP can be prepared, how this should occur (advertising, approval and review of decisions) as well as the effect of a LDP. Clause 56(1) of the deemed provisions states that the local government must give due regard to, but is not bound by, a LDP when determining an application. On 20 December 2017, the WAPC agreed that a LDP should be prepared for any future redevelopment of the site. At the time of writing this report, a LDP or a masterplan that is not subject to change, has not been submitted to the Town for assessment.



In consideration of this application, Clause 56(2) of the deemed provisions is important as it states that a decision maker for an application for development approval in an area referred to in Clause 47 as being an area for which a LDP may be prepared, but for which no LDP has been approved by the local government, may approve the application if the decision-maker is satisfied that: - a) The proposed development does not conflict with the principles of orderly and proper

planning; and b) The proposed development would not prejudice the overall development potential of the

area. As no LDP presently exists for the site, the matters identified above should be considered in the determination of this application. It is considered that the proposal is appropriate for the following reasons: • The proposed development does not conflict with the principles of orderly and proper

planning as the temporary car park provides satisfactory means of access (from D'Arcy Lane) and egress (to Cambridge Street). Further, the proposal assists with the provision of car parking at the site; and

• The proposed development is temporary in nature and will not prejudice the overall development potential of the area, particularly as a LDP is required for the overall development of the area. A condition of approval is recommended to ensure that the use of the site reverts back to its current use in 5 years.

Assessment against Schedule 2, Part 9, Clause 67 (g) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Local Planning Policy 4.1 'Design of Non-Residential Development' The proposed development requires consideration against the development criteria 1.1 (Safety) of Local Planning Policy 4.1 'Design of Non-Residential Development' which states:

The need for safe movement of vehicular traffic and minimisation of conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, with reference to factors such as the volume of traffic (both pedestrian and vehicle) likely to be generated by the proposed development, location of vehicular access points, the design and location of crossovers, public transport stops and the provision and location of segregated pedestrian walkways and sightlines.

The proposal is not considered to satisfy this requirement as the subject site is located within a high pedestrian area and 'Crossover 2', situated on the Cambridge Street frontage of Lot 800 (No. 12) Salvado Road, is 9m wide which exceeds the Town's crossover standards by 3 metres. Due to the width of this crossover and the proposed consolidated arrangement of the proposed temporary car park, there is potential for conflict between pedestrians utilising the footpath of Cambridge Street and more than one vehicle exiting the site onto Cambridge Street. Further, the size of the crossover may encourage conflict between vehicles travelling west on Cambridge Street and vehicles exiting the site onto Cambridge Street. With this in mind, condition 7 is recommended to ensure that the width of the crossover is reduced to 6 metres and diagonal hatching be marked within the 2.5 metres setback area to improve pedestrian safety.



Local Planning Policy 5.1 'Parking' Table 1 of Local Planning Policy 5.1 'Parking' (LPP5.1) outlines the car parking requirements by land use categories as well as motorcycle parking requirements, the assessment as it relates to a hospital is shown below:

Requirement Existing Proposed Difference Hospital: 1 space per 30m2

administration area and 1 space per 3 licensed beds

(Existing Requirement: 1377)

1377 1480 +103

Motorcycle: 2% of overall parking proposed

(2% * 103 bays = 2 bay requirement)

- - 2

The proposed development will result in an oversupply of car parking for the subject site. Clause 1.7 of LPP5.1 provides the following guidance for this situation:

Car Parking provision exceeding the requirements specified in Table 1 will generally not be supported, in order to limit traffic congestion and encourage more sustainable modes of transport. The Responsible Authority may determine that the provision of bays exceeding the required number under the Policy provisions is not justified or required and will impose an adverse impact on amenity, safety and traffic management in the surrounding locality. In some circumstances, the Responsible Authority may require there to be fewer parking bays than required under the Policy if the number of bays proposed is likely to present an adverse impact on amenity, safety and/or traffic management.

The proposed oversupply is considered to be appropriate for the following reasons: • The proposed car park does not adversely impact the amenity of the area; • As discussed in the discussion of LPP4.1, condition 7 is recommended to mitigate safety

concerns associated with potential conflicts between pedestrians utilising the Cambridge Street footpath and vehicles existing onto Cambridge Street;

• The traffic impact statement submitted indicates that the trips generated from the development will not adversely impact the road network; and

• The proposed development is temporary and condition 1 is recommended to ensure that, should the application be approved, the site reverts back to its previous use at the expiry of the approval period or the applicant will need to submit another development application to extend the use of the site.

In relation to the motorcycle bays, the proposed temporary car park does not satisfy the requirements of the Parking Policy for the provision of motorcycle parking. The shortfall of motorcycle bays is considered to be appropriate for the following reasons: • The applicant contends that the proposed development will be used by contractors

working on the redevelopment of the St John of God Hospital, and staff of the hospital. Contractors by nature do not require motorcycle bays. Staff provided with access to the car park will be allocated a car parking bay, and would not require an additional dedicated motorcycle bay. Motorcycle bays would therefore be underutilised. This is noted; and



• The interim car parks function will ultimately be replaced by the multi-storey car park, which was approved by the JDAP in January 2018. The multi-storey car park was approved with no provision of motorcycle parking bays. As the interim car park serves a similar purpose to the multi-storey car park, there is no logical or proper planning purpose to require motor cycle bays under the current application. Condition 1 is recommended to ensure that after 5 years, the use of the car park will cease.

Local Planning Policy 5.3 'Landscaping and Water Sensitive Urban Design' The proposed development does not satisfy Clause 3 of Local Planning Policy 5.3 'Landscaping and Water Sensitive Urban Design' as outlined in the table below: Requirement Proposal All open air car parking areas shall be landscaped by the planting of shade trees along car parking rows, with a minimum spacing of 10 metres unless otherwise approved by the Council where such spacing can be demonstrated to be impractical in the circumstances of the particular development.

Existing landscaping along the western and eastern boundaries of the existing car park will be retained. No shade trees proposed

The proposed variations are considered to be acceptable given that the proposed carpark is temporary in nature. Any additional significant landscaping (shade trees) is unlikely to have the opportunity to reach mature height and produce shade prior to the redevelopment of the car park area. Notwithstanding this, given the prominence of the site, it is recommended that a landscaping plan (condition 8) be submitted and implemented to populate the 2.5 metre setback area with water-wise native species, particularly as it relates to the existing shrub on the site. Commencement of Planning Approval The applicant has stated that the proposed car park is temporary in nature and would assist with facilitating the development of the recently approved multi-level car park on 12 Salvado Road. It would also assist in relieving car parking pressure associated with the expiration of a lease on Kitchener Park. The applicant contends that the application should not be time limited as: • It is the owners current intention that the proposed interim car park be utilised for 4-5

years before it is ultimately redeveloped for medical purposes; and • As the length of time that this interim car park is required will be subject to other

conditions, the timeframe cannot be known with certainty. Should the owners' intention change, the site will be utilised for an extended period of time and the Town will not have the ability to re-assess its impact on the streetscape and the road network. Further, it is clear that this application would not have been submitted if the (recently approved) multi-storey car park had not been approved by the JDAP in January 2018. There is a clear connection between the two, particularly as the temporary car park will be used by contractors, during the construction period, and staff. Condition 1 is recommended to ensure that the car park use remains temporary in nature and provides adequate time for the applicant to commence, and subsequently complete, the construction of the multi-level car park. This would also ensure that there is certainty for the timeframe. Should the 5 year timeframe expire, the applicant can reapply to continue to use the site as a car park.



Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017 Division 4 of the Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law addresses vehicle crossings. In particular, Clause 9.12 'Removal of redundant vehicle crossings' states that: "Where works on a lot will result in a crossing no longer giving access to a lot, the crossing is to removed and the kerb, drain, footpath, verge and any other part of the thoroughfare affected by the removal are to be reinstated to the satisfaction of the local government." With this in mind, the plans submitted as part of this application demonstrate that Crossover 1, situated on Lot 147 (No. 177) Cambridge Street, will not be used for access to the lot and it is recommended that condition 6 be imposed to ensure that the redundant crossover is removed and the kerbing, verge and footpath be reinstated. This is not unreasonable given that: • The site currently utilises two crossovers on Cambridge and the application is proposing

to only use one consolidated crossover; • The condition is consistent with the Local Government and Public Property Local Law

2017; • Prior to the commencement of the development is adequately final and certain as it

clearly sets out when the redundant crossover needs to be removed and the kerbing, verge and footpath being reinstated. There are standards available on the Town's website regarding crossovers; and

• The applicant has stated that the site will ultimately be redeveloped for medical purposes and the crossover will be used as part of any future large-scale redevelopment. However, the Town has not been given any indication as to when a LDP will be submitted or when this overall development is likely to occur. It should also be noted that reference to the 'commercially confidential' preliminary masterplan submitted through the JDAP application process for the multi-storey car park at No. 12 Salvado Road cannot be relied upon as the masterplan was not sufficiently finalised and is subject to change.

Community Consultation The application was not advertised as there is no requirement to do so, in accordance with Local Planning Policy 2.3 'Public Notification of Planning Proposals' and Schedule 2, Part 8, Clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.


The proposal was assessed against the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.


There are no financial implications related to this report.


Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Interim Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'.







This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Assessment Contributors Simon Shub, Senior Strategic Planning Officer

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Development application plans; 2. Applicant's justification dated 5 January 2018 & 30 January 2018; and. 3. Responsible Authority Report dated 8 January 2018. Committee Meeting 20 February 2018 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr McKerracher disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item DV18.2, I declare that I have a personal association with a director of the Applicant company and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. Council Meeting 27 February 2018 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr McKerracher disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item DV18.2, I declare that I have a personal association with a director of the Applicant company and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a temporary car park submitted by Planning Solutions Pty Ltd at Lots 147-149 (No. 177) Cambridge Street, Wembley and Lot 800 (No. 12) Salvado Road, Subiaco as shown on the plans dated 4 January 2018 (S04017 C00 Rev B, C01 Rev E and C02 RevA), subject to the following conditions:- (i) this approval is valid for five (5) years, upon which the approval ceases and has no

further effect;



(ii) all car parking dimensions, manoeuvring areas, circulation areas, crossovers and driveways shall be constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.1 (as amended);

(iii) all existing street trees shall be protected and maintained with no pruning permitted without prior approval of the Town of Cambridge;

(iv) the lighting to public areas, pathways and car parking areas within the development shall comply with the Australian Standard 1158.3.1 2005 'Lighting for Roads and Public Spaces Part 3.1 - (Category P) — Performance and design requirements'. Plans and details shall be provided to the Town for approval, prior to the commencement of the development;

(v) the redundant vehicle crossover outside Lot 147 (No. 177) Cambridge Street, to be removed and the kerbing, verge and footpath shall be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town prior to the commencement of the development;

(vi) the vehicle crossover providing access to the subject site from Cambridge Street, on Lot 800 (No. 12) Salvado Road as depicted on Plan S04017, shall be reduced in width from 9 metres to 6 metres. The kerbing, verge and footpath shall be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town prior to the commencement of the development;

(vii) prior to the commencement of the development, a landscaping plan, showing the location and type of vegetation for the 77m2 front setback area of the subject site, shall be submitted and approved by the Town of Cambridge, subsequently installed to the satisfaction of the Town.

Advice Notes The applicant be advised that:- 1. Obtrusive or spill lighting from the development must not cause a 'nuisance' and

shall comply with the Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law 2016 and AS 4282.1997 - 'Control of obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting'.

2. Waste Collection service along D'Arcy Lane should be reviewed. 3. In relation to condition (iii), the applicant is encouraged to incorporate water wise

and/or local native plants within the landscaping plan. During discussion, Members noted that the applicant has requested that the item be deferred for one month of enable issues raised at the Development Committee to be addressed. COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Everett That the item relating to Lots 147-149 (No. 177) Cambridge Street, Wembley and Lot 800 (No. 12) Salvado Road, Subiaco be deferred for one month Carried 5/4 For: Crs Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher and Nelson Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Powell and Timmermanis



DV18.3 LOT 148 (NO. 62) CHIPPING ROAD, CITY BEACH - THREE STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for three storey dwelling at No. 62 Chipping Road, City Beach. Under the Town's Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority Clause 1.3.2, Council will determine development applications where they have been advertised and objections have been received. In this instance, objections have been received from neighbouring residents in relation to the building height, visual privacy and lot boundary setbacks and therefore the application is required to be determined by Council. The Administration recommends that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Application: 0297DA-2017 Owner: Mr DB Forman and Mrs KD Forman Applicant: Building Corporation WA Pty Ltd

T/as Giorgi Architects & Builders Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 878sqm



DETAILS:

Development description The subject site is located within the City Beach Precinct. The existing single storey dwelling has recently been demolished to create a vacant lot. The site is orientated in an east/west direction, with access to two local roads. The vacant site slopes approximately 4.2 metres upwards from the north-western corner (Chipping Road) to the south-eastern corner (Talgarth Way). The basement of the proposed dwelling is visible from the Chipping Road frontage only, and has a finished floor level between 0.8 metres and 1.5 metres below the natural ground level at the front boundary. As the basement includes a habitable room, in addition to car parking, it is considered a 'storey', therefore resulting in an application for a three storey dwelling. The surrounding sites consist of predominantly two storey dwellings, with a recently approved three-storey dwelling on the site directly to the east (on the corner of Talgarth Way). The development application proposes the following: • vehicular access and garages are located from both street frontages; • a three-storey dwelling set back a minimum of 8.6 metres from the primary street

(Chipping Road), and a 5.643 metre setback to the rear eastern boundary (Talgarth Way).

• a basement level consisting of an undercroft garage and theatre, which will be visible from the Chipping Street elevation only;

• a ground floor consisting of three bedrooms, the entrance, an outdoor sitting room and a double garage with access from Talgarth Way;

• an upper floor comprising of the master suite, kitchen, dining, living and two outdoor living areas;

• a concealed roof is proposed with two architectural light wells located central to the building which results in this section of building being over height;

• the proposal complies with front landscaping requirements, and is set back beyond the 7.5 metre requirement of Clause 20 of the Town Planning Scheme; and

• side and rear setback variations are proposed which have been advertised to adjoining owners and will be addressed in this report.

An assessment of the application has been conducted against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), Local Law 43 (Schedule 3), relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the following Local Planning Policies: • 3.1 – Streetscape; • 3.2 – Buildings on the Boundary; • 3.3 – Building Height; and • 6.1 – City Beach Precinct. The proposal complies with the requirements of the Scheme, relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes and provisions of the aforementioned policies with the exception of the key issues outlined below.



Community Consultation The application was advertised for a period of 18 days, from 24 November 2017 to 12 December 2017, to seventeen (17) surrounding properties in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia. Seven (7) objections were received. The table below provides a summary of the comments and issues raised during the community consultation process and an Officer technical response to each comment and issue. Summary of Comments Received: Officer Technical Comment: Loss of views of significance The proposed wall heights mostly comply

with the maximum permissible height requirements; the only height variation is to the light wells located on the roof of the proposed dwelling. The northern light well exceeds the height requirement by 0.72 metres, and the southern light well exceeds the height by 0.17 metres. These structures are located centrally on the roof and run in an east/west direction, therefore allowing clear views from the Talgarth Way properties to the ocean. It is considered that the light well in the centre of the building on the roof will have little to no effect on any views of significance to the surrounding properties.

Devalue Property Property value is not a relevant planning issue

Approval of this development would set a precedent in the area

Each development application is assessed on its individual merits and assessed against the 'deemed-to-comply' standards and the 'design principles' of the R-Codes. It is considered that approval of this development would not set any precedent for the area.

The site should be surveyed prior to the commencement of the house build, to ensure the natural ground level is maintained and adhered to.

A site feature survey was provided as part of the planning application. All levels have been assessed correctly using the existing natural ground levels on site, as defined by the R-Codes.



The proposal will diminish the aesthetic landscape of the area.

It is considered that the proposed development will enhance and contribute to the aesthetic landscape of the area by providing an architecturally designed building that responds positively to the local context in terms of bulk and scale. The front setback area provides in excess of the required landscaping to further enhance the appearance of the dwelling as viewed from the street.

Proposed overshadowing to the south The proposed development satisfies the 'deemed-to-comply' requirements of Clause 5.4.2 - solar access for adjoining sites. A shadow of 23.7% is cast to the adjoining property to the south in lieu of a maximum permissible shadow of 25%.

The side setback of the garage from the side boundary will result in overshadowing of pool blocking northern sunlight.

The proposed development satisfies the 'deemed-to-comply' requirements of Clause 5.4.2 - solar access for adjoining sites. Whilst there will be overshadowing of the pool area, there is little increased impact when compared to a compliant 1.0 metre setback to the garage. The shadow cast over the pool area will be 11sqm, 5sqm greater than the shadow that would be cast with a compliant setback. Existing mature trees and landscaping on the adjoining site to the south will already cast a shadow on the pool area of the adjoining property.

The setback of the garage will be inconsistent with other setbacks in the immediate vicinity, detracting from the overall appearance along Talgarth Way.

A number of dwellings on the western side of Talgarth Way (fronting Chipping road) are located within 6.0 metres of the rear (Talgarth Way) boundary. These include numbers 68, 70, 72, 76 and 80 Chipping Road. The proposal will be therefore be consistent with the existing streetscape.

Setbacks of the master bedroom wall and the proposed hallway should comply with the 1.3m and 2.5m minimum setbacks, as it will affect sunlight to the adjoining property to the south.

The proposed building satisfies the 'deemed-to-comply' requirements of Clause 5.4.2 - solar access for adjoining sites. The master bedroom setback has been amended to comply with the deemed-to-comply requirements. Any additional shadow as a result of the reduced southern boundary setback will be directed over the roof of the adjoining property.



The dwelling will be significantly higher than the current streetscape of both Chipping Rd and Talgarth Way.

The ground floor of the dwelling will be on average 1.5 metres below the verge level on Talgarth Way. With a proposed finished floor level reflective of the average natural ground level across the site. Whilst defined as a three storey dwelling, the proposed basement will be located approximately 1.5 metres below the verge level, therefore it will not present as a full three-storey dwelling to the Chipping Road frontage. The building height of the main dwelling complies with the maximum permissible height requirements, and without the light well features on the roof, would be 'deemed-to-comply'.

Overlooking from master bedroom will be intrusive and unnecessary.

Overlooking from the master suite will be directed to the driveway of the adjoining property to the south and is deemed to satisfy the 'design principles' of the R-Codes (Clause 5.4.1).

Proposed height is out of character with the height of the majority of existing dwellings in the immediate locality.

The building responds positively to the local context in terms of bulk and scale. The proposed dwelling will appear as a two storey dwelling as seen from Talgarth Way, and will be consistent with the heights of the adjoining dwellings, and be significantly lower than the two new dwellings being constructed to the east of the subject site.

The reduced side setbacks results in the narrowing of the ‘view corridors’ for those dwellings east of the subject land (in particular No.36 Talgarth Way) towards the ocean.

The R-Codes allow an upper floor walls to be setback a minimum of 1.2 metres from an adjoining property boundary depending on the overall wall length (as per Table 2a and 2b). The northern and southern walls of the proposed dwelling require greater setbacks as the overall wall length exceeds 9.0 metres, which will not directly affect any adjoining properties to the east. The reduced setbacks to the northern and southern boundaries are minimal (0.2 metre variation to the southern boundary and 0.1 metre variation to the northern boundary) and are considered to have no impact on view corridors for the adjoining properties to the east.



The setback variations from the northern and southern side boundaries are likely to have an adverse impact upon the local streetscape considering the bulk and scale of the proposed new dwelling.

The side setbacks have been articulated to remove any potential impact on adjoining properties and the streetscape in terms of building bulk and scale. The upper floor envelope is much smaller than the maximum permissible, with the upper floor setback 8.6 metres from the front boundary (minimum permissible 7.5 metres), and 16.0 metres from the rear boundary (minimum permissible 6.0 metres). This reduces the overall bulk of the building as seen from the street and adjoining properties.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to side setbacks, building height and visual privacy. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot Boundary Setback (Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Southern Boundary (right) Ground floor setback of bedroom 2 and laundry wall from southern side boundary

Minimum 1.8 metres 1.5 metres

Ground floor setback of stair and bedroom 4 wall from southern side boundary


Ground floor setback of garage wall from southern side boundary

Minimum 1.0 metre Nil.

Upper floor setback of hallway wall from southern side boundary


Eastern Boundary (Rear) Ground floor setback of garage wall from eastern (rear) boundary

Minimum 6.0 metres 5.643 metres - 7.15 metres

Northern Boundary (left) Upper floor setback of larder and kitchen wall from northern side boundary




Upper floor setback of alfresco wall from northern side boundary


Design principles: Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to:

• reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces • on the site and adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.

P3.2 Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this:

• makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living areas;

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

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

The applicant seeks minor variations to the northern, southern and eastern (rear) boundaries. A maximum variation of 0.5 metres is sought to the ground floor from the southern boundary, with the remaining setback variations vary from 0.1 metre to 0.3 metres. Notwithstanding, the reduced setbacks can be supported by satisfying the relevant design principles, as follows: • the proposed ground floor setbacks in excess of 1.5 metres are due to the significant

slope of the site, resulting in the front of the wall being greater than 3.5 metres in height above natural ground level. The proposed southern elevation has no major openings to habitable rooms, and therefore ensures that there is no loss of privacy between the adjoining properties;

• The location of the garage parapet wall, whilst having some impact on overshadowing of the pool area, will provide privacy between the adjoining properties, as all habitable rooms and outdoor living areas have been located to the north of the subject site. The garage side setback will have little increased impact on overshadowing of the adjoining property when compared to a compliant 1.0 metre setback and a 1.8 metre high dividing fence;

• The finished floor level of the garage is between 0.6 metres and 0.2 metres below the natural ground level of the adjoining site, therefore minimising the overall impact in terms of building bulk on the adjoining dwelling;

• The proposed dwelling is set back in excess of the required front setback, allowing sunlight and ventilation to the existing front balcony on the adjoining site to the south. The additional shadow produced as a result of the reduced setback of the ground and upper floors from the adjoining property to the south will be minor, and will be directed over the roof of the existing dwelling to the south. The proposed setbacks will still allow adequate ventilation between the dwellings;

• The ground and upper floor setbacks have been articulated and stepped to reduce the overall impact of building bulk as seen from the adjoining properties;

• The northern and southern elevations of the dwelling contain no major openings, therefore decreasing the impact on the adjoining property in terms of visual privacy; and

• The reduced setbacks of the upper floor from the northern boundary are considered to have no impact on overshadowing of the adjoining site, and the lack of major openings on



the northern elevation will ensure that privacy is maintained between the adjoining dwellings. The dwelling is built to 32% of the northern boundary, with the remainder set back a minimum 8.5 metres. This will ensure reduced impact on the adjoining dwelling in terms of building bulk, and will ensure that there is little overall impact on the streetscape.

Overall, the proposed amendments are considered to improve the design of the building whilst having minimal impact on overshadowing and visual privacy between the adjoining properties, and decreasing the overall impact of building bulk as viewed from the street, and are therefore considered to satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes. Building Height (Clause 5.1.6 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Maximum building height for a flat or skillion roof

Maximum 7.5 metres 7.16 metres to 8.22 metres

Design principles: Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains:

• adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance.

The applicant seeks a variation to the building height for the two architectural feature light wells located on the roof. A maximum height of 8.22 metres is sought for the light well to the north (0.72 metre variation) and 7.67 metres to the southern light well (0.17 metre variation). The subject site has a steep topography that slopes approximately 4.2 metres upwards from the front western corner (Chipping Road) of the site to the rear eastern corner (Talgarth Way). The proposed finished floor level of the ground floor (FFL 15.00) is consistent with the average natural ground level of 14.80 across the site, and is not considered excessive as it is 1.8 metres above the average Chipping Road frontage, and 1.4 metres below the Talgarth Way verge level. Notwithstanding, the overall height of the building can be supported by satisfying the relevant design principles, as follows: • The proposed building height is not excessive when viewed in relation to the surrounding

two storey dwellings. This is partly due to the adjoining dwellings consisting of hipped/gabled roofs, which allow a maximum wall height of 6.5 metres, and a maximum overall ridge height of 10.5 metres. The building height at the front of the dwelling, as viewed from Chipping Road is compliant with the building height requirements. It is considered that the proposed a flat roof which will have less of an impact on adjoining dwellings in terms of building bulk and access to views of significance compared to a compliant pitched roof with a ridge running north-south.

• The proposed wall heights mostly comply with the maximum permissible height requirements. The only height variation is to the light wells located on the roof of the proposed dwelling. The northern light well exceeds the height requirement by 0.72 metres, and the southern light well exceeds the height by 0.17 metres.

• The proposed dwelling is flat roofed and the majority of the dwelling sits at, or below, required wall height requirements. It is not considered that the over height section of



building, which occurs centrally to the building, would impact on views of significance for the adjoining owners.

• The recently approved dwelling directly to the east has a ground finished floor level approximately 6 metres higher than the proposed ground floor level of the proposed dwelling, and 2.8 metres higher than the proposed upper floor. This will allow clear views over the proposed dwelling. The applicant has submitted cross sections to demonstrate the height of the recently constructed dwelling in comparison to the levels proposed for the subject site.

• The height of the proposed dwelling, as viewed from Talgarth Way verge level will have a maximum height of 6.9 metres, well below the maximum permissible height of 7.5 metres and meeting the 'deemed-to-comply' requirements.

• The design of the light wells allows clear sightlines and views to the ocean either side and between the proposed structures. The proposed light wells will provide no increased overshadowing to the adjoining site to the south as all shadow from these structures is cast over the roof of the subject dwelling.

• The light wells are located towards to front of the site where the existing natural ground level is lower. If these were to extend towards the rear of the site, they would be compliant with the height requirements, and would have more of an impact on adjoining properties in terms of access to views of significance and building bulk.

• As the proposed building height is significantly lower than the approved dwellings directly to the east, it is unlikely that there will be any impact on views of significance as a result of the light wells, as views will be maintained of the dwelling. Please refer to Attachment 1 (DA11 and DA12).

It is therefore considered that the height variation to the light wells on the roof of the proposed dwelling will have no impact on the bulk of the dwelling as viewed from the street and adjoining owners, and will have not affect views of significance. Visual Privacy (Clause 6.8.1 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed Setback of master bedroom from the southern boundary within the cone of vision


Setback of upper floor alfresco from the northern boundary within the cone of vision


Design principles:

Minimal direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings achieved through:

• building layout and location; • design of major openings; • landscape screening of outdoor active habitable spaces; and/or • location of screening devices.

P1.2 Maximum visual privacy to side and rear boundaries through measures such as: • offsetting the location of ground and first floor windows so that viewing is • oblique rather than direct; • building to the boundary where appropriate; • setting back the first floor from the side boundary; • providing higher or opaque and fixed windows; and/or • screen devices (including landscaping, fencing, obscure glazing, timber screens,

external blinds, window hoods and shutters).



The proposal seeks minor variations to the setback of the master bedroom and upper floor alfresco within the cones of vision. It is considered, that these variations can be supported as they address the relevant design principles of the R-Codes, as below: • Overlooking from the master bedroom to the southern side boundary is minimised with

the inclusion of a feature pier which screens any direct overlooking, and prevents overlooking of the side setback area of the adjoining property;

• The cone of vision intrudes approximately 0.45sqm into the adjoining property, and is located forward of the existing dwelling, overlooking the driveway, therefore having no impact on overlooking of any habitable room windows or outdoor living areas. All areas of overlooking are visible from the street; and

• The overlooking from the upper floor alfresco will predominantly overlook the roof of the adjoining dwelling, which will screen any overlooking to the existing outdoor living area and pool of the adjoining site. The alfresco is screened along the northern boundary, with a nib wall to reduce the variations to the visual privacy requirements.










This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Assessment Contributors Ciara Slim, Planning Officer



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Development Application Plans; and 2. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment.


That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a Three Storey Dwelling submitted by Building Corporation WA Pty Ltd T/as Giorgi Architects & Builders at Lot 148 (No. 62) Chipping Road, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 6 February 2018, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to be

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

(ii) the roof material shall not be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond; (iii) the visual privacy screens for the ground floor balcony (northern elevation) and upper

floor balcony (northern elevation) shall be designed to restrict views to the neighbouring property to the north in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and shall be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling;

(iv) the proposed boundary wall on the northern boundary shall be designed to restrict views

to the neighbouring property to the north in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and shall be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling;

(v) a minimum of 50% of the front setback area shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of the

Town and maintained thereafter; (vi) the landscaping in the front setback area shall be installed within six (6) months of the

completion of the dwelling and to be maintained to the satisfaction of the Town; (vii) the combined crossovers to Chipping Road and Talgarth Way shall be no wider than 9.0

metres (excluding splays); (viii) the redundant vehicle crossovers outside the subject site on both the western (Chipping

Road) and eastern (Talgarth Way) verges shall be removed and the kerbing and verge to be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the dwelling;

(ix) the infill panels of the fencing and gate in the front setback area (Chipping Road) shall

have a surface with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1; (x) no retaining walls shall be constructed higher than 500mm above natural ground level

within the front setback area; (xi) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall be

directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site.



Advice Notes: That the applicant be advised that: 1. All works within the road reserve, such as vehicle crossovers, verge paving and

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

2. In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property boundaries,

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

Committee Meeting 20 February 2018 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the proposed building height, lot boundary setbacks, visual privacy and agreed that there will be an adverse impact on the adjoining neighbour. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, Council REFUSES the application for a Three Storey Dwelling submitted by Building Corporation WA Pty Ltd T/as Giorgi Architects & Builders at Lot 148 (No. 62) Chipping Road, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 6 February 2018, for the following reason:- (i) the proposed development does not satisfy design elements 5.1.3, 5.1.6 and 5.8.1

of the R Codes in relation to lot boundary setbacks, building height and visual privacy as the additional height of the building and reduced setbacks will adversely impact the amenity of the adjacent properties in the locality in relation to bulk and scale.

During discussion, Members agreed that the application be deferred for one month to enable the applicant to submit amended plans addressing non-compliance issues. COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Everett That the item relating to Lot 148 (No. 62) Chipping Road, City Beach be deferred for one month. Carried 9/0



DV18.4 LOT 700 (NO. 60B) MARLOW STREET, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY DWELLING - REFERRED BACK

SUMMARY:

This purpose of this report is for Council to reconsider a development application for a two storey dwelling at 60B Marlow Street, Wembley. The application was initially presented to Council on 19 December 2017 with a recommendation for refusal by officers. At the request of the applicant, Council decided to defer the application to the next available Council meeting to allow the applicant further time to submit amended plans to address various non-compliant design aspects of the development. Amended plans were subsequently submitted by the applicant on 22 January 2018 with modifications to the roof form, layout of the ground and upper floor, provision of landscaping and garage width. The amendments improve the design of the building and reduce the number of non-compliant elements that were present in the previous report to Council. The application is subsequently supported and recommended for approval to Council. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Application: 0170-DA2017 Owner: Greg & Sonia Cutri Applicant: Greg & Sonia Cutri Zoning: R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 528m2 The subject site is zoned 'Residential' and designated a density coding of R20 under the provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1. The subject site is approximately 528m2 in area and has a frontage of 10 metres. The adjoining property to the north of the site is commercial and the adjoining lot to the south of the site is vacant.



An application for a two storey dwelling featuring a double garage, four bedrooms and swimming pool was submitted for development approval on 26 June 2017. The proposed development was presented to Council with a recommendation for refusal on the 19 December 2017. The proposal included a number of variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Town's Local Planning Policies and Residential Design Codes which had an adverse impact on amenity of the area and presentation of the streetscape. The following variations were identified in the report to Council in December: • A roof form which did not reflect or characterise the traditional pitched roof form of the

immediate locality in accordance with the roof pitch requirements of the Town's Streetscape Policy;

• A proposed garage width occupying 63.62% of the lot frontage in lieu of the 50% in accordance with the deemed to comply requirements of the Town's Streetscape Policy;

• Landscaping in the primary street setback area amounting to a total of 48.13% in lieu of the required 60% in accordance with the landscaping requirements of the Town's Streetscape Policy;

• Street surveillance which did not meet the deemed to comply requirements of the Town's Streetscape Policy due to the front door facing the side boundary and not being visible from the primary street; and

• Overshadowing amounting to a total of 37% of the neighbouring property to the south, in lieu of the deemed to comply requirement of 25% in accordance with the Residential Design Codes.

At the request of the applicant, Council decided to defer the application to allow for amended plans to be presented addressing issues relating to the design of the building. Amended plans were subsequently submitted by the applicant on 22 January 2018 with modifications to the roof form, layout of the ground and upper floor, provision of landscaping and garage width. These amendments are discussed in further detail below.

DETAILS:

Development description Amended plans submitted to the Town on 22 January 2018 included the following changes to proposed development: • The form of the roof has been modified so that it is no longer concealed from view from

the primary street. The roof includes a pitch of 22 degrees which satisfies the deemed to comply requirements of the Town's Streetscape Policy;

• The width of the garage has been reduced from occupying 63.26% of the lot frontage to 57% as part of modifications to the ground floor layout;

• Landscaping in the primary street setback area has been increased to comply with the minimum 60% requirement as prescribed in the Town's Streetscape Policy;

• The location of the front door has been relocated as part of modifications made to the layout of the ground floor so that it is now visible from the primary street; and

• The upper floor includes a smaller robe area and increased setback to the northern boundary which results in the amount of overshadowing on adjoining property being reduced from 37% to 29%.



Overall, the proposed amendments are considered to improve the design of the building and to better contribute toward the emerging and established character of the area. Furthermore, the amendments reduce the number of proposed development variations through changes to the roof form, landscaping and front door location which make these areas compliant. Community Consultation The amended plans have not been re-advertised to neighbouring properties as the amendments are not considered to create any additional impact on adjoining neighbours. Applicant's justification The applicant previously provided written justification for the variations to the deemed to comply provisions relating to roof pitch, garage width, landscaping and solar access. No additional justification was provided as part of the amended plans submitted. Assessment against the design principles It should be noted, that the amended proposal has resolved concerns relating to roof pitch, landscaping and street surveillance and are now compliant with the streetscape requirements of the Town's Planning Scheme Policy Manual. Garage Width of the dwelling (clause 3.1.3 of the Town's Streetscape Policy) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Garage Width

Max 50% of frontage of the dwelling or 60% where the upper floor extends the full width of the garage

Previously: 63.62% Current proposal: 57%

Design principles: • Visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape should be maintained and the

effect of the garage door on the streetscape should be minimised whereby the streetscape is not dominated by garage doors.

The width of the garage has been reduced from occupying a total of 63.62% or 6.3 metres of the lot frontage to 57%, or 5.7 metres of the lot frontage. This helps to bring the width of the garage closer to the deemed to comply requirement of the Town's Streetscape Policy. Notwithstanding, the garage demonstrates that it can be supported by satisfying the relevant design principles, as follows: • The upper floor area of the dwelling extends for most of the width of the garage but not

the full width which means that the 50% deemed to comply standard is applied instead of 60%. Notwithstanding, the upper floor area assists in reducing the dominance of the garage as viewed from the street as it extends across most of the garage area below it. Additionally, the upper floor is proposed to overhang the garage which further assists to integrate the garage into the dwelling and reduce its dominance as viewed from the street; and

• The visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape is enhanced through the use of major openings on lower and upper floor which assist to provide surveillance of the street.



Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed Solar Access 25% Previously: 37%

Current proposal: 29 % Design principles:

• Effective solar access for the proposed development and protection of the solar access; • Development designed to protect solar access for neighbouring properties taking account

the potential to overshadow existing Outdoor living areas; • North facing major openings to habitable rooms, within 15 degrees of north in each

direction; or • Roof mounted solar collectors.

The upper floor area has been amended to include a smaller robe area and increased setback to the northern boundary which primarily results in the amount of overshadowing on the adjoining property being reduced from 37% to 29% in lieu of the deemed to comply requirement of 25%. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the amount of proposed overshadowing satisfies the relevant design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: • The redesign allows for effective solar access for the proposed development through the

use of major and minor openings to the lower and upper north facing windows; and • The proposed development is designed to minimise any potential solar access impact to

the vacant site to the south by concentrating its upper floor area to the front of the lot and closer to the northern boundary. This allows for overshadowing to avoid covering outdoor living areas which are likely to be constructed in the centre or rear area of the site.

Overall, the proposed amendments are considered to improve the design of the building and to better contribute toward the emerging and established character of the area. Furthermore, the amendments reduce the number of proposed development variations - specifically in relation to roof form, landscaping and street surveillance - through changes to the roof form, landscaping and front door location which make these areas compliant. The application is therefore recommended for approval.












This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Assessment Contributors Marcel Bridge, Statutory Planning Officer

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Development Application Plans dated 22 January 2018.


That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for two storey dwelling submitted by Greg and Sonia Cutri at Lot 188(No. 60b) Marlow Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 22 January 2018, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the north to be

rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) prior to the occupation of the development, the openings of bedroom 2 and 3 located on the southern elevation shall be obscure glazed and fixed so as not to open more than 100mm to comply with the requirements of clause 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes (Visual Privacy) deemed to comply provisions;

(iii) the crossover to be no wider than 4.5 metres (including splays);

(iv) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site;

(v) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained and

protected during construction of the development;

(vi) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Town;

(vii) the landscaping in the front setback area to be installed within six (6) months of the completion of the dwelling and to be maintained to the satisfaction of the Town.



Committee Meeting 20 February 2018 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the proposed garage width and non-compliance with the requirements of the Town's Streetscape Policy. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 2/3 For: Crs McKerracher and Nelson Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Everett and Powell COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for two storey dwelling submitted by Greg and Sonia Cutri at Lot 188(No. 60b) Marlow Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 22 January 2018, subject to the following reason:- (i) the proposed development does not satisfy design element 3.1.3 of the Town's

Streetscape Policy in relation to the proposed garage width as it is considered to have an adverse impact on the streetscape.

Lost 4/5 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett and Powell Against: Crs Carr, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and Timmermanis COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Nelson That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for two storey dwelling submitted by Greg and Sonia Cutri at Lot 188(No. 60b) Marlow Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 22 January 2018, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the north to

be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) prior to the occupation of the development, the openings of bedroom 2 and 3 located on the southern elevation shall be obscure glazed and fixed so as not to open more than 100mm to comply with the requirements of clause 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes (Visual Privacy) deemed to comply provisions;

(iii) the crossover to be no wider than 4.5 metres (including splays);

(iv) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site;

(v) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained and

protected during construction of the development;



(vi) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of

the Town;

(vii) the landscaping in the front setback area to be installed within six (6) months of the completion of the dwelling and to be maintained to the satisfaction of the Town.

Carried 7/2 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and

Timmermanis Against: Crs Everett and Powell



DV18.5 LOT 187 (NO. 25) TEMPLETONIA CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - ILLUMINATED SIGN

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for an illuminated sign at Lot 187 (No. 25) Templetonia Crescent, City Beach (St Christopher’s Anglican Church). Under the Town's Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority Clause 1.3.2, Council will determine development applications where they have been advertised and objections have been received. In this instance, an objection has been received from a neighbouring resident in relation to the illumination of the proposed sign and therefore the application is required to be determined by Council. The Administration recommends that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Application: 0275DA-2017 Owner: Diocesan Trustees Inc Applicant: Anglican Parish of City Beach Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Public Worship ‘A’ – advertising Land area: 3261sqm



DETAILS:

Development description The subject site is located within the City Beach Precinct. The site currently comprises of a church building, a separate two-storey dwelling with private access, and a car park to the south of the building with vehicular access from Tamala Road. The surrounding area comprises of single residential dwellings. The development application proposes the following: • A 2.0 metre wide x 0.9 metre high sign along the existing western wall of the church; • The letters will be individually placed and will consist of blue acrylic characters similar to

the existing sign on the southern wall facing the car park; • The sign will be “up-lit” from a light below the wall.

An assessment of the application has been conducted against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of Schedule 2, Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and the following Planning Policies: • 5.2 – Advertising Signs; and • 6.1 – City Beach Precinct. The proposal complies with all the requirements of the Scheme and provisions of the aforementioned policies with the exception of the key issues outlined below.

Community Consultation The application was advertised for a period of 16 days, from 17 October 2017 to 2 November 2017, to three (3) surrounding properties in accordance with the requirements of Clause 37 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1. One (1) objection was received. The table below provides a summary of the comments and issues raised during the community consultation process and an Officer technical response to each comment and issue. Summary of Comments Received: Officer Technical Comment: Illumination would adversely impact directly on our residential property.

It is proposed that the sign will only be illuminated within certain hours to ensure the residential amenity of the area is maintained.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the proposal. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.



Assessment against the design principles Policy 5.2: Advertising Signs The proposed sign has been assessed as a wall sign which is attached to the existing western wall of the church. The sign is not exempt from Planning Approval as will be illuminated by a lamp located at the bottom of the wall. The appropriateness of the proposed size can be assessed against the aims of the policy, as seen in the table below:

AIMS OF THE POLICY PROPOSED • To ensure that signs only relate to the

goods and services on the site and/or provide information directly relating to the site in order to identify the site and activities which occur on the site;

• The sign shows blue acrylic letters stating the name of the church 'St Christopher's Anglican Church'

• To ensure that signs do not adversely impact on the streetscape and amenity of surrounding land;

• The sign will be located approximately 17.5 metres from the western boundary and will be flush with the existing wall, therefore minimising the impact on the amenity of the surrounding land.

• It is recommended that the approval be conditioned to ensure that the light is turned off by 8.30pm to avoid undue nuisance to adjoining properties.

• To minimise the adverse impact that outdoor advertising can cause through proliferation or poorly located or designed signage.

• The proposed sign is to ensure signage of the Church on both street frontages. It is not considered excessive, and is consistent with the signage facing Tamala Road.

• There will only be one sign per street frontage which is not excessive.

• To ensure that signs do not detract from the level of safety for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians by obstructing sightlines and distracting road users; and

• The proposed sign is located on an existing wall located more than 10 metres from the property boundaries. It will be partially screened by existing trees.

• To ensure that signs do not dominate the building or site and should only form an incidental component of the development.

• The sign is 2.0 metres x 0.9 metres on an 8.0 metre long wall and will not dominate the building.



The proposed sign meets all of the requirements of the Town's Policy with regards to size and location, and will be illuminated during activity times when the church hall and worship centre are in use. The illumination will be provided by a light located at the base of the existing wall, which will shine upwards to the sign. The subject site is surrounded by single residential dwellings, and therefore it is considered that the time that the sign is illuminated should be conditioned to ensure that the amenity of the surrounding residences is not adversely impacted. It is recommended that the light be turned off by 8.30pm nightly to avoid undue light impacting the surrounding residential properties. The applicant has no objections to this condition. The proposed location of the sign is approximately 17.5 metres from the western (Templetonia Street) boundary, and will be partially screened by existing trees located on the property. This will minimise the overall impact of illuminated sign and ensure that the residential amenity of the surrounding properties is maintained.










This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Assessment Contributors Ciara Slim, Planning Officer ATTACHMENTS:

1. Development Application Plans; and 2. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment




That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for Signage submitted by Anglican Parish Of City Beach at Lot 187 (No. 25) Templetonia Crescent, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 28 September 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the lighting shall comply with the Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law 2016

and in particular with the requirements of AS 4282.1997 entitled “Control of obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting”;

(ii) obtrusive or spill lighting on adjacent residential lots from the proposed light shall not

exceed 10 lux measured in a vertical plane parallel to the relevant adjacent lot, to a height commensurate with the height of the potentially affected dwellings;

(iii) the lighting shall be erected, installed and maintained so as not cause a 'nuisance' to

adjoining properties; (iv) the sign shall not flash or strobe intermittently or have light of such intensity or colours so

as to cause annoyance to the public and adjoining sites, or to interfere with traffic signals; and

(v) the sign light shall be switched off by 8.30pm nightly. Committee Meeting 20 February 20178 Amendment Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Cr Nelson That clause (v) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (v) the sign light shall only be switched on when the church is in use and switched off by 8.30

pm nightly. That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iv) the illumination will be provided by a light located at the base of the existing wall, which

will shine upwards to the sign. Amendment carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of

Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for Signage submitted by Anglican Parish Of City Beach at Lot 187 (No. 25) Templetonia Crescent, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 28 September 2017, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) the lighting shall comply with the Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law

2016 and in particular with the requirements of AS 4282.1997 entitled “Control of obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting”;



(ii) obtrusive or spill lighting on adjacent residential lots from the proposed light shall

not exceed 10 lux measured in a vertical plane parallel to the relevant adjacent lot, to a height commensurate with the height of the potentially affected dwellings;

(iii) the lighting shall be erected, installed and maintained so as not cause a 'nuisance'

to adjoining properties; (iv) the illumination will be provided by a light located at the base of the existing wall,

which will shine upwards to the sign; (v) the sign shall not flash or strobe intermittently or have light of such intensity or

colours so as to cause annoyance to the public and adjoining sites, or to interfere with traffic signals; and

(vi) the sign light shall only be switched on when the church is in use and switched off

by 8.30 pm nightly. Amendment Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (vii) the approval be reviewed in February 2019. Amendment lost 3/6 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley and Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and Powell The original motion was then put and carried 9/0



DV18.6 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY REVIEW SCHEDULE

SUMMARY:

This report has been prepared in response to Council's resolution in December 2017 that a further report detailing the staged review of the Town of Cambridge's local planning policies to be presented to Council in February 2018. A desktop review has been undertaken of the Town's local planning policies adopted under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1) and it is recommended that a schedule to review these policies be endorsed by Council. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

November Council meeting - Policy 5.1: Parking At its Ordinary Meeting of Council on 28 November 2017, Council decided to: (viii) the Town commence a review and report to Council on Policy 5.1 Parking to determine

what modifications are required to address issues such as the exclusion of alfresco areas in the calculation of required parking spaces in centres such as this.

A report proposing amendments to Local Planning Policy 5.1: Parking is on this agenda for Council's consideration.



December Council meeting - Policy review schedule At its Ordinary Meeting of Council on 19 December 2017, Council was presented with an update report of the eight priority projects for the Strategic Planning, Sustainability and Economic Development business areas of the Town (refer DV17.138). Council resolved to modify Project 2 - 'Town Planning Scheme 1 review', adopting the following resolution: That: … (ii) the scope for Project 2 be modified to consist of:

• an omnibus amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 to address inconsistencies with the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

• a staged review of the Town's local planning policies. (iii) a further report detailing the staged review of the Town's local planning policies be

presented to Council in February 2018. An omnibus amendment to TPS1 has been prepared by the Town and is currently undergoing legal review. It is anticipated the amendment will be presented to Council with a recommendation for adoption in March 2018. This report presents a staged review process of the Town's local planning policies.

DETAILS:

The Town has an extensive set of planning policies adopted in the form of a Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual (Manual). The Manual was initially adopted in 1998 to complement TPS1. A comprehensive review was undertaken in 2009, and various reviews and adoption of new policies undertaken since then (refer to Attachment 1 for detail). There is a further need to review the Town's local planning policies, particularly due to the gazettal of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations (2015 Regulations) and introduction of 'Deemed Provisions', and changes to the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). A desktop review and prioritisation has been undertaken of the Town's current planning policies based on the following principles: • Frequency of use; • Date of last review; • Effect of 2015 Regulations; and • Consistency with TPS1, particularly as modified by the 2015 Regulations.



Based on this approach, it is recommended that the following policies be reviewed as priorities during the first half of 2018: Local planning policy Target date for amendments

to Council 2.3 Public Notification and Advertising Procedures February 2018 (refer separate

report on this agenda) 3.1 Streetscape February 2018 (refer separate

report on this agenda) 5.1 Parking February 2018 (refer separate

report on this agenda) 2.6 Delegation of Authority March 2018 6.1 Precinct P1: City Beach March 2018 6.3 Precinct P3: Floreat March 2018 NEW Extensions and amendments to development

approvals April 2018

NEW Applications for review to State Administrative Tribunal

April 2018

Various policies and forms to revoke due to duplication with other statutory documents (eg. 2015 Regulations)

May 2018

6.4 Precinct P5: Wembley June 2018 6.5 Precinct P6: West Leederville June 2018 The following local planning policies are considered to be of 'medium' priority for review and are proposed to be reviewed systematically during the second half of 2018: Local planning policy 2.7 Design Review Panel 3.1 Streetscape - secondary review to address matters not central to the February

2018 review 3.3 Building Height 3.5 Home Occupations 3.1.11 Roof Reflectivity 3.1.9 Roof Pitch 5.2 Advertising Signs Schedule 3 Local Law 43: Building on Endowment Lands and Limekins Estate


Division 2, Part 2 of Schedule 2: 'Deemed provision for local planning schemes' of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 outlines the content and process for adopting and amending local planning policies. The overarching role of a local planning policy is detailed in cl. 3, copied as follows: 3. Local planning policies

(1) The local government may prepare a local planning policy in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme area.

(2) A local planning policy -

(a) may apply generally or in respect of a particular class or classes of matters specified in the policy; and



(b) may apply to the whole of the Scheme area or to part or parts of the Scheme

area specified in the policy.

(3) A local planning policy must be based on sound town planning principles and may address either strategic or operational considerations in relation to the matters to which the policy applies.

(4) The local government may amend or repeal a local planning policy. (5) In making a determination under this Scheme the local government must have

regard to each relevant local planning policy to the extent that the policy is consistent with this Scheme.

The recommended review of the Town's local planning policies will be undertaken in accordance with these statutory requirements.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. The recommended review will be funded through the Town's current operating budget, including normal staff time.


The recommendations of this report are consistent with the following strategies and actions of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027: Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the

character and responsive to future needs. Strategy 4.2: Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and

retains a sense of place. • Revise the Town Planning Scheme to align to the land use strategies of the Town.


Community engagement of the reviewed local planning policies will be undertaken individually, in accordance with the Deemed Provisions and the Town's relevant policy. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies & Economic

Development Contributors Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies & Economic

Development

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Town of Cambridge local planning policies list




That the schedule for review of the Town of Cambridge's local planning policies as detailed in this report be endorsed. Committee Meeting 20 February 2018 During discussion, Members noted the schedule for review of the Town's local planning policies and agreed that further discussion be held at an Elected Members Forum prior to Council endorsement. Amendment Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr McKerracher That the motion be amended to read as follows:- That:- (i) the schedule for review of the Town of Cambridge's local planning policies, as detailed in

this report, be noted: (ii) further discussion on (i) above be held at an Elected Members Forum. Amendment carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the schedule for review of the Town of Cambridge's local planning policies, as

detailed in this report, be noted: (ii) further discussion on (i) above be held at an Elected Members Forum. Carried 9/0



DV18.7 AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 5.1 - PARKING - ADOPTION FOR ADVERTISING

SUMMARY:

In response to issues relating to parking availability at the Empire Village Shopping Centre, Council decided that the Town commence a review to determine what modifications are required to address issues such as the exclusion of alfresco areas in the calculation of required parking spaces in such centres. Subsequently, a review of Local Planning Policy 5.1 has been undertaken and the following modifications are proposed for advertising:- • Inclusion of alfresco areas in the determination of parking requirements including

shopping centres; and • Minor administrative modifications to ensure consistency with Town Planning Scheme

No.1 and new definitions to provide increased clarification in application of the policy. It is not proposed to make any further amendments to parking ratios at this time as it is considered that the Town's parking standards are typical of those employed across local governments in the Perth Metropolitan Area. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

In 2011, Council commissioned the preparation of an Access and Parking Strategy as a guiding document for the future control and management of parking access in the Town. The strategy required a general review of the Town's off-street parking policy and emphasised that continuing a demand satisfaction approach (based on a 'predict and provide' model) is unsustainable and therefore recommended moving away from the more conventional approach of ‘predict and provide' towards a 'demand management approach' to the supply of parking.



Upon Council's adoption of the Access and Parking Strategy in November 2012 (DV12.142), Local Planning Policy 5.1 Parking (LPP5.1) was subject to a comprehensive review to implement outcomes of the Access and Parking Strategy. At its meeting held on 26 February 2013, Council resolved to adopt draft LPP5.1 (DV13.21) following public consultation. The revised LPP5.1:- • Updated parking ratios including a reduction in the standard for shop from 1 bay per

15m2 to 1 bay per 20m2 in line with ratios used in a number of other local governments including City of Vincent and City of Subiaco;

• Formalised parking concessions and cash in lieu for parking; • Introduced requirements for bicycle parking and end of trip facilities; and • Introduced requirements for Parking Management Plans. The following special application of parking ratios were also introduced as part of the review of the policy:- • Shopping centres - All floor space in shopping centres with a minimum of 1,500sqm floor

space is assessed at a rate of 1 bay per 20m2, as if all floor space were shop use. This approach was premised on shopping centres predominantly consisting of shop uses and setting a standard parking ratio across shopping centres would overcome the need for frequent change of use applications for tenancy changes.

• Traditional strip centres - Parking for changes of use in traditional strip centres which have limited on-site parking to be based on the difference in parking generated by the proposed use relative to the former or existing use; and

• Mixed use development - Parking for shops in mixed use development based on the ratio for office which is lower than shop use at 1 bay per 30m2 as opposed to 1 bay per 20m2 so as to encourage retail activity at ground floor.

LPP5.1 was subject to a further minor review in 2015 and a revised policy was adopted by Council at its meeting held on 28 July 2015 to update cash in lieu rates to be more reflective of the real value of car parking spaces and to include standards for additional land uses (DV15.94). At its meeting held on 28 November 2017, Council considered a Notice of Motion regarding parking availability at Empire Village Shopping Centre, City Beach. Whilst compliant with the special application of ratio for parking in shopping centres, the focus on food and beverage tenancies at the centre and alfresco dining, combined with the centre's popularity has resulted in lacking parking availability at the centre during times of high patronage. To address the parking issues at the centre, Council decided at its November 2017 meeting that a number of strategies be taken to address the parking shortfall including works to create new permanent bays, introduction of parking time limits and examination of improvements to Beecroft Park. Council also decided that the Town commence a review and report to Council to determine what modifications are required to address issues such as the exclusion of alfresco areas in the calculation of required parking spaces in such centres, which is the subject of this report. DETAILS: The modifications in the Table below are proposed to amend LPP5.1. A copy of the draft amended policy with proposed changes marked in tracked changes is provided in Attachment 1 to this report.



In addition to addressing parking for alfresco areas, the opportunity has been taken to make modifications to update LPP5.1 as outlined in the table below. The proposed changes are generally administrative in nature and address inconsistencies and duplication with Town Planning Scheme No.1 since the gazettal of omnibus Scheme Amendment 27 in June 2016. Recommended Amendment Rationale Alfresco for restaurant / café Modification to the ratio for 'restaurant/café' use so as not to exclude alfresco areas on private land.

This modification will account for alfresco dining areas in the determination of parking calculations. See further explanation below.

Alfresco for small bar Modification to the ratio for 'small bar' to remove reference to 'persons the building is designed to accommodate' and to replace with 'persons the premises is approved to accommodate'

There may be alfresco areas associated with small bars which are not currently accounted for when parking requirements are calculated.

Special application of parking ratio - Shopping centres To include alfresco areas in the determination of shopping centre floor space upon which parking requirements are to be calculated

To ensure that alfresco areas are considered in determining parking requirements

Special application of parking ratio - Mixed use development Clarification that requirements for alfresco parking are not applicable when part of mixed use development. Clarification that application of this special parking requirement does not prevent other concessions from applying.

In order to encourage small scale shops, cafes and restaurants in a mixed use development, there is an existing special application of parking ratios such that the parking for these uses is determined based on the lower parking requirement for office. It is considered appropriate to continue to waive the parking requirement for alfresco in this particular circumstance to maintain the application of the concession.

Deletion of land uses from parking ratio table Removal of land uses 'betting agency', 'laundromat' and 'hospital special purposes' from parking ratio table

For consistency with the Town Planning Scheme No.1 as the uses are not listed in the Town Planning Scheme.

Parking for consulting rooms and medical uses Specification that the parking requirement is to be based on the 'number of practitioners consulting at any one time' as opposed to 'number of practitioners' for consulting rooms, consulting rooms group, medical centre, veterinary clinic and veterinary hospital

This modification provides clarification on the method for calculating parking requirements. It is common for medical practitioners to share rooms or for not all practitioners to be present at any given time. Therefore, calculating the parking requirement on the demand generated at any given time is more reflective of demand generated.

Cash in lieu for parking rates Updated to 2017/18 payment rates as per Schedule of Fees and Charges

Design and Location of Parking The addition of requirements for screening of parking areas, sightlines and reduce

Incorporation of standard requirements in Parking Policy following review into similar local government policies.



Recommended Amendment Rationale impact of crossovers. Updated map - Appendix 2 Amendment to map illustrating lots with access to frequent and regular public transport

To update map to reflect recent subdivision of Parkside Walk, Jolimont

Definitions Introduction of new definitions for • Administration area • Alfresco area • Off street parking • Public floor space • Persons • Shopping centre

For purposes of clarification

Definitions Deletion of betting agency, large format retail, laundromat and medical centre

The definitions have either been introduced into the Town Planning Scheme via Scheme Amendment 27 or in the case of betting agency no longer required

Parking for Alfresco Dining Areas Under the existing LPP5.1, the parking standard for restaurants and cafes is based on 1 bay/5m2 of seating area, however, alfresco areas are not accounted for in the car parking requirement. Given the increasing prevalence of outdoor dining, it is considered that LPP5.1 should be modified to account for alfresco dining areas and the Policy is proposed to be amended to include alfresco areas in calculating parking requirements rather than specifically exclude these. As per common practice among other local governments, it is proposed to apply the same parking standards for indoor dining and seating areas to alfresco areas rather than making a distinction between these. Of note, where alfresco dining areas are located on public land and do not form part of a planning application, these are not accounted for in the determination of the alfresco area for calculation of parking requirements. With regard to Small Bars, the existing parking standard is 1 space/5 persons the building is designed to accommodate. It is proposed to amend the standard to be 1 space/5 persons the premises are approved to accommodate. This will account for occupancy regardless of whether patrons are located inside or outside the main building.

No changes are proposed to parking standards for Tavern as the requirements already account for outdoor and lounge areas.

Parking in Shopping Centres In the case of shopping centres, such as Empire Village, the parking requirement under the existing parking policy is based on the special application of the ratio of 1 bay per 20m2 which applies to 'shop'. However, alfresco areas were not factored into the parking assessment which has contributed in insufficient provision of parking on-site.



To account for alfresco areas as part of shopping centre developments, it is considered appropriate to ensure that these areas are added to the total floor space in determining parking areas. The special application of 1 bay per 20m2 ratio for shops will still apply, rather than the ratio for cafes/restaurants, given shop use remain dominant in shopping centres and that in most cases this approach has been effective in and avoided unnecessary change of use applications in shopping centre developments which have common parking areas. Mixed Use Development It is proposed to retain the existing concession such that parking for shop and cafes/restaurants in a mixed use development is based on the lower parking requirement for office use (1bay/30sqm floorspace), given that the retail and café/restaurant uses are not typically dominant uses in such developments and to encourage activity on the street. Generally there are larger shared parking areas associated with such developments. In the future, it is more likely that shopping areas will be integrated with mixed use development as was the case with West Leederville Shopping Centre. Therefore, concessions for parking may still apply for retail developments with less than 5,000m2 floor space where part of a mixed use development. Traditional strip centres It is not proposed to alter any of the special application of parking ratios for traditional strip centres as the special application is considered a practical approach when there is limited opportunity for on-site parking. However, alfresco areas will still be included in determination of parking calculations. Should there be alfresco dining added and lack of opportunity to provide additional on-site parking, a cash in lieu payment for parking shortfall may be required. Parking standards for other uses With regard to parking standards for other uses, a review against standards used in a number of other local government areas in the Perth Metropolitan Area has been undertaken for common land uses including shop, office, café/restaurant and consulting rooms (refer to Attachment 3). It is considered, that the ratios applied by the Town are generally comparable to those applied in other local governments across Perth and that no further changes are necessary at this time.


Following the conclusion of the advertising period, the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 require the Town to review the draft policy in light of any submissions made and resolve to: • Proceed with the policy without modifications; or • Proceed with the policy with modifications; or • Not to proceed with the policy. If the Council resolves to proceed, LPP5.1 will be updated in the Town's Local Planning Policy Manual.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report.




The proposed draft amended policy contributes towards achieving the following aspects of the Strategic Community Plan:- Goal 4- Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and responsive to future needs. • Strategy 4.2 - Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and

retains a sense of place.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation will be satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No.1. The draft amended LPP5.1 will be advertised pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Schedule 2, Part 2 Clause 5. Advertising will consist of the following:- • Advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge noticeboard; • A notice and copy of the draft amended policy on the Town's website; • A letter sent to ratepayer groups; and • A letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

OFFICER INVOLVEMENT

Responsible Executive: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager: Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Contributors: Matthew Burnett, Senior Strategic Planning Officer

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft amended Local Planning Policy 5.1 Parking Policy - with track changes 2. Draft amended Local Planning Policy 5.1 Parking Policy - no track changes 3. Parking Ratio Comparison Table


That:- (i) pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

Schedule 2, Part 2 Cl. 5 draft amended Local Planning Policy 5.1: Parking be adopted for the purpose of advertising; and

(ii) draft amended Local Planning Policy 5.1: Parking be advertised as follows:-

• advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge noticeboard; • a notice be included on the Town's website; and • a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local

ratepayer groups.



Committee Meeting 20 February 2018 During discussion, Members agreed that further discussion be held at an Elected Members Forum. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That further consideration of the draft amended Local Planning Policy 5.1: Parking be held at an Elected Member Forum. Carried 9/0



DV18.8 AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.1: STREETSCAPE - ADOPTION

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following: (d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and which

relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That further consideration of the Amendments to Local Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape - Adoption be held at an Elected Members Forum Carried 9/0



DV18.9 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.3: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF PLANNING PROPOSALS' - CONSENT TO ADVERTISE

SUMMARY:

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 19 December 2017, Council resolved to review Local Planning Policy 2.3 'Public Notification and Advertising Procedures' (LPP2.3) (refer to item 10.2). Since this resolution, LPP2.3 has been reviewed and a number of improvements are proposed to assist with: • The procedural components of public consultation; and • providing a consistent approach for the advertising of development applications and

planning proposals, in line with the Town's statutory obligations and the community's expectations

The purpose of this report is to outline the proposed changes to LPP2.3 and seek Council endorsement for the purpose of public consultation. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

LPP2.3 was first adopted as part of the Town Planning Scheme No.1 Policy Manual in 1998 and was reviewed on 13 October 2009 (refer to item DV09.105). The stated aim of LPP2.3 is to set out requirements and procedures for notification and/or public advertising of applications for planning approval which involve 'SA' use, a non-conforming use, an unlisted use which the Council considers should be dealt with in accordance with the 'SA' use procedures, or any 'AA' use which the Council may require to be advertised."



Since the review of the policy in 2009, there have been considerable changes to the planning framework, including the introduction of: • the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the

regulations); and • the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011. The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 also introduced 'Deemed Provisions', which cover a range of administrative matters into all Schemes in the State. These set out how development applications and planning proposals (Activity Centre Plans, Structure Plans, Local Development Plans, Local Planning Policies and Scheme Amendments) should be advertised. The Regulations also modified the notation for land use permissibility, as 'SA' uses are now referred to as 'A' uses and 'AA' uses are now referred to as 'D' uses. There are sections of the Scheme that have been updated to reflect the new notation (the zoning table) and others (clause 37) which have not been updated and refer to 'A' uses as 'AA' uses and 'D' uses as 'SA' uses.

DETAILS:

Due to the changes that have occurred within the Statutory Framework and also the significant amount of time that has passed since it was adopted, substantial modifications are proposed to LPP2.3. The key changes seek to improve the advertising process and are categorised under headings of 'development applications', 'planning proposals', 'Procedural' and 'explanatory notes/pro forma', which will be discussed below. A copy of the amended policy is included as attachment 1 and a copy of the existing policy is included as attachment 2. Development Applications The statutory changes are linked with the Deemed Provisions, Development Assessment Panel Applications, procedures and applications where the Council is not the final decision maker. Requirement to advertise The Town is required to advertise development applications in accordance with the deemed provisions, which outlines a minimum of one or more methods for the advertising to occur. In addition to these requirements it is proposed to consult when an application: a. Involves potentially significant urban design or streetscape impacts; or b. Represents a significant variation to the bulk, scale or design of the existing surrounding

buildings; or c. Has potentially significant amenity impacts on nearby residential areas or neighbours in

terms of visual impact, streetscape, privacy, intensity of use, traffic generation and adequacy of parking.

Significant Applications For the purpose of public consultation, it is proposed to introduce two tiers of application: a. a standard application (nominally applications for additions/extensions, new dwellings

and change of use applications etc);and b. Significant applications (DAP applications or proposals that seek the application of

extensive discretion).



It is recommended that a section be introduced titled 'significant applications' which identifies criteria to determine whether further consultation is necessary, see below: a. Meets all the criteria identified within the 'requirement to advertise'; b. Form 1 Development Assessment Panel Applications; or c. a planning application that has significant strategic planning impacts in terms of the

implementation of a strategic planning objective, the scale of the development, or is considered by the Town to be significantly different from the predominant and expected pattern of land use within the locality.

Significant applications would typically involve a larger consultation period (21 days), sign(s) on site, notices in a local newspaper and on the Towns' website. It is considered that the longer consultation period will not adversely impact meeting the statutory timeframe (90 days) to determine an application, however, any more would restrict the ability to liaise with the applicant regarding the application, provide responses to submissions and prepare a report for Council or the determining authority.

Standard applications would be advertised in accordance with the Deemed Provisions for a period of 14 days and depending on the nature of the application, it is proposed to advertise to an increased number of properties (refer to discussion within 'means and extent of consultation' section below). The increased advertising would assist in raising awareness and involvement of the community when it comes to development applications that may affect them and to improve the current community engagement practises. There would not be signs on site or notices within the local newspaper.

Means and Extent of Consultation

The proposed means and extent of advertising for standard and significant development applications are outlined in the table below:

Time period

Local newspaper notice (a)

Sign on site (b)

Letters to owners and occupiers (c)

Website notice

Standard Development Applications

14 days No No Yes - adjacent properties only (d)

No

Significant Development Applications

21 days Yes

(each week)

Yes Yes - within 100 metre radius of the site boundary (as measured from each corner of the lot boundary)

Yes

The notes denoted by (a), (b), (c) and (d) provide further guidance on: • when the consultation period commences (the day after the date of letters being sent); • the location of signs on site (prominent locations); and • the extent of letter distribution depending on the complexity of the Development

Application (see indicative map below).



Within draft LPP2.3, the table above also outlines the means and extent of advertising for planning proposals such as: • Activity Centre Plans; • Structure Plans; • Local Development Plans; • Scheme Amendments; and • Local Planning Policies. Additional Notice of previously advertised proposal In addition to the points above, there may be the need to provide additional public notice of previously advertised proposals. It is proposed to identify when additional notice may be given, generally when: (a) A development application or planning proposal is subsequently modified prior to its final

determination and additional variations arise from the modifications; or (b) An application to amend an existing development approval is received under Schedule 2,

Part 9, Clause 77 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and additional variations arise from the proposed amendments.

Applications where the Council is not the decision maker When a Development Application or Planning Proposal is submitted for a Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Reserve, the Town acts as a referral body for the determining authority (either the Western Australian Planning Commission or the Minister for Transport; Planning; Lands). Similarly, Development Assessment Panel applications are not determined by the Town. It is important to ensure that the community is consulted for these applications to promote consistency, transparency and improve the Town's engagement with the Community. In these circumstances, it is proposed that community consultation be undertaken in the same way as for a standard development application or planning proposal where Council is the determining authority. However, should the application or proposal be deemed 'significant' as defined by LPP2.3, it will be advertised accordingly. A fully copy of any submissions received would be forwarded to the determining authority with the personal details of the submitter removed. Generally, in these circumstances, all submitters will be informed in writing of Council's recommendation to the relevant determining authority on the development application or planning proposal, however, any person wishing to obtain a copy of the final decision must obtain that from the decision maker.

This requirement would not apply to planning applications referred by planning authorities where there other consultation mechanisms are in place, such as the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority.



Planning Proposals A Planning Proposal refers to a local planning policy, structure plan, activity centre plan, local development plan and Scheme amendment. The regulations outline minimum requirements for the advertising of these, and they have been incorporated into the means and extent table contained within clause 6 of draft LPP2.3. The deemed provisions also stipulate (Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 5(2)) that the Local Government can elect not to advertise an amendment to a Local Planning Policy, where in the view of the Local Government the amendments are minor. It is proposed to reference this within LPP2.3 provided the amendment(s) would not significantly alter the format, structure and intent of the policy. Depending on their complexity, Scheme Amendments can be very resource intensive applications for Local Governments. It is proposed to include Notification within the policy, in accordance with the Planning and Development Regulations 2009, to state that the Local Authority may recoup fees for a scheme amendment. Procedural To promote consistency and transparency particularly in the way that development applications are processed and to keep the community informed and engaged when it comes to proposed development nearby, additional procedural amendments are proposed. The following procedural amendments relate to when, where and how consultation will occur as part of the advertising of planning proposal or development applications and are discussed below. • How and when consultation will occur, particularly during holiday seasons; • The notification of submitters; • How submissions will be addressed in reports to Council; • Where plans and associated information for applications can be accessed by the public;

and • Other administrative requirements, such as accepting submissions after consultation

periods have concluded etc. Holiday Periods Currently, there is no guidance on when advertising should or should not occur during Christmas and Easter holiday period. It is proposed, to either extend consultation periods and/or not undertake consultation during certain holiday periods (Christmas, New Years and Easter). The proposed additional consultation would occur for: a) Public notification relating to planning policies, scheme amendments and planning

proposals (where initiated by the Town) will not commence between 1 December and 9 January;

b) Public notification will not commence for any development applications received by between 18 December and 8 January, until after 8 January;

c) With the exception of significant development applications, an additional 14 days will be

added to any notice periods prescribed under this policy where any part of the notification period falls between 18 December and 8 January; and

d) An additional 7 days will be added to any notice period prescribed under this policy where any part of the notification period falls between a week before or one week after Easter Sunday.



These changes increase transparency within the development application process and ensure that affected community members are able to have their say on Development Applications or planning proposals outside of holiday periods. Availability of Documents There are no changes proposed to when and where documents and information associated with planning proposals or development applications are accessed, reference is made within the policy to where this can occur. Documents are made available during business hours at the Town's Administration Building during the consultation period. Due to copyright matters, copies of plans are not provided to members of the community to take away unless this has been authorised by the applicant. Notification of parties who make submissions on a development application or planning proposal To improve transparency, when the Town receives a submission for a current Development Application or planning proposal, the Town will provide the submitter with: • A confirmation that their submission has been received; • Notification of a determination of approval or refusal made under delegated authority by

an authorised officer of the Town; • Notification of a relevant item being considered by Council, or a committee of Council; • Notification of a decision of Council, or a committee of Council; • Notification of any other event directly relevant to the planning proposal to which they

made a comment, such as consideration at a DAP meeting. Conclusion of advertising

At the conclusion of the advertising period, a written summary of the key issues raised in submissions will be provided to the applicant upon request in the case of an application for development approval or a Scheme amendment. The summary will not include identification or personal details of the author/s of any submission.

Officer reports to Council will include a summary of the issues raised in any of the submissions received as part of the consultation process. If the text of a submission is to be included in the report, the author’s personal details will not be identified. Full copies of submissions will be made available to elected members upon request but will not be made available to members of the public unless required by law Consultation Pro Forma Currently, comments are invited in writing either by email, letter or facsimile, and it can be difficult to determine whether a submitter supports, objects or neither supports nor objects to a development application. A consultation pro forma is proposed, including the provision of a submission form that will accompany all letters, associated with Development Applications or Planning Proposals, to owners and occupiers. The letter will outline the variations to the planning framework and provide the owner or occupier with contact details of the relevant officer who may assist with any technical questions. It will still be possible for submitters to provide a more indepth submission via email or by attaching further comments on to the submission form.



The submission form seeks to standardise the information received through the consultation period and provide the Town with the following information: • Submitters contact details - these are required to allow the Town to contact the submitter

should the submission require further clarification; • A tick box with either support, object or neither support nor object to the proposal; and • A comment section allowing the submitter to elaborate on their reasons for supporting the

proposal, objecting to the proposal or neither. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

A planning policy does not form part of a Scheme, and cannot bind the Council in respect of an application or planning matter. However, the Council is required to have due regard to the provisions and objectives of the policy in its decision making. A planning policy adopted under a Town Planning Scheme also cannot vary or override any legislative or regulatory requirement. In regard to planning policies, clause 37 of the Scheme is replaced by Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Clause 3(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 states that the Council may make a local planning policy in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme area. Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme) include a range of different requirements for public consultation for different types of planning proposals. The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 prescribe the means of public consultation for a local planning scheme amendment, activity centre plan, structure plan and Local Development Plan. Part 4 of the Residential Design Codes 2015 requires the Town to notify potentially affected neighbours of a proposed development in certain circumstances. Policy 1.2.15: Public Consultation Material requires Elected Members to be provided with consultation material for two days.


There are no financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report.


The recommendations of this report are consistent with Goals 4 and 9 of the Town of Cambridge Interim Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027.


Should Council resolve to adopt LPP2.3 for the purposes of public consultation, it will be advertised for public comment for a period of at least twenty-one days in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 1, clauses 4(1) and (2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Following the conclusion of the public consultation period, a further report will be prepared for Council with recommendations incorporating any comments received during the consultation period.



OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Assessment Contributors Simon Shub, Senior Strategic Planning Officer

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amended Local Planning Policy 2.3 'Public Notification of Planning Proposals' 2. Existing Local Planning Policy 2.3


That in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 4 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015: (i) the draft revised Local Planning Policy 2.3 'Public Notification of Planning Proposals'

contained within Attachment 1 for the purposes of public advertising be adopted;

(ii) the draft revised Local Planning Policy 2.3 'Public Notification of Planning Proposals' be advertised for public comment for a period of not less than twenty one days; and

(iii) following completion of the public consultation period, a further report be submitted to Council detailing the outcomes of the advertising period, for consideration.

Committee Meeting 20 February 2018 During discussion, Members agreed that further consideration of the draft revised Local Planning Policy 2.3 'Public Notification of Planning Proposals' be held at an Elected Members Forum. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That further consideration of the draft revised Local Planning Policy 2.3 'Public Notification of Planning Proposals' be held at an Elected Members Forum. Carried 9/0



DV18.10 OCEAN VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTRE - PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

SUMMARY:

The Town of Cambridge (Town) has received correspondence from the owners of Ocean Village Shopping Centre (Centre or site) with a proposal to prepare a Local Development Plan (LDP) for the redevelopment of the Centre. The current planning framework for the Centre is limited in detail and is generally insufficient to guide and control a large scale redevelopment of the Centre. The owners of the site (Pindan Developments) intend to redevelop the site in the near future, likely in stages, and are seeking the Town's support to clarify the planning framework for the site to enable comprehensive redevelopment. There are a number of options available to amend the current planning framework for the site, each with its own benefits and disadvantages. These options are discussed in this report. It is recommended that, in this instance, a LDP can complement the existing zoning of the site by addressing key development matters relevant to the site, notably building height, access and detailed design. A LDP can be prepared, advertised, assessed and determined within a reasonable period of time, particularly when compared to other options such as an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 1. It is recommended that Council advise Pindan Developments that the request for the requirement to prepare a LDP is supported and that the Western Australian Planning Commission also be advised accordingly. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its









BACKGROUND:

Site description The Ocean Village Shopping Centre precinct consists of the following land holdings: • Lot 245 (No.5 Kilpa Court) and Lot 243 (No.3 Kilpa Court): Commercial shopping centre

owned by Pindan Development Pty Ltd;

• Lot 241: Public car parking and public open space (Ocean Village Park) owned by the Town of Cambridge;

• No. 1 Kilpa Court: eight private residential grouped dwellings;

• No.57 Brompton Road: St Pauls Anglican Church adjoining to the east.

Lot and street numbering of Ocean Village Centre

The Ocean Village Shopping Centre sites and car parking portion of Lot 241 are zoned Urban under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, and are zoned Local Centre under Town Planning Scheme No.1 (TPS1), while the St Paul's Anglican Church site and grouped dwelling site are both zoned Residential with a density coding of R30.



No residential density coding is designated to the Local Centre zone, however, residential development is permissible under TPS1. The balance of Lot 241 is reserved Parks and Recreation under TPS1. The Centre would be classified as a 'Neighbourhood Centre' under State Planning Policy 4.2: Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (SPP4.2). Local Planning Policy 6.1: Precinct P1: City Beach (LPP6.1) contains specific development provisions for the Local Centre, including a Statement of Intent, and standards relating to plot ratio, building setbacks, verandahs/awnings and residential density.

Town Planning Scheme No. 1 zoning and reservations

Recent planning history The Ocean Village shopping centre was developed in 1979 with the commercial (office) complex on 3 Kilpa Court approved in 1988. The car parking on Lot 241 is permitted to be used non-exclusively by the shopping centre owner under a licence agreement. In July 2007, Council approved a four storey mixed use development (nine multiple dwellings, ground floor offices and a basement car park) at No.3 Kilpa Court. Forward works were undertaken in 2011 involving demolition of a portion of the commercial building. A single storey portion of the building was retained on the eastern side of the site. However, construction was put on hold and the site has since remained mostly vacant.



Another development application was submitted in February 2012, which proposed an expansion to the approved mixed-use development, resulting in 18 apartments over a total of six floors (revised plans submitted during the assessment increased the number of apartments to 24). The applicant advised that the additional two storeys were proposed to achieve the necessary financial return to complete construction. This proposal was subsequently refused by Council in August 2014. In February 2015, an application was lodged to modify the 2007 planning approval for the four storey building, to allow an additional two storeys with additional apartments, parking, office space and restaurant. This proposal was essentially a revision of the plans considered by Council in August 2014, with modifications to the building design, access driveway, waste management, and landscaping to address some of the concerns which had been raised. This application was refused by the Development Assessment Panel on 15 July 2015 on the basis that the proposal did not meet the statement of intent for the Local Centre zone specified in LPP6.1, the proposal was not consistent with the conservation of the amenities nor the orderly proper planning of the locality and due to strong objection from surrounding residents. An application for review of this decision was lodged to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) on 20 August 2015. The SAT appeal was ultimately withdrawn by the applicant in December 2016. In response to the issues in developing the site, the then property owners Saruman Holdings Pty Ltd proposed that, in conjunction with the Town, it would fund and undertake precinct planning for the whole of the Ocean Village Shopping Centre precinct including the Town owned land, St Paul’s Anglican Church and residential dwellings on Kilpa Court. At its meeting on 24 November 2015, Council endorsed the proposal to prepare a precinct plan (DV15.151). The process was to involve Elected Members and Saruman Holdings were to prepare concept plans with contribution from a focus group of community representatives, local residents and stakeholders. The final concept plan was to be advertised for public comment prior to any endorsement from Council. This did not eventuate as Saruman Holdings sold Lots 243 and 245 to Pindan Capital Ocean Village Pty Ltd in 2017. Negotiations between Pindan and the Town regarding the future planning for the Ocean Village Precinct highlighted parking provisions as a key issue particularly if the centre is to have a number of hospitality uses.

DETAILS:

Summary of Pindan Development's request On 6 November 2017, Pindan Developments (Pindan) sent a letter to the Town requesting a response from the Town's planning department for an appropriate statutory planning process to facilitate redeveloping the Ocean Village Shopping Centre Precinct (refer Attachment 1). This letter followed meetings held with the Town's planning officers on 18 July 2017, 16 August 2017 and 13 September 2017. Following further discussion, Pindan requested in January 2018 that Council formally consider this proposal. Pindan's proposed approach is to prepare a LDP for Lots 243, 245 and the carpark portion of Lot 241. Pindan also advised they are in discussion with owners of Lot 1 Brompton Road and 1 Kilpa Court and can include these properties within the LDP should the owners choose.



However, to expedite the redevelopment approval process for Lots 243 and 245 which are currently zoned Local Centre, Pindan propose the LDP be prepared with varying levels of information for the different sites. All the necessary information required for the Lots 243 and 245 would be included, with further details relating to the lots which require rezoning could be provided through an amended to the LDP once the remaining lots have been rezoned, the LDP could then be amended with further details. With this in mind, Pindan's preference for an LDP is likely due to the time period it would take to undertake an amendment to TPS1, to enable redevelopment of Lots 243 and 245 to occur prior to rezoning of the other lots in the LDP area. It is also proposed that concurrent to the preparation of the LDP, the LPP 6.1: City Beach Precinct could be amended to defer development controls to any LDP in place over the site. Whilst the development proposed incorporates reserve land owned by the Town, financial and acquisition discussions with the Town about the incorporation of this land into the development is an entirely separate matter to be address separately. Under cl. 47 of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (2015 Regulations), a LDP may be prepared under 4 scenarios: • where required as a condition of subdivision; • where required by a structure plan; • where required by an activity centre plan; or • where the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and local government

consider that a LDP is required for the purposes of orderly and proper planning. It is under the fourth scenario (above) that Pindan have made this request to the Town. Should Council support Pindan's proposal, the WAPC would also need to consider and support the proposal for the requirement for a LDP to take effect. COMMENT: Pindan have expressed a desire to progress a development application as soon as possible, however, recognises the need for a level of coordination and integration of development over the site. Pindan's clear preference is for the preparation and adoption of a LDP, however, there are a number of other options available to refine the statutory planning framework on the site. There is also the option of 'no change' and relying on current provisions. These options are discussed as follows. No change As stated above, the site is zoned under TPS1 with development controls contained in LPP6.1. Since the gazettal of the 2015 Regulations, particularly the Deemed Provisions, some of the key provisions of LPP6.1 are arguably inconsistent with TPS1 and the Residential Design Codes; notably plot ratio and residential density. As plot ratio and residential density are not matters that can be varied or replaced by a local planning policy under the R-Codes, it is arguable that the site currently has a 'default' residential density coding of R-AC3 for mixed use development as TPS1 nor the Scheme map assign a residential density code to the site. Given these potential inconsistencies, it is not considered that the current provisions of LPP6.1 can be relied upon to ensure a mixed use redevelopment of a scale and intensity similar to the R30 residential density and 0.5 plot ratio stated in LPP6.1.



Furthermore, whilst a development application could be submitted immediately for the site, under the current framework it will be difficult to ensure coordination and integration of development across the broader site and adjoining properties. For these reasons, it is not recommended that Council adopt a position of no change to the planning controls applicable to the site. Amendment to TPS 1 Development provisions in the local planning scheme provide the highest degree of certainty to the landowner and community as a decision maker is bound by these provisions when determining a development application. In this instance, an amendment to TPS1 could be prepared for the Centre that could 'lock in' key development standards for the site, such as zoning, residential density, plot ratio, building height, access and open space. Further detailed design matters could be determined through a more specific local planning policy or LDP. An amendment to TPS1 is likely to take the longest time of the four options presented due to the statutory advertising process and the assessment timeframes of the Western Australian Planning Commission. An amendment requires Ministerial approval and based on recent decisions by the Minister (notably Amendment 33), there is also a risk that an amendment with specific development controls may be modified or refused by the Minister. Amendment 33 was modified to effectively remove the specific development controls for that site as the development provisions of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan were considered sufficient to control development. The current planning framework for the Ocean Village Centre (Local Centre zone and default R-AC3 density coding) arguably enables considerable redevelopment of the majority of the site now. Whilst an amendment to TPS1 could further refine these provisions, this process will take considerably longer than an LDP and there is a risk that the amendment is modified or refused by the Minister. It is therefore recommended that an amendment to TPS1 and subsequent LDP not be endorsed as the option for this site at this stage. As noted in Pindan's submission, should the adjoining properties/land wish to be incorporated into redevelopment of the site, this can be achieved through an amendment at a later stage. Local Development Plan A LDP is a planning instrument that can set out specific and detailed guidance for a future development of a site. The LDP can be used to ensure that development is integrated and coordinated, and can include specific site and development standards. A LDP must be consistent with TPS1 and can only vary provisions of the R-Codes that are capable of being varied. For example, building height can be controlled by a LDP however the LDP cannot assign a residential density code for the Centre or vary plot ratio. A LDP can be prepared by an owner of land within the LDP area or by the local government. If prepared by an owner, the local government assesses and determines the LDP in a manner similar to a development application. There exists a right of review to the State Administrative Tribunal for the owner should they be aggrieved by the local government's determination of the LDP. State Planning Policy 4.2: Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (SPP4.2) encourages the use of LDPs for 'Neighbourhood Centres' 'where required by the local planning scheme' rather than activity centre plans or structure plans (Ocean Village meets the category of Neighbourhood Centre under SPP4.2). The provisions of a LDP do not bind the decision maker when determining a development application, rather is one of a number of matters to be given 'due regard' by the decision maker.



A LDP can deal with a number of design elements for the site as well as enable the planning of the site as a whole. The timeframe for preparation and approval of a LDP is relatively short compared to an amendment to TPS1, with the statutory advertising period for a LDP being 28 days and the final decision resting with the local government rather than the Minister. Whilst a LDP will not be able to apply a residential density code or change the zoning of the adjoining properties or land to Local Centre, the LDP will be able to deal with some coordination and integration matters with the land within the site, and will be able to include provisions relating to building height, access, and more detailed design. Given the current planning framework applicable to the site, it is considered a LDP is an appropriate planning mechanism to refine the development controls for the site, notably building height, access and detailed design. It is therefore recommended that Council support Pindan's request that a LDP be required to be prepared for the Ocean Village Centre, and advise the WAPC accordingly. Local Planning Policy The existing LPP6.1 contains some development controls for the Centre, however, these controls are somewhat limited in detail and, as mentioned earlier, it is arguable that these controls conflict with TPS1 and the R-Codes and therefore may not be effective. LPP6.1 could be amended to introduce a limit on building height as well as other design elements that are capable of being varied under the R-Codes. This process could be undertaken relatively quickly and could also incorporate the issues of development coordination and integration. The provisions of a LPP would be given due regard by a decision maker in determining an application for development, however do not bind the decision maker. A LDP would likely be prepared by Pindan with the assessment undertaken by the Town. In this instance, particularly given the Town's other current strategic planning priorities, it is preferred that Pindan prepare the LDP, rather than the Town prepare a modified LPP6.1, and therefore this option is not recommended. It is noted that, should Council adopt either the Scheme Amendment or LDP option, LPP6.1 would need to be amended in any case to address any inconsistencies with TPS1 and the R-Codes, however these amendments would be relatively straight forward. Summary of options discussed The following table provides a summary of the key points discussed above for each of the four options. Option Benefits Disadvantages No change • Development application can

be submitted immediately. • Potential for adverse outcome

due to inconsistencies between Scheme, R-Codes and local planning policy.

• Unable to ensure an integrated, coordinated outcome.



Amendment to TPS1 to include specific development provisions

• Provisions bind the decision maker.

• Amendment process can be time consuming - likely to be 12 months or more.

• Amendment may be modified or refused by Minister.

• Provisions may be inflexible which may inadvertently restrict better design.

Local development plan

• Likely to be quickest approach. • Is determined by local

government. • Can address key matters, such

as building height, whilst providing flexibility for development design.

• Decision maker is not bound by LDP provisions when determining development application.

• Local government determination of LDP can be appealed to SAT.

Local planning policy

• Similar timeframes to LDP for adoption.

• Is prepared and determined by local government and is not subject to right of review.

• Decision maker is not bound by LDP provisions when determining development application.


The recommendation of this report is that LDP be required to be prepared for the Ocean Village Centre. The LDP will be progressed in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.




The subject and recommendation of this report relates to the following strategies and actions of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027: Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the

character and responsive to future needs. Strategy 4.2: Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and

retains a sense of place. Goal 5: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy 5.3: Develop and implement Activity Centre and Local Development Plans which

reflect the community's expectations for hubs of activity. Key action: Focus on the Ocean Village Hub.




Community engagement will be undertaken as part of the possible changes to the planning framework as they apply to the Ocean Village Shopping Centre. This will occur in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and relevant policies of the Town. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Contributors Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Pindan Developments letter dated 6 November 2017 Committee Meeting 20 February 2018 Prior to consideration of the following item, Cr Everett disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with respect to Item DV18.10, I declare that my business CLE Town Planning of which I am a Director has in the past been employed as a Planning Consultant for Pindan on matters outside of the Town. Whilst I no longer act for Pindan on any matters either within or external to the Town there may be a perception that my impartiality could be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits at all times. I also declare that my elderly mother is presently a resident of a strata unit at 1 Kilpa Court, City Beach. As a result, there may be a perception that my impartiality could be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits at all times. Cr McKerracher disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- with respect to Item DV18.10, I declare that I have a personal association with one of the directors of the Applicant company, and the Owner has been a client of my husband's employer. As a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. In accordance with Policy No. 1.1.11 - Elected Member Relationship with Developers, Crs Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and Powell declared they had had contact with the applicant/owner of the Ocean Village Shopping Centre. Council Meeting 27 February 2017 Prior to consideration of the following item, Cr Everett disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with respect to Item DV18.10, I declare that my business CLE Town Planning of which I am a Director has in the past been employed as a Planning Consultant for Pindan on matters outside of the Town. Whilst I no longer act for Pindan on any matters either within or external to the Town there may be a perception that my impartiality could be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits at all times. I also declare that my elderly mother is presently a resident of a strata unit at 1 Kilpa Court, City Beach. As a result, there may be a perception that my impartiality could be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits at all times.



Cr McKerracher disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- with respect to Item DV18.10, I declare that I have a personal association with one of the directors of the Applicant company, and the Owner has been a client of my husband's employer. As a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. In accordance with Policy No. 1.1.11 - Elected Member Relationship with Developers, Crs Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and Powell declared they had had contact with the applicant/owner of the Ocean Village Shopping Centre. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) Pindan Development be advised that the request to require the preparation of a

Local Development Plan for the Ocean Village Shopping Centre is supported; and (ii) the Western Australian Planning Commission be advised that the Town of

Cambridge considers that a Local Development Plan is required for the purpose of orderly and proper planning for the Ocean Village Shopping Centre, in accordance with cl. 47(d) of Schedule 2: Deemed Provisions, Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Carried 9/0



DV18.11 LAKE MONGER COMMUNITY GARDEN OCCUPATION LICENCE REVIEW - MARCH 2018

SUMMARY:

This report outlines the progress of Lake Monger Community Garden at North Lake Monger over the past 12 months. The group was granted an initial occupation licence of 12 months commencing 1 April 2016. This was extended for a further 12 months from 1 April 2017 to be reviewed by 1 April 2018. It is recommended that the Lake Monger Community Garden be granted a further 10 year licence to operate as it has been demonstrated that the group is self-sustaining and is adhering to the Town's Policy 4.3.3: The Establishment and Operation of Community Gardens. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Lake Monger Community Garden Inc was granted a 12 month occupation licence commencing 1 April 2016 to establish a community garden at North Lake Monger. In accordance with Policy 4.3.3- The Establishment and Operation of Community Gardens

"New gardens established on Council land will be given an initial trial period of one year. At the end of this trial period the performance of the garden will be reviewed. If the garden has been managed according to policy guidelines and is self-sustaining an agreement for a longer period up to 10 years can be negotiated."

The garden was reviewed 1 April 2017 upon the expiry of the 12 month occupation licence. It was found that the garden was not fully established and a longer period was required to demonstrate that the garden was established and self-sustaining. A report was presented to Council in May 2017 (DV17.61) seeking a 12 month extension to the occupation licence. Council decided that:



(i) the Lake Monger Community Garden Inc be offered an extension of two years to the occupation licence for the specified use of the Community Garden area located at Lake Monger Reserve;

(ii) the Lake Monger Community Garden be reviewed after 1 April 2018 and if the garden is

managed according to Council policy guidelines and is self-sustaining, Council considers an agreement for a longer period of up to 10 years at that time.

DETAILS:

According to the decision by Council in May 2017, progress of the Lake Monger Community Garden was reviewed on 1 February 2017 ahead of the expiry of the 12 month extension to the occupation licence extension of 1 April 2018. The garden has been found to be well established and self-sustaining with an active membership. Images of the garden from 2017 and January 2018 are given below. Lake Monger Community Garden April 2017

Lake Monger Community Garden January 2018



The following works have been completed at the garden: • Fencing of the site • Installation of 16 raised garden beds • Filling of the beds with a base material and top up with organic veggie mix • Planting of all beds with a range of vegetables, herbs and fruit. • Planting of native seedlings around the garden • Mulching of the site • Establishment of a compost bay • Installation of a frog pond • Provision of seating Lake Monger Community Garden has provided a project plan outlining works to be completed over the next 12 months included how the works will be funded (refer Attachment 1). The group has also provided its current financial position. The group has a surplus of funds and intends to seek funding to complete the works planned over the next 12 months. The Lake Monger Community Garden is considered to be self-sustaining and to have been managed in accordance with the guidelines under Policy 4.3.3 - The Establishment and Operation of Community Gardens, and is therefore recommended for an agreement of 10 years, commencing 1 April 2018 and conditional upon ongoing compliance with the Town's Policy 4.3.3.


Lake Monger Community Garden Inc Occupation Licence Policy 4.3.3 The Establishment and Operation of Community Gardens. Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan (2008-2018)






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


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria no community engagement is required. The three local schools Lake Monger Primary School, The Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre and Bold Park Community School have been consulted and all schools are supportive of the initiative. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Contributors Sue Waite, Sustainability Officer

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Lake Monger Community Garden Inc project plan COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) Lake Monger Community Garden Inc be offered a 10 year tenure for the specified

use of the Community Garden area located at Lake Monger Reserve, conditional upon the garden being managed according to Council policy guidelines and being self-sustaining;

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise the Occupation Licence with

the Lake Monger Community Garden Inc for a period of ten years commencing 1 April 2018;

(iii) Lake Monger Community Garden to be reviewed 1 February 2028. A further tenure

can be considered at that time if the garden is managed according to Council policy guidelines and is self-sustaining.

Carried 9/0



DV18.12 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE PARKING AMENDMENT LOCAL LAW 2018 - ADOPTION

SUMMARY:

To consider adoption of the proposed Town of Cambridge Parking Amendment Local Law 2018. The proposed amendment local law will amend the principal local law to insert two new clauses which makes it an offence to park a vehicle against the normal flow of traffic on that side of the carriageway, where no marked parking bays or signs are provided and to prevent the driving of a vehicle over or across a footpath or verge adjacent to a length of carriageway to access a private driveway, private property, or adjacent verge, unless using an approved crossover. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its






Information For the Council/Committee to note. BACKGROUND: At its meeting held on 28 November 2017, the Council approved of advertising the proposed Town of Cambridge Parking Amendment Local law 2017. Two new clauses are required to address parking non-compliances, which include an offence for a vehicle to be parked against the flow of traffic on a carriageway, where no marked parking bays or signs are present and an offence to prevent the driving of a vehicle over or across a footpath or verge adjacent to a length of carriageway to access a private driveway, private property, or adjacent verge, unless using an approved crossover.



DETAILS: Following approval of the Council, at its meeting held on 28 November 2017, the Town gave State wide and local public notice of the proposed Town of Cambridge Parking Amendment Local Law 2017, inviting submissions for a period of no less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given. An advertisement was placed in The West Australian newspaper on 9-10 December 2017 and the Western Suburbs Weekly community newspaper on 12 December 2017. In addition, the advertisement was placed on the Town's website and on the notice boards in the Town's Administration Centre and Library on 8 December 2017. At the close of the public consultation period on 2 February 2018, no submissions were received from the general public. Various procedural and formatting amendments were received from the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries, which have now been included into the amendment local law. The Department has recommended it be renamed from '2017' to '2018', to reflect the year of adoption. Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments will address the following: Clause 3.2 Parking Against the flow of traffic. This clause will be amended so as to read as follows: 'so that the vehicle is not faced against the normal flow of traffic on that side of the carriageway;' Driving over a Footpath: The Town has received complaints about vehicles driving across the footpath or verge to access private property. The Town of Cambridge Parking Local law 2016 contains the following Clause: "5.11 Driving over a residential verge A person must not drive a vehicle over or across a residential verge adjacent to a length of carriageway to access a private driveway or an adjacent verge." Comment: The Town has received complaints about vehicles crossing the footpath or verge to access private property. In cases where the verge is a commercial property, there is no local law to prohibit this practice. In some cases, the vehicles mount the kerb and this causes damage to the kerbing. To enable the Town's Rangers to deal with these complaints, it is recommended that the local law be amended to read as follows: "5.11 Driving over a footpath or verge 'Unless, otherwise approved or permitted by the local government, a person must not drive a vehicle over or across a footpath or verge adjacent to a length of carriageway to access a private driveway, private property, an adjacent verge or local government property, unless using an approved crossover.'



Making a new Local Law: To make an amendment to the existing Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law, the Town must follow the process as prescribed in Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995. Regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 requires that for the purposes of Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995, the purpose and effect of any proposed local law must be included in the agenda and minutes of a meeting. Purpose and Effect of the Amendment Local Law: The purpose and effect of the Town of Cambridge Parking Amendment Local Law 2017 are as follows:- Purpose: The purpose is to amend the principal local law to:

(a) insert a new clause which makes it an offence to park a vehicle against the normal flow

of traffic on that side of the carriageway, where no marked parking bays or signs are provided; and

(b) insert a new clause which states; 'Unless, otherwise approved or permitted by the local

government, a person must not drive a vehicle over or across a footpath or verge adjacent to a length of carriageway to access a private driveway, private property, an adjacent verge or local government property, unless using an approved crossover.';

Effect: The effect of this amendment local law is to amend the principal local law. Purpose and Effect of the Principal Local Law: The purpose and effect of the principal Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016 are as follows:- Purpose: The purpose of this local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of parking within the local government. Effect The effect of this local law is to control parking throughout the local government to ensure the safe, fair and equitable use of parking facilities under the care and control of the local government.

Consultation and Community Implications In accordance with Section 3.12 and (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Town was required to give State wide and local public notice of the proposed Town of Cambridge Parking Amendment Local Law 2017, inviting submissions for a period of no less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given. An advertisement was placed in The West Australian newspaper on 9-10 December 2017 and the Western Suburbs Weekly community newspaper on 12 December 2017.



In addition, the advertisement was placed on the Town's website and on the notice boards in the Town's Administration Centre and Library on 8 December 2017. At the close of the public consultation period on 2 February 2018, no submissions were received from the general public. Various minor procedural and formatting amendments were received from the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries, which have included into the amendment local law. After the close of the statutory consultation period, all submissions (if any) received must be presented to Council. A copy of the proposed local law is also required to be sent to the Minister for Local Government. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995 details the procedure to be undertaken in making or amending a local law.


There are minimal financial implications for this report. The cost of advertising the proposed local law is approximately $250 for each newspaper. A similar cost will be required to publish the local law in the Government Gazette, once it is adopted by the Council.


There are no significant strategic implications in making the new local law, as it will correct the Town’s principal local law, as requested by the Committee.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy, Community Engagement Matrix, with the assessment criteria as; 'consult', for which state-wide and local community consultation is required. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery - Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager John Giorgi, JP - Manager Health and Compliance Services Contributors John Giorgi, JP - Manager Health and Compliance Services

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Town of Cambridge Parking Amendment Local Law 2018.



Committee Meeting 20 February 2018 During discussion, the following additional information was provided to Elected Members:- Model Local Law: The Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016 is based on the WALGA model Local Law. The clause in question [cl 2.2(1)(c)] has not been modified by the Town of Cambridge. Correcting the Incorrect Clause in the Local law: An anomaly in the local law was first raised by a ratepayer on 27 October 2017. The specific Infringement Notice was withdrawn on 29 October 2017. An agenda report to correct local law was submitted to Development Committee on 21 November 2017 and adopted at Council on 28 November 2017. Six weeks (minimum) statutory advertising carried out from 12 December 2017- 2 February 2018. Council to adopt new Parking Amendment Local Law in February 2018. Once this matter was identified, the matter was reported to Council at the first available meeting - ie November 2017 Number of Infringements contravening this Clause: Since the new Parking Local Law was gazetted on 24 July 2016, a total of 130 infringements have been issued for contravention of Clause 2.2(1) (c), as follows:

No: Offence No of Infringements

1. Parked in wrong direction on a carriageway in a marked parking bay- validly issued

117

2. Parked in wrong direction on a carriageway (no marked parking bay)

13

3. Parked in wrong direction on a carriageway (no marked parking bay)- previously withdrawn

5

4. Parked in wrong direction on a carriageway (no marked parking bay)- not withdrawn

8

As the local law clause was incorrectly applied and the Town is now aware of it, the affected eight (8) Infringement Notices will be legally withdrawn and a refund made.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) in accordance with Section 3.12(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Town of

Cambridge Parking Amendment Local Law 2018, as shown in Attachment No.1 be ADOPTED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY;

(ii) it be noted that the 'Purpose' and 'Effect' of the amendment local law being as

follows:-

Purpose: The purpose is to amend the principal local law to: (a) insert a new clause which makes it an offence to park a vehicle against the

normal flow of traffic on that side of the carriageway, where no marked parking bays or signs are provided; and

(b) insert a new clause which states; 'Unless, otherwise approved or permitted

by the local government, a person must not drive a vehicle over or across a footpath or verge adjacent to a length of carriageway to access a private driveway, private property, an adjacent verge or local government property, unless using an approved crossover.';

Effect: The effect of this amendment local law is to amend the principal local law; and

(iii) the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign and affix the Common Seal to the Town of Cambridge Parking Amendment Local Law 2018.

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



DV18.13 LOT 308 (NO. 5) LENTARA CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - OBJECTION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT NOTICE

SUMMARY:

The owner of 5 Lentara Crescent City Beach has objected to a section 3.25 Local Government Act Notice being issued against him to take action to prevent the light spill from artificial lighting from his residence spilling into the adjoining property at No. 3 Lentara Crescent City Beach. The Council is required to consider and determine the objection. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the 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. e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.





BACKGROUND:

Since early 2015, the Town has received numerous complaints from both owners of Nos. 3 and 5 Lentara Crescent City Beach about each other. The complaints have related to a number of matters including: • Planning non-compliances about ancillary building on 3 Lentara Crescent being used for

rental purposes (partly resolved), • Non-compliant balcony at No 3.(resolved) • Non-compliant verge treatment at No: 3 (resolved); • Lighting along western boundary of No: 3 (resolved) • Noise created during construction of residence at No: 5 (resolved); • Noise from air conditioning units at No: 5 (resolved); • Fencing in front set back at No: 5 and between the properties (resolved); • Visual amenity about swimming pool solar heating on eastern roof pitch at No: 5

(resolved); • Noise from water pump at No: 5 (resolved); • Spill from external lights at No: 5 (not resolved).



This has resulted in the Town’s Environmental Health, Planning and Compliance Officers investigating the complaints on a number of occasions. In 2016, the Town received complaints regarding light spill and excessive noise from 3 Lentara Crescent, City Beach and the matter has been under investigation for some considerable time. In 2017, the Town’s officers attended the property out of office hours on several occasions to undertake noise and light readings using scientific equipment and to gather evidence. The owners of No. 3 Lentara Crescent have complained most vociferously that the light spill is creating a nuisance and is having an adverse effect on their physical and mental well-being, particularly by disturbing their sleep. Following complaints received on 1 December 2017, the Town's Environmental Health Officer and Coordinator Health and Compliance (Authorised Officers) attended the complainant's property at 0600 hours and noted light fittings affixed to the eastern side of 5 Lentara Crescent were switched on. This was despite previous advice from the owner of 5 Lentara Crescent that these non-compliant lights would not be switched on between 2200 hours and 0700 hours. Section 3.25 (Schedule 3.1 Clause 13) of the Local Government Act 1995, states: “Take specific measures to prevent-

(a) Artificial light being emitted from the land ; or (b) Natural or artificial light being reflected from something on the land,creating a nuisance.”

A Notice pursuant to s3.25 of the Local Government Act 1995 was subsequently issued by the Town to take specific measures to prevent artificial light being emitted into nearby buildings from light fittings affixed to the eastern side wall of the residence situated on the land:

"1. By permanently removing the light fittings; or 2. Modifying the light fittings by adding shields to direct the light downwards and to

prevent light spill; or 3. Replacing the light fittings so that light is directed downwards and light spill does

not occur."

The Town of Cambridge Local laws define a ‘nuisance’ as follows: ‘nuisance means ––

(a) an activity or condition which is harmful or annoying and which gives rise to legal liability in the tort of public or private nuisance at law;

(b) an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of a person of his or her ownership or occupation of land; or

(c) interference which causes material damage to land or other property on the land affected by the nuisance;’

DETAILS:

On 20 December 2017, the owner lodged an objection to the Town with regard to the notice. A copy of the owner's objection together with the Town's comments are shown in attachment 3. The Town’s authorised officers do not consider that the ‘Affected Person’, has provided sufficient grounds to justify the withdrawal of the s3.25 Local Government Notice. It is recommended that Council dismisses the objection. If the complainant is still aggrieved, an appeal can still be made to the State Administrative Tribunal to consider the matter. Alternatively, the complainant can comply with the Notice.




The Local Government Act 1995 states “Section 3.25. Notices requiring certain things to be done by owner or occupier of land (1) A local government may give a person who is the owner or, unless Schedule 3.1

indicates otherwise, the occupier of land a notice in writing relating to the land requiring the person to do anything specified in the notice that — (a) is prescribed in Schedule 3.1, Division 1; or (b) is for the purpose of remedying or mitigating the effects of any offence against a

provision prescribed in Schedule 3.1, Division 2. (2) Schedule 3.1 may be amended by regulations. (3) If the notice is given to an occupier who is not the owner of the

land, the owner is to be informed in writing that the notice was given. (4) A person who is given a notice under subsection (1) is not

prevented from complying with it because of the terms on which the land is held. (5) A person who is given a notice under subsection (1) may apply to the State

Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision to give the notice. (6) A person who fails to comply with a notice under subsection (1) commits an offence.” 9.4. Advice of objection and review rights Whenever a decision is made that the affected person could consider to be unfavourable,

the person making it is to ensure that, as soon as practicable after the decision is made, the affected person is given written reasons for the decision and informed of the person’s rights under this Division to object against, and apply for a review of, the decision.

9.5. Objection may be lodged (1) An affected person may object to a decision if the person has not applied under this

Division for a review of the decision. (2) The objection is made by preparing it in the prescribed form and lodging it with the local

government in the prescribed manner within 28 days after the right of objection arose [i.e. within 28 days after the decision], or within such further time as the local government may allow.

9.6. Dealing with objection (1) The objection is to be dealt with by the council of the local government or by a committee

authorised by the council to deal with it. (2) A committee cannot deal with an objection against a decision that it made or a decision

that the council made. (3) The person who made the objection is to be given a reasonable opportunity to make

submissions on how to dispose of the objection. (4) The objection may be disposed of by —

(a) dismissing the objection; or (b) varying the decision objected to; or (c) revoking the decision objected to, with or without —

(i) substituting for it another decision; or (ii) referring the matter, with or without directions, for another decision by a

committee or person whose function it is to make such a decision. (5) The local government is to ensure that the person who made the objection is given notice

in writing of how it has been decided to dispose of the objection and the reasons for disposing of it in that way.



9.7. Review

(1) An affected person may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a decision if the person — (a) has not lodged an objection to the decision; or (b) has lodged an objection but, at the expiration of 35 days after it was lodged, has not

been given notice in writing of how it has been decided to dispose of the objection. (2) If the person lodged an objection and has been given notice in writing of how it has been

decided to dispose of the objection, the person may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision on the objection.

(3) The application is to be made within 42 days after the right to make it arose.”


Nil. If this matter proceeds to a Review by the State Administrative Tribunal and/or prosecution in the magistrate Court, the normal legal costs will be incurred. Monies are contained in the operating Budget.


The matter is addressed by Goal 3 of the Community Strategic Plan - An active, safe and inclusive community.


Nil OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery - Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager John Giorgi, JP - Manager Health and Compliance Services Contributors Steve Cleaver - Coordinator Health and Compliance

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Section 3.25 Local Government Act Notice and letter 2. CONFIDENTIAL - Objection by owner of 5 Lentara Crescent 3. Objection by owner of 5 Lentara Crescent - Plus Town Comments 4. Diagram of light locations 5. Photographs (x5) of light fittings on 1 December 2017



Committee Meeting 20 February 2018 Prior to consideration of the item, Mayor Shannon disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item DV18.2, I declare that I know the owner of No.5 Lentara Crescent, City Beach and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. Cr Everett disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item DV18.2, I declare that I have a personal association with the owners of No.5 Lentara Crescent, City Beach in a professional capacity having jointly prepared with the owner a submission on Amendment 31 and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits. Cr McKerracher disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item DV18.2, I declare that I have a personal association with the owners of No.5 Lentara Crescent, City Beach and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 20 February 2018) At the Development Committee held on 20 February 2018, the Officer Recommendation was carried 3/2. On Friday 23 February 2018, the wife of Owner of No 5 Lentara Crescent, City Beach sent an email to the Town advising that modifications had been made to all the light fittings, as required by the Local Government Act Notice. An inspection to confirm their compliance was requested. The owners of 5 Lentara advised of the following specific works to each fitting as follows: Luminaire 1: Permanent shield installed to prevent upward light. Globe replaced with very low watt LED. Luminaire 2: Permanent shield installed to prevent upward light. Globe replaced with very low watt LED. Additional shield placed across the fitting to prevent direct light spill into neighbouring property. Luminaire 3: Permanent shield installed to prevent upward light. Globe replaced with very low watt LED. Luminaire 4: Permanent shield installed to prevent upward light. Globe replaced with very low watt LED. On Friday 23 February 2018 the Owners of No 3 Lentara Crescent, City Beach sent an email advising as follows: "Thank you so much for this good news. The new Light adjustments are fine and it will not be necessary to disturb the neighbour in monitoring the lights further. In conclusion, I wish to thank you all at the Town of Cambridge for your efforts in solving the issues and confirm no further action is required at next week's council meeting. Finally, I would like to express our thanks through the Town Of Cambridge for the remedial actions of our neighbours in bringing this matter to a close. Your Sincerely".



On Monday 26 February 2018 at 8.30pm, an inspection of 5 Lentara Crescent, City Beach was carried out by the Town's Coordinator Health and Compliance. The purpose of the inspection was to ascertain compliance with a Local Government Act s 3.25 Notice for an alleged light nuisance. Inspection results The inspection on 26 February 2018, at 8.30pm, revealed that: 1. the light fittings No:1-4 all resulted in Lux readings of 1 Lux when measured at a

height of 1.8 m at the boundary of No 3 Lentara Crescent City Beach (The maximum allowable is 2 Lux); and

2. In addition, a metal shield had been inserted to the light fitting shrouds to prevent up

lighting and light spill to the neighbouring property at No: 3 Lentara Crescent. Authorised Person Opinion In the opinion of the inspecting Authorised Person, the light fittings are no longer causing a 'nuisance'. In addition, the lights also comply with the Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law 2016 and with the Local Government Act 1995 (section 3.25 Notice). Summary As the light fittings have been satisfactorily modified, as required by the Local Government Act Notice, and are no longer causing a 'nuisance ' and the complainants have also expressed satisfaction with the matter, no further action is required by the Town. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: That the Council NOTES: (i) that the Local Government Act 1995, Notice issued pursuant to s3.25, dated 1

December 2017, on the Owner of 5 Lentara Crescent, City Beach requiring him to:- "Take specific measures to prevent:

(a) Artificial light being emitted from the land ; or (b) Natural or artificial light being reflected from something on the land, creating a

nuisance, has been COMPLIED with; (ii) the complainants at 3 Lentara Crescent, City Beach have now expressed

satisfaction with the matter, and (iii) no further action is required by the Town.



Council Meeting 27 February 2018 Prior to consideration of the item, Mayor Shannon disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Lot 308 (No.5) Lentara Crescent, City Beach, I declare that I know the owner of No.5 Lentara Crescent, City Beach and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. Cr Everett disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item DV18.2, I declare that I have a personal association with the owners of No.5 Lentara Crescent, City Beach in a professional capacity having jointly prepared with the owner a submission on Amendment 31 and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits. Cr McKerracher disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item DV18.2, I declare that I have a personal association with the owners of No.5 Lentara Crescent, City Beach and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) pursuant to s9.6(4)(a) of the Local Government Act 1995, the objection submitted

by the owner of 5 Lentara Crescent City Beach, to the section 3.25 of the Local Government Act 1995 notice dated 1 December 2017, requiring him to:-

“Take specific measures to prevent:

(a) Artificial light being emitted from the land ; or (b) Natural or artificial light being reflected from something on the land, creating

a nuisance”,

be DISMISSED; (ii) the owner of 5 Lentara Crescent City Beach, being an ‘Affected Person’, be advised

that pursuant to Section 9.7 of the Local Government Act 1995, the owner has a right of review of the Council decision, within forty days (42) of the Council decision, to the State Administrative Tribunal;

(iv) in the event that the owner of 5 Lentara Crescent City Beach, being an ‘Affected

Person’, does not exercise the right of review to the State Administrative Tribunal, that the owner be required to comply with the terms of the Notice within forty-two (42) days of the Council decision; and

(v) if compliance in this matter is not achieved within the times frames specified

above, that legal action be taken against the owner of 5 Lentara Crescent City Beach, for failing to comply with the Notice, contrary to s3.25(6) of the Local Government Act 1995.

Lost 0/9



COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr McAllister That the Council NOTES: (i) that the Local Government Act 1995, Notice issued pursuant to s3.25, dated 1

December 2017, on the Owner of 5 Lentara Crescent, City Beach requiring him to:- "Take specific measures to prevent:

(a) Artificial light being emitted from the land; or (b) Natural or artificial light being reflected from something on the land, creating

a nuisance,

has been COMPLIED with; (ii) the complainants at 3 Lentara Crescent, City Beach have now expressed

satisfaction with the matter, and (iii) no further action is required by the Town. Carried 9/0



DV18.14 UPGRADE OF PARKING TICKET MACHINES TO BE CREDIT CARD COMPLIANT - SOLE SUPPLIER

SUMMARY:

The Town's parking ticket machines are required to be upgraded to be credit card compliant, to prevent or avoid fraud and misuse. Authorisation is requested to approve of the sole supplier of the equipment, software and technology, at an estimated cost of $298,728. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its



Legislative

Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.




BACKGROUND:

In mid 2017, the Town was advised by its Contractor responsible for the maintenance of its ticket machines that a nationwide requirement (i.e. the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) applies to all companies of any size which accept credit card payments). It is a requirement for all organisations in Australia to take appropriate action to minimise the possibility of credit card fraud and misuse. The Town's parking ticket machines therefore require an upgrade to the software and a ticket card reader to minimise and/or avoid fraud and misuse by credit cards.

DETAILS:

The Town has a current contract with its Contractor, Shiblon Pty Ltd for the hosting and servicing of Hectronic Citea ticket machines. Shiblon P/L was contracted in November 2017 for a 3 year (plus 2x1 year options) to provide the maintenance of the Town's ticket machines. The Town's credit card processing supplier (Advam) have advised as follows:



"What is TLS ? Transport Layer Security (TLS) is a cryptographic protocol used to establish a secure communications channel between two systems. It is used to authenticate one or both systems, and protect the confidentiality and integrity of information that passes between systems. It was originally developed as Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) by Netscape in the early 1990s. Why do I need to upgrade? The PCI DSS Council has mandated that all merchants must disable SSL/early TLS and implement a more secure encryption protocol in order to meet the PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) for safeguarding payment data. What happens if we are not able to comply by 1st March 2018? ADVAM requests that all clients complete these changes by 1st March 2018. This enables ADVAM to complete all items necessary to assist clients and ensure that all clients can complete the change in advance of the 30th June 2018 mandate. On 1st July 2018, ADVAM can no longer accept any transactions that do not comply to the PCI DSS Council mandate. Failure to upgrade the readers will mean the Town's readers will no longer accept credit card payment. A period of 4 months is required, as equipment and parts are required to be imported from overseas." Shiblon has confirmed that the Town's ticket machines are required to be upgraded, due to security changes to all credit card readers in the ticket machines. Budget: Funds for the upgrade have been provided in the 2017-2018 Budget. Estimated Cost: The quote received to complete the upgrade is $298,728.43. The quote was provided by Shiblon Pty Ltd, the Town's Contractor and sole supplier. Shiblon have advised that they are the authorised agent for Hectronic Citea ticket machines in Australia. The equipment, software and technology are not available from any other supplier, as it is unique to Hectronic Citea ticket machines, as they are the sole suppliers of this equipment and software in Australia.


In accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, tenders are to be publicly invited before a local government enters into a contract for another person to supply goods or services if the consideration under the contract is, or is expected to be, more, or worth more, than $150,000. The Town's Chief Executive Officer does not have the delegated authority to approve of the amount, as it is over $150,000. Therefore, in order to comply with the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, Council approval is required before any expenditure is incurred.



The Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, states (in part) as follows: "Clause 11(2) Tenders do not have to be publicly invited according to the requirements of this Division if - (f) the local government has good reason to believe that, because of the unique nature of

the goods or services required or for any other reason, it is unlikely that there is more than one potential supplier;…."


A large portion of the Town's revenue from ticket machine income is from credit card transactions. There will be significant financial implications every day that the credit card system is down. A breakdown of the Town's revenue stream from ticket machines is as follows:

Item: Ticket Machine Revenue Stream Amount Percentage 1. Credit Card $750,000 51.72% 2. Coins $620,000 42.75% 3. EasyPark (credit card) $80,000 5.52% Total $1,450,000 100%


The recommendations embrace the following strategies of the Town's Corporate Business Plan 2013 - 2018:- Our Council Goal 11: A strong performing local government Strategy 11.5: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.


Not applicable. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery - Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager John Giorgi, JP - Manager Health and Compliance Services Contributors Luke Evans - Coordinator Ranger Services

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil.




Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) pursuant to Clause 11(2)(f) of the Local Government (Functions and General)

Regulations 1996, the Council has good reason to believe that the Town's approved Contractor, Shiblon Pty Ltd, who is engaged to provide the maintenance of the Town's ticket machines, is the sole agent and supplier of the equipment, software and technology in Australia and therefore does not require a public tender to be called; and

(ii) the quotation of $298,728 from Shiblon Pty Ltd, for the supply and installation of

equipment, software and technology to upgrade the Town 's ticket machines to be credit card compliant be accepted.

Carried 9/0



DV18.15 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2017 AND JANUARY 2018

SUMMARY:

To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the Council of other proceedings in relation to Planning and Development matters. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







DETAILS:

The following items (for the months of December 2017 and January 2018) have been dealt with under delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- December 2017 City Beach • 19 Dampier Avenue, City Beach - Patio • 1 Gunee Road, City Beach - Retaining walls and fence Mount Claremont • 44 Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont - Two storey dwelling Floreat • 13 Champion Crescent, Floreat - Two storey dwelling • 22 Glengariff Drive, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling



Wembley • 176 Daglish Street, Wembley - Carport in front setback and additions and alterations to

rear of dwelling • 126 Daglish Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to rear of existing dwelling • 190 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Back up generator January 2018 City Beach • 61 Oban Road, City Beach - Screening of view window from balcony floor • 1/16 Perina Way, City Beach - Sunroom and patio • 12 Malton Place, City Beach - Patio roof • 48 Marapana Road, City Beach - Patio Mount Claremont • 25 Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont - Two storey dwelling • 2 Maida Place, Mt Claremont - Two storey dwelling Floreat • 43 Stadium Drive, Floreat - Three storey dwelling • 3 Champion Crescent, Floreat - Single storey dwelling

Wembley • 100 Harborne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling including

garage and swimming pool • 350 Cambridge Street, Wembley (Cambridge Forum) - Change of Use (Office to

Educational Establishment (music school) • 45 Holland Street, Wembley - Carport • 39a Simper Street, Wembley - Carport • 17 Harborne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 21b Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Patio and new crossover • 70 McKenzie Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling including

carport and studio • 94a Salvado Road, Wembley - Front fence • 176 Ruislip Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 12 St Columbas Avenue, Wembley - Two storey dwelling • 75a Reserve Street, Wembley - Patio • 4 Scaddan Street, Wembley - Garage West Leederville • 164 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Change of Use from Consulting room

(occupational therapist) to Medical Consulting room • 4/77 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Patio • 110 Woolwich Street, West Leederville - Ground floor living room extension • 395 Vincent Street West, West Leederville - Front fence and carport



The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval:- • 36 Simper Street, Wembley - Two lot subdivision The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s information:- Applications for Review (Appeals) - received No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions of the Council during December 2017 and January 2018. Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined One application for review was determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during January 2018 as follows: Property: 78 Holland Street, Wembley Proposal: Retrospective approval for a carport The matter was considered at a hearing on 18 January 2018 where the application for review was dismissed and the decision of the respondent (Council) was affirmed. Ongoing applications for review (Appeals): • 8 Dandaloo Street City Beach - Matter adjourned to 10am on Thursday 22 February 2018

to allow the applicant to present expert planning evidence. • 40 Challenger Parade, City Beach - Council to reconsider its previous decision on or

before 27 February 2018, under section 31 of the SAT act. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Assessment Contributors Jenny Bender, Senior Planning Officer


Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period ending 31 January 2018 be received. Carried 9/0



DV18.16 BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - DECEMBER 2017 AND JANUARY 2018

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building permits approved under delegated authority in December 2017 and January 2018. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued in the month of December 2017 and January 2018. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of permits issued on the same month of the previous year and year to date totals. December

2017 December

2016 Financial Year

to Date 2017/2018

Corresponding Financial Year to Date 2016/2017

Building Permits (Certified) 38 29 217 213 Building Permits (Uncertified)

18 12 90 114

Demolition Permits 3 6 34 28 Building Approval Certificate (unauthorised work)

1 0 9 4

Building Approval Certificate (Strata Development)

1 0 4 1

Occupancy Permits (Classes 2-9 only)

3 1 13 22

Occupancy Permits (Strata Development)

0 2 6 4

Total

64 50 373 386

Value of Construction $17,178,237 $6,091,491 $71,166,826 $107,961,758



Note: - The total value of construction for December 2017 period was influenced by the approvals for the: • Double Storey Masonry Dwelling with Formed Sheet Metal Roof, Boundary Fence,

Retaining Wall, Planter, Letterbox and Meterbox situated at 10 West Lorne Street, Floreat.

• Double Storey Dwelling, Garage and Retaining Wall (Excludes Limestone Wall by Owner) situated at 9 Windarra Drive, City Beach.

• Two Storey Masonry Structure with Formed Sheet Metal Roof Covering, Swimming Pool, Pool Enclosure, Letterbox, Retaining and Screen Walls situated at 57 Essex Street, Wembley.

January

2018 January

2017 Financial Year

to Date 2017/2018

Corresponding Financial Year to Date 2016/2017

Building Permits (Certified) 21 26 238 239 Building Permits (Uncertified)

8 16 98 130

Demolition Permits 1 5 35 33 Building Approval Certificate (unauthorised work)

1 1 10 5

Building Approval Certificate (Strata Development)

0 1 4 2

Occupancy Permits (Classes 2-9 only)

0 5 13 27

Occupancy Permits (Strata Development)

0 1 6 5

Total

31

35

404

441

Value of Construction $4,258,622 $12,487,566 $75,425,448 $120,449,325 Note: - The total value of construction for January 2017 period was influenced by the approvals for the: • Two Storey Dwelling, Ancillary dwelling, Screen Wall and Associated Retaining Walls

situated at 39 Aruma Way, City Beach. • 8x Sole Occupancy Units, Fences and Retaining Walls situated at 253 Cambridge Street,

Wembley. • Two Storey Dwelling, Swimming Pool, Swimming Pool Fence, Retaining Walls and

Fences situated at 60 Stadium Drive, Floreat. • Additions to Existing Single Storey Dwelling situated at 165 The Boulevard, Floreat. • St John of God Hospital Refurbishment Works situated at 12 Salvado Road, Subiaco. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja Contributors Jacqui F



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Confidential Attachment COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Permits approved under delegated authority for the months of December 2017 and January 2018 as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received. Carried 9/0


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\18 MINUTES\FEBRUARY\C CR.DOCX 113

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE The report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on Monday 19 February and adjourned until Wednesday 21 February 2018 was submitted as under:

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources Committee open at 6.01pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Monday 19 February 2018 Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Andres Timmermanis (Presiding Member) 6.01 pm 6.02 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.01 pm 6.02 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.01 pm 6.02 pm Cr Jo McAllister 6.01 pm 6.02 pm Observers: Nil Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Brett Jackson, Director Projects Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Steve Platts, Manager Information Technology & Communications Andy Ong Team Leader Information and Business Systems Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate & Strategic) Adjournments: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Mayor Shannon That, due to loss of power in the Administration building, the meeting be adjourned to Wednesday 21 February 2018 at 6.00pm Carried 4/0



Wednesday 21 February 2018 Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Andres Timmermanis (Presiding Member) 6.01 pm 9.14 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.01 pm 9.14 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.01 pm 9.14 pm Cr Louis Carr 6.37 pm 9.14 pm Cr Jo McAllister 6.01 pm 9.14 pm Observers: Cr Ian Everett Cr Kate McKerracher Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Brett Jackson, Director Projects Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works Peter Maloney, Manager Infrastructure Assets Walter Van Der Loo, Manager Infrastructure Parks Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development Priya Narula, Manager Library Services Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate & Strategic) Time meeting closed: 9.14 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item CR18.4 Lisa Buckingham, 186 Ruislip Street, Wembley Cass Marie-Soong, 45A Alexander Street, Wembley Simon Buckingham, 186 Ruislip Street, Wembley




That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee held on 11 December 2017 as contained in the December 2017 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Item CR18.11 Cr Carr - Financial Interest Cr Everett - Financial Interest

Cr McAllister - Financial Interest

7. REPORTS



CR18.1 TENDER FOR CIVIL DRAINAGE WORKS AT MCCOURT STREET - WOOLWICH STREET

SUMMARY:

A Request for Tender (RFT) was advertised on 4 November 2017 to seek construction costs from contractors in order to allow Council to appoint a contractor for Civil and Drainage Works on McCourt Park and 77 McCourt Street. Tenders have been assessed and it is recommended that Castle Civil be awarded the contract. The works involve the construction of an underground drainage system which should mitigate drainage flooding from extreme storm events. Council purchased property at 77 McCourt Street to aid installation of the underground drainage system while also assisting to retain existing trees on McCourt Park. It is recommended that Council consider completing landscaping works in the 2018/2019 budget year by funding the additional $112,000 excluding GST required as available funding is sufficient only for the civil engineering and partial landscape works in 2017/2018. At the mid-year budget review, there may also be an opportunity to identify available funding from completed projects. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The Town has received 3 previous Council reports (CR 15.32 April 2015, CR 17.24 March 2017, and a confidential report 13.1, May 2017) in relation to the McCourt Street/Woolwich Street drainage issue which was highlighted as a result of nearby property damage resulting from the storm of 22 March 2010. Subsequently on 11 May 2017, the Town purchased the property to the north of McCourt Park - house number 77 McCourt Street in order to maximise the available parkland and retain the significantly mature trees at McCourt Park. During construction it will be necessary to temporarily remove the playground as in retaining the same volume of 1,150m3 for the underground drainage system resulted in deeper excavations. The deeper excavations also resulted in greater clearances in order to retain the Western



Power transformer on the north eastern corner of McCourt Park. This was achieved and saved the Town $110,000 in transformer relocation costs. Civil Design has progressed to a stage where Tenders were called for during the period 4 November to 22 November 2017 for the construction of an underground drainage system of 1,150 m3 capacity which will mitigate the effects of the extreme storm events. The design also caters for the staged return of the playground on McCourt Park. DETAILS: The provision of a contractor is required for the purpose of executing excavations, the supply and installation of the underground drainage system, earthworks and drainage connections and ancillary civil works on McCourt Park and the vacant lot house number 77 McCourt Street and the McCourt Street road reserve. In summary the tender RFT 30-17 Civil Drainage Works McCourt Street/Woolwich Street requires the following:- SCOPE OF REQUIREMENTS 1 Take possession of the site. 2 Obtain an approved construction safety environment management plan addressing

issues including but not limited to dust, noise, vibration, safety, environment, etc. Obtain an approved traffic management plan.

3 Secure the site safely using fencing and construction management/traffic management techniques and standards.

4 Remove existing park furniture noted for removal by the Contractor. Protect park furniture, assets and vegetation as noted. Liaise with the Town as necessary.

5 Acquire construction materials for the underground drainage system. 6 Excavate, remove spoil, cart away and install the major underground drainage system. 7 Supply and install the secondary drainage system. 8 Appropriately fill, compact and sculpt to finish levels the proposed surface levels on 77

McCourt Street and McCourt park. 9 Construct and amend ancillary civil works such as footpath, verge on McCourt Street, and

kerbing. 10 Clean site and make good. 11 Perform as constructed and submit plans to Town of Cambridge. The following plans were included in the request for tender:- • 17-5-50/100 Rev E • 17-5-50/101 Rev E, • 17-5-50/102 Rev E, • 17-5-50/400 Rev E, • 17-5-50/600 Rev D • and Technical Specification 17-5-50 Ref S045.17 Rev C Tender submissions were received from the following nine contractors:- • WCP Civil • Delta Civil • Densford Civil • Dowsing Group • Castle Civil • Certa Civil Works



• DJ MacCormick Contractors • GMF Civil • AllWest Plant Hire All submitted tenders have been evaluated in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria and Selection Criteria. The majority of the prices received in the tenders are indicative of a competitive civil engineering industry at the moment. Most applicants demonstrated they could provide all the construction and drainage installation requirements in accordance with the tender documentation. An Evaluation Report has been prepared as a Confidential Attachment 1 which recognises the selection criteria as detailed in the request for tender document. This document identified the basis on which Council will be assessing these tenders. The qualitative measures were:- • Demonstrated understanding of the required tasks - weighting (30%); • Capacity - weighting (30%); • Demonstrated experience in completing similar contracts - weighting (40%).

Based on the completed assessment of all tenders, it is recommended that Castle Civil be appointed to meet the Town's requirements for the tender RFT 30-17 Civil and Drainage Works at McCourt St - Woolwich St. This proposed recommendation is in recognition of their:- • conformity with the tender documents and qualitative criteria; • proven expertise of staff; • past performance with other Local Government authorities; • familiarity with Council requirements and similar drainage project experience; • competitive rates; • good health and safety records. • it is noted that a tender qualifying meeting on 23/1/18 with Castle Civil, Graf Australia, Galt

Technical Engineers, Porter Consulting Engineers and Town's Officers identified that full excavation was agreed to by the contractor and that a revised methodology and costing was required; and

• it was agreed that chemical grout injection around the transformer and the application of hydromulch to the exposed banks would mitigate much of the shallow slippage. In addition Castle Civil indicated that sheet piling of 60 linear metres would be about ½ the cost of chemical grout injection. Minutes of the meeting and the agreed actions were distributed 24/1/18 to Castle Civil.

It is recognised that there may be some potential cost savings to the works for the Town as a result of implementing the above slope stability measures during the project works. If approved in February 2018, construction can commence around mid-March 2018 and be completed by the end of April 2018. This would allow for the park landscape works to proceed.

OTHER COMMENTS

In addition, $133,000 of landscaping works are also identified which are not part of the civil works contact. The Landscaping works addresses playground removal and reinstallation, new shade sails, a new bore, (currently scheme water) irrigation equipment, lawn establishment, planting beds and fencing/gates. Refer to Attachment 3 for a concept plan of the proposed



landscape works. It is recognised that the current available funds can only partially cover the costs of the landscape works. The 2017/2018 budget for the McCourt Street/Woolwich Street works was based on a design that incorporated solely McCourt Park. With the purchase of the property at 77 McCourt Street in May 2017, the design was amended to retain the existing park trees and also the existing transformer (cost to relocate $110,000). The amended design also allowed for a review of landscape opportunities to better utilise the increased park area. This necessitated extra costs for the following reasons:- • deeper excavations; • slope stability measures; • refining different landscaping levels and shaping up to represent a pleasant aesthetic

looking park; • introduction of a bore; • extra hand digging in relation to tree roots/drainage works; • perimeter fencing and tree protection zones; and • cost increases for the Ecobloc drainage cells of 10%. The Town's budget for 2017/18 has an allocation of $434,000 Excl GST for the total project which incorporates the civil and landscaping components. It is recommended that the landscaping component be constructed in the upcoming 2018/2019 budget. Alternatively the Town could consider to re-allocate from cost saving areas an amount of a minimum of $112,000 Excl GST from other completed budget projects in the 2017/18 budget. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: This tender is aimed to ensure that Council operates a financially prudent and ethical manner to provide the best advice.


It is anticipated that there will be approximately $413,000 Excl GST of work (including design work) associated for the Civil and Drainage Works at McCourt Street - Woolwich Street. An additional $112,000 Excl GST is required in order to reinstate the playground and complete associated landscape works. This is recommended to be considered in the February 2018 mid-year budget review where surplus funds have been identified from completed projects as follows:-

(a) Account No. C2248 - Gregory/Ruislip intersection budget $80,000. Available $75,000. In December 2017 Council agreed this project be transferred into the asphalt works program for 2018/2019.

(b) Account No. C5307 - Harborne - Dodd Street to Powis turning lane. Budget $100,000. Available $40,000. Savings identified following detailed design. Only $33,000 is available as $7,000 is recommended to be re-allocated to the Lake Monger Toilet project.

(c) Account No. S1258 - Demolition of 77 McCourt Street. Budget $34,000. Available $14,000. Demolition works completed.




The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027. Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.2: Improve the amenities of our local parks and sports grounds COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This tender award has been assessed in line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. Keep the Town will inform residents within a 400 metre radius of the works a minimum of 2 weeks to the possession of the site by the contractor. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Chris Colyer - Director Infrastructure Responsible Manager N/A Contributors Walter Van Der Loo - Infrastructure Parks Manager

Frank Strever - Coordinator Engineering and Design

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Tender Evaluation Matrix (Confidential). 2. Plans: 17-5-50/100 Rev E

17-5-50/101 Rev E 17-5-50/102 Rev E 17-5-50/400 Rev E

3. Plan of proposed playground reinstatement and associated landscape works COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:-

(i) Tender No. RFT30-17 – Civil and Drainage Works at McCourt Street - Woolwich Street be awarded to Castle Civil in accordance with the tender documents, qualitative criteria and tendered schedule of rates;

(ii) works proceed in accordance with the attached drawings; and (iii) $122,000 extra funding be allocated to the McCourt Street/Woolwich Street

drainage project from savings identified during the mid-year budget review for 2017/18 as follows:-

- Budget Item - Gregory/Ruislip intersection - $75,000 - Budget Item - Harborne - Dodd Street to Powis turning lane - $33,000 - Budget Item - Demolition of 77 McCourt Street - $14,000

Carried 9/0



CR18.2 FIVE YEAR PROGRAM - 2018 TO 2019 - 2022 TO 2023 - FOOTPATHS

SUMMARY:

A Draft Five Year Program for footpath and shared path works is reviewed annually as a prerequisite to preparing the Draft Budget. Council is currently reviewing a new Bike Plan in 2017/18 that will incorporate a program of works for shared paths and other cycling facilities. This plan is expected to be finalised by July 2018. These proposed works should be incorporated within this program for consideration of funding in the draft 2018/19 Budget. Since 1995, previous footpath programs were focussed on replacing old slab paths with insitu concrete and this programme was completed in the 2016/17 Budget. It is proposed that the next five years of the footpath program should focus on new shared paths, resurfacing old asphalt shared paths and replacing badly cracked concrete paths. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Council last reviewed the “Five Year Program for Footpaths” in December 2016 (Item CR16.201 5 Year Program (2017/18 - 2021/22) Footpaths and decided that:- (i) the proposed Five Year Program (2017/18 - 2021/22) for footpaths, as attached, be

endorsed for planning considerations; (ii) the first year of the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in the Draft

2017/18 Budget; and (iii) residents adjacent to new paths proposed in Year 5 of the program be notified and invited

to comment.



The funding of the first year of that program in the current 2017/18 Budget is:- • Shared Paths: 215 m of slab path on Salvado Road changed to asphalt. • Construction of 2 new concrete paths $32,000. • Replacement of sections of cracked paths on 4 streets (including $15,000 carry forward):

$145,000. • Resurface 2 asphalt shared paths $67,500. • Tactile Ground Surface Indicators on ramps: $10,000. • Total funding is $254,500. By 30 June 2018, the state of construction of all paths in the Town is expected to be:-

• Length of slab footpaths: 0.04 km (.02%) located at Tilton Terrace (Esk- Asten). • Length of brick paved footpaths (mainly commercial areas): 3.6 km (2% of total). • Length of concrete footpaths 167 km (86% of total). • Length of asphalt surfaced shared paths 24 km (12% of total). • Total length of all footpaths and shared paths: 195 km. No action has been taken with item (iii) yet - residents be notified and invited to comment on new path proposals. This item was deferred to commence when the proposed Bicycle Plan community consultation commences. The Draft Bicycle Plan was presented to Council in report CR17.62 May 2017 where the report was deferred to an Elected Member Forum for further discussion. The 6th February 2018 Elected Member Forum has considered the plan.

DETAILS:

This report considers the upgrading of paved paths within road reserves only. Upgrading of paths within reserves will be considered in a separate report. The proposed Five Year Program for upgrading concrete footpaths, resurfacing asphalt shared paths and constructing new footpaths and shared paths is provided in the Attachment 1 to this report. The objective of this program is to maintain and improve a safe network of paths for people to travel by walking, running, cycling, skating or using a wheelchair. The minimum standards for paths are set out in Policy No. 5.2.5 'Construction of Footpaths and Shared Paths' that was reviewed in May 2016. The current network of footpaths and shared paths in the Town are indicated on a map provided in the Attachment 2 to this report. For completeness, the paths within reserves, Bold Park and the coastal beach reserves are included on the map to show the pedestrian links with paths adjacent to roads. The location and attributes of footpaths is recorded in the Town's asset management system (AssetFinda) and Geographical Information System (Intramaps). This information is updated when a path is replaced, created or removed. All asphalt and concrete paths are inspected annually to assess condition, identify tripping hazards, and, identify sections of cracked panels:- • The condition rating of each section of path is used for long term asset management in

Asset Finda. • Tripping hazards are a high priority item and are removed by either grinding the raised

part of the panel or replacing an entire panel. This is funded in the footpath maintenance budget.



• Cracked panels are not an immediate risk but have poor appearance and will slowly de-generate into worse condition. They are remedied by replacing all the cracked panels in the section of path as a capital project.

Program for Remaining Slab Paths The only section of slab path is at Tilton Terrace (Esk Road to Asten Road) north side. This is 41m long and was made redundant by the new path on the south side of Tilton Terrace. It is scheduled for removal in Year 1. Program for New Shared Paths The draft 2018 Bike Plan will be reviewed in a separate report following an Elected Member Forum on 6 February 2018. It is anticipated that the new shared path projects will be a priority in Years 1, 2, 3, 4 and so a funding of $500,000/year is proposed to assist with developing a program of works for the 2018 Bike Plan. This level of funding is similar to funding of previous bike plans. Program for New Footpaths Policy No. 5.2.5 'Construction of Footpaths and Shared Paths' recommends that a footpath should be provided on all roads and a footpath on both sides of roads with more than 2,000 vehicles a day. An inspection of the map of the path network reveals that there are many roads in the Town, mainly in west Floreat and City Beach, that do not comply with this policy. Therefore, pedestrians either walk along the verge or road. A priority list of new footpaths (missing links) was identified that minimised the distance a pedestrian needed to walk on a road or verge. This list was first reported in December 2014 and remains in Year 5 in the program in favour of new shared path projects. Recent experience with other new path projects has shown that the community is usually strongly divided about a new path. Therefore, this list will be re-prioritised after appropriate community engagement is carried out and then presented to Council for consideration. Program for Replacement of Existing Concrete Footpaths Insitu concrete paths were first used by the City of Perth to replace slab paths in the Town after about 1990. Most of these concrete paths are constructed 100mm thick and are expected to last an average of 40 years before they require replacement. Therefore, in the long term, after year 2030, it is expected that an average of 4 km of path will require replacement each year, based on the total 167 km length of concrete path. In the short term, individual panels in the concrete paths may become damaged by heavy vehicles and tree roots. These are identified during the year by the footpath inspection program or by customer service requests. Isolated panels are repaired as they occur as footpath maintenance. Longer sections of damaged path require replacement as a capital works project. The footpath inspection in 2017 identified a total of 5,916 m2 of cracked panels and 60 cracked ramps. The proposed funding for replacing all of these is $100,000/year in Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. Attachment 3 summarises the survey condition of various paths.



Program for Brick Paving adjacent to Commercial Centres In general, paths adjacent to commercial premises are considered for upgrading to brick paving when the concrete path requires replacement or when the owner of the property has requested it and is prepared to contribute at least 50% of the cost. This is guided by Policy No. 5.2.4 - 'Verges - Paving in Commercial Area'". The commercial section of Northwood Street (Cambridge Street - Railway Parade) is proposed for having the existing concrete footpaths replaced on both sides with brick paving. This is currently included in the Five Year Road Works Program as a future street-scaping project and may include other enhancements, such as lighting, landscaping, kerbing, traffic islands, parking improvements. This should be considered after the existing poles and overhead wires are removed by the State Underground Power Project next year (if approved by Council in February 2018). Program for Resurfacing Asphalt Shared Paths The Town has 24 km of shared paths with an asphalt surface that requires replacing every 30 years on average. Therefore, an average of 800 m of path should be resurfaced each year at a cost of approximately $72,000. All shared paths were inspected for condition in 2017 and based on their overall condition, three sections of paths are proposed for 2018/19: • Alderbury Street (Oceanic Drive - Meagher Drive) 500 m. • Oceanic Drive (Alderbury Street - Perry Lakes Drive) 240 m. • Oceanic Drive (Perry Lakes Drive - Waldron ) 224m. Program for Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSI) There are several locations where Tactile Ground Surface Indicators should be installed to assist pedestrians with poor sight to cross roads. TGSIs are generally required at traffic signals, roundabouts and crossings with refuge islands. The high priority intersections and crossings have been addressed as part of the original road project. To retrofit TGSIs at an existing intersection costs approximately $600 on each ramp or refuge gap. Therefore, a whole intersection with traffic signals will cost approximately $7,200. It is proposed that $10,000 is included in each year of the program to address 1 or 2 locations each year.


The recommendation is in accordance with Council Policies:- • No. 5.2.5 “Construction of Footpaths and Shared Paths", • No. 5.4.9 "Asset Management", and • No. 5.2.4 - "Verges - Paving in Commercial Areas".


There are no Financial Implications related to this report other than consideration of setting appropriate levels of funding for the Draft 2018/19 Budget.

http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/751d3cdf-82a3-4459-9921-a63b00b97a95/5_2_4.pdf





As a benchmark, the funding level of the footpath program in the 2017/18 Budget, not including carry-forward projects, is as follows:-

Item of Work Funding Constructing new shared paths as identified in Bike Plan $0 Replace cracked panels and ramps in existing concrete footpaths, (Bent Street, Kimberley Street, Ruislip Street)

$130,000

Constructing new concrete footpaths requested by residents (Landra Gardens and Cargen Crescent)

$32,000

Brick Paving in Commercial Areas - (Northwood Street/Cambridge Street project is included in the Road Works program)

$0

Resurfacing asphalt shared path. (Oceanic Drive) $67,500 Tactile Ground Surface Indicators. (Various) $10,000 Total funding in current year 2017/18 $254,500

The funding proposed for the next 5 years is generally

Item of Work Funding Constructing new shared paths as identified in Bike Plan (Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

$500,000

Replace cracked panels and ramps in existing concrete footpaths as identified by the annual footpath inspection in Year 1, 2, 3, 4 (Refer Attachment 3).

$100,000

Construct new concrete footpaths requested by residents in Year 5 only.

$100,000

Brick Paving in Commercial Areas - included in the Road Works program

$0

Resurfacing asphalt shared path. (Year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) $72,000 Tactile Ground Surface Indicators. (Year 1, 2, 3, 4,) $10,000 Total funding each year $682,000

This has been formatted into Attachment 1 Five Year Program for footpaths to match the format used in the new Business Area Plan for Roads, Paths and Drainage.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027:- Our Community Life Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.3: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities. Strategy 3.4: Create and maintain safe environments. Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 5: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy 5.1: Plan for commercial development within the Town. Strategy 5.2: Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the

Town. Goal 6: Efficient transport networks Strategy 6.1: Develop an integrated transport strategy in response to population changes.




This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Chris Colyer - Director Infrastructure Responsible Manager Jon Bell - Manager Infrastructure Works Contributors N/A ATTACHMENTS:

1. Five Year Program for Footpaths 2018/19 - 2022/23. 2. Location of Footpaths, Shared Paths and Tracks. 3. List of cracked footpaths sections


That:- (i) the proposed Five Year Program (2018/19 - 2022/23) for footpaths, as attached, be

endorsed for planning considerations; (ii) the first year of the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in the Draft

2018/19 Budget; and (iii) residents adjacent to new paths proposed in Year 5 of the program be notified and invited

to comment. Committee Meeting 19 February 2018 Amendment Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iv) the standard width of paths in City Beach be 1.5 metres unless it is near a school. Amendment carried 4/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the proposed Five Year Program (2018/19 - 2022/23) for footpaths, as attached, be

endorsed for planning considerations; (ii) the first year of the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in

the Draft 2018/19 Budget;



(iii) residents adjacent to new paths proposed in Year 5 of the program be notified and invited to comment;

(iv) the standard width of paths in City Beach be 1.5 metres unless it is near a school. Moved by Cr Bradley That the item relating to Five Year Program - 2018 to 2019 - 2022 to 2023 - Footpaths be referred back to the Community and Resources Committee for further consideration. Lapsed for want of a seconder The original motion was then put and carried 9/0



CR18.3 MARAPANA ROAD - TEMPLETONIA CRESCENT - LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STAGE 1

SUMMARY:

At the 27 June 2017 Council meeting, a Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) proposal Plan E 067-16-03 (Attachment 1) for Marapana Road-Templetonia Crescent was considered. Council decided that the LATM proposal should be staged, and that the Stage 1 area residents and City Beach Primary School be consulted. Stage 1 works are detailed on Plan E 067-16-05 (Attachment 2). The survey results undertaken during October 2017 demonstrated positive community support for the concept plan E 067-16-05. It is proposed that a shared path be included in the Concept Plan E 067-16-05 on the eastern side of Marapana Road, as recommended as part of an independent road safety audit. It is proposed to carry forward the Marapana Road - Templetonia Crescent LATM project to the 2018/2019 budget year as construction will not be completed before July 2017. In order to address the additional funding required and to deliver the project, final designs can be completed and estimates reviewed. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

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






BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 27 June 2017 (CR17.88) Council decided that:- (i) Plan E 067-16-05 for Marapana Road and Templetonia Crescent be distributed to City

Beach Primary School and all affected owners/residents as follows for a 4-week comment period:-

- Marapana Road: Laurundel Road - Templetonia Crescent - Templetonia Crescent: Marapana Road - Yanagin Crescent - Patonga Road: Marapana Road - Canungra Road

(ii) a further report be submitted to Council summarising the public consultation comments

and for final endorsement of a LATM proposal.



During a four week comment period in October 2017, a survey was carried out. In response to the survey, six positive comments out of seven responses were received from a total of fifteen residents invited to submit survey responses:- 1. Do you support LATM speed reduction measures and pedestrian crossings (Plan E 067-

16-05)? 2. Do you support Patonga Road school embayment and footpath proposals (Plan E 067-

16-05)? 3. Any further comments or suggestions? A summary of comments includes:- • In some areas traffic showing 'speed' bumps is quite severe. This can be okay on a road

with little traffic. I hope your 'bumps' are minor, for this is a busy through road. • Your 'channelisation' has reduced traffic flow whenever a car is parked at the side of the

road (going either way), or a bus is at a stop. Cars will not be able to swerve around, a little onto the road going the other way.

• The Patonga Road footpath should be extended along Marapana Road around the

school perimeter. We need more footpaths in City Beach. • This Plan will only achieve minor traffic calming in this area. Templetonia Crescent is

very wide and cars hoon along it at night time. In fact, I am not sure many cars stick to 50km/hr during the day either.

• The intersection between Marapana and Templetonia is very confusing for motorists as it is so wide. Maybe install an island to clearly delineate the intersection road?

• Great idea. Hope that this will slow traffic (both cars and buses) down Marapana Road and into Templetonia. Safe spots to cross the road are long overdue.

• I welcome these changes, being a new resident to Marapana, I have been very concerned at the speed of cars and buses especially on the weekends. I have rung Transperth to no avail. Ridiculous speeds. I would even like to see roundabouts on Adina/Marapana and Marapana/Templetonia.

• We have plans dated 9 March 2017 which do not show the expansion of the 'Kiss n Drive'. This was prior to us buying our house (no indication given as to whose plan was held).

DETAILS: The consultation comments from the community and the City Beach Primary School demonstrates support for the expanded design options, as presented to Council in June 2017 (Plan E 067-16-03). Stage 1 of the total concept - the specific LATM proposal, as outlined by Council in Concept Plan E 067-16-05, is therefore suggested for endorsement to progress to final design. Final design approval is subject to the addressing of a Road Safety audit and obtaining Main Roads WA signs and lines approval.



In summary, the independent Road Safety Audit (2/2/2018) of Plan E 067-16-05 has suggested that the Town consider the following recommendations:- 1. Increasing pedestrian island refuge widths to a desirable minimum of 1.8 metres from

the designed 1.5 metres. 2. Include a footpath on the eastern side (school side) of Marapana Road covering the

LATM area. 3. The proposed 3.5 metre lane widths without the footpath on the eastern side of Marapana

Road could potentially cause squeeze points for cyclists. 4. Ensure as far as possible pedestrian refuges tie in with pedestrian desire lines and from

the school. 5. Review the position and function of the raised central island on Marapana Road to the

immediate south east of Meelah Road - it blocks/prevents the existing pedestrian access across the road via the dropped kerbs to the bus stop on the north eastern side of the road and also poses a risk for road users overtaking any stationary buses in the bus zone.

The raised island plus bus stop (with a bus stationary in the bus stop) also prevents vehicles from turning right out of Meelah Road - and waiting across the north bound lane. Essential to the final design is for the Town to reconsider the construction of a variable width path (maximum 2 metres wide) on the eastern side of Marapana Road between Patonga Road and Kalari Drive. This is a vital element of the LATM proposal and provides an alternative off street travel path for cyclists. There is an existing 1.5 metre path on the western side of Marapana Road adjacent to the City Beach primary school. While the 1.5 metres for pedestrian refuges adheres to the basic minimum standards, it would be advantageous for the final design to progress to a 1.8 - 2.0 metre wide median. This measure, in association with a shared path on the eastern side of Marapana Road, would provide a clearer message to road users. This would result in lane widths of 3.25 - 3.35 metres over a 240 metre section of road. The normal design process will deal with the ultimate island positions and the maximum available pedestrian access points to the desired pedestrian access ines for school users. The proposed widened pedestrian refuges on Marapana Road to a desirable 1.8 metres will better cater for parents with a number of children (including parents dropping off and picking up children attending the school with other younger children/babies in prams that will need additional space). Good practice (Austroads Guide to Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides 2017) would suggest that 'lane widths either be wide enough to allow the safe passage of a cyclist and a vehicle side by side (3.7 metres or more) or narrow enough to permit the passage of a vehicle or bicycle path (3 metres or less). Widths in between these two extremes create squeeze points and result in conflicts. For a narrow lane provide an off-road option for young cyclists'. Whilst acknowledging the above general advice, the PTA requires a minimum lane width of 3.2 metres. As such, the Town's design will optimise the resulting narrower lanes to accommodate the PTA lane width requirement with lane widths of 3.25 - 3.35 metres.



The financial budget 2017/18 identifies $90,000 for the Marapana Road/Templetonia Crescent LATM works. Stage 1 works, exclusive of the shared path on the eastern side of Marapana Road as shown on a preliminary design plan E 067-16-05, have been estimated at $150,000. The proposed delivery of the Marapana Road - Templetonia Crescent LATM project in 2018/2019 may be prudent given that negotiations with the Department of Education have not been formalised in terms of an agreement from the Department to partly contribute to the project. In addition, the extra estimated cost of $45,000 for the shared path on the eastern side of Marapana Road between Patonga and Kalari Drive needs to be considered by Council as shown by the Road Safety Audit. This addition is integral to the design. The shared path, as a minimum in Stage 1, needs to connect between Patonga and Meelah Roads on the eastern side adjacent to the primary school. This section is estimated to cost $28,000. The final path route between Patonga Road adjacent to the existing parking embayment will be reviewed in the design process. The preference is to construct the path in this area and preserve as many Coral trees as possible. A preliminary cost summary utilising the scenario above is:- 1. Stage 1 works $150,000 2. Stage 1 shared path $ 28,000 Construction Total $178,000 Available budget $90,000 in 2017/2018. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Policy No. 5.2.17(a) 'Road Design Standards' indicates that 'design and construction be compatible with best modern practice and design'. Policy 5.2.5 - Construction of Footpaths and Shared Paths relates to Objective 2:


In order to progress final design and construction, it is proposed to carry forward the budget for this project of $90,000 and list the whole project for construction in the 2018/19 budget. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 6: Efficient transport networks Strategy 6.1: Develop an integrated transport strategy in response to population changes


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as "CONSULT" with the objective "to obtain community feedback on problems, analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions and to assist in decision making". The results of this process have been detailed in the report.



OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Chris Colyer - Director Infrastructure Responsible Manager Frank Strever - Coordinator Engineering and Design Contributors N/A

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Concept Plan E 067-16-03 from 27 June 2017 Council 2. Stage 1 Preliminary Design Plan E 067-16-05 3. Stage 1 Plan E 067-05 Rev A 4. Copy of public consultation letter, plan and October 2017 survey form COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the progress of a final design of Plan E 067-16-05 with the addition of the eastern

Marapana Road shared path from Patonga Road to Meelah Road be approved. Construction within the 2018/2019 financial year will be subject to Council carrying forward the existing $90,000 budget allocation and Main Roads WA signing and lining approval; and

(ii) Council further liaise with the Department of Education prior to the approved

2018/2019 budget for a financial contribution to the Marapana Road - Templetonia Crescent LATM project as generally defined in Plan E 067-16-05 Rev A.

Carried 9/0



CR18.4 RUTTER PARK PUBLIC TOILETS - OUTCOMES OF CONSULTATION

SUMMARY: The Town, in November 2017, requested community feedback on the proposal to install a new freestanding public toilet facility at Rutter Park. Following a review of responses, it is proposed the facility be built in an alternative location near the rear of the Wembley Community Centre, centrally located between Alexander Street and Jersey Street and public notice be provided of the Council's decision. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND: On 28 April 2015, a report was submitted to Council (CR15.31) outlining the outcomes of the public consultation process regarding the draft Rutter Park Improvement Concept Plan and recommending commencement of implementation of improvements to Rutter Park. One of Council's decisions at the April 2015 meeting was that "the Administration investigate the provision of … access to toilets." Council has approved the allocation of $125,000 in the 2017/18 financial year budget for a public toilet at Rutter Park. On 28 November 2017 (CR17.153), Council decided that:-

(i) community engagement regarding the proposal for a two cubicle universally accessible public toilet located near the play spaces and barbeque areas in Rutter Park be carried out in the form of:-

(a) letters to properties adjoining or facing the park and Wembley Primary School advising of the proposal and requesting feedback; (b) a sign placed in the proposed location of the toilet in the Park also advising of the proposal and requesting feedback from park users;



(ii) if no significant objections or proposed changes to the proposal are received, then the works will proceed as planned and respondents advised of the intention to install the toilets; and (iii) if significant objections or proposed changes to the proposal are received, the Administration will seek to address the matters raised and report be submitted to Council seeking direction; (iv) the toilets include electronic times on doors to prevent access outside suitable day time hours.

DETAILS: Letters requesting feedback on the proposal outlined in the Council report of 28 November 2017 (CR17.153) were issued on 11 December 2017. A sign was also erected on the reserve in the vicinity of the proposed toilet shortly after the letters were issued. Respondents were given until 31 January 2018 to respond, an extended engagement period of over seven weeks to take account for the holiday break. Following is a summary of submissions received:- • 16 separate responses were received from 14 addresses. • A separate petition was received containing 12 petitioners from 10 addresses. • Of the 12 petitioners, two had also provided separate responses. • Therefore in total there were 26 responses from 22 addresses. • A response was also received from the Department of Education. Of the 16 separate responses and one petition from residents:- • Three supported the proposal as presented by the Town; • Three others supported the proposal for a provision of a toilet but suggested it be located

near the Wembley Community Centre (based predominantly on aesthetic reasons); and • Ten responses (including the petition) did not support the toilet i.e. a total of 20

individuals did not support the proposal. The Department of Education had no objection to the proposal. Of those that objected the primary reasons can be summarised under six main themes:- 1. The park is small and is for use by only the immediate surrounding residents who can

easily go back to their own houses if they need to go to the toilet and therefore the proposal is not a good use of the Town's funds;

2. The Wembley Community Centre should be able to be managed appropriately to allow use of the toilets in the Centre by Rutter Park users;

3. The toilets will attract all sorts of antisocial elements - drunks, drug addicts, vagrants, vandals, hoons, and others who could pose a risk to children;

4. The increased use of the park resulting from the provision of toilets and associated noise will negatively impact surrounding residents (particularly at night);

5. The toilets will be aesthetically unpleasing, particularly in proposed location; 6. The toilets will not be well maintained and impact users and those living nearby;



The wording of the petition was as follows:-

Re: Rutter Park Toilets CR17.153. As Property owners directly impacted by the proposed Rutter Park public toilets, we object the proposal in its entirety and request that it does not proceed.

Those who sent in separate submissions objecting to the proposal and those who signed the petition were almost entirely from Alexander Street and Jersey Street facing the park as well as Ruislip Street between Alexander Street and Jersey Street. COMMENT: Current planning guidance by the Department of Sport and Recreation would deem Rutter Park a Neighbourhood Open Space (NOS). Common terminology often also describes this type of open space as a "community park". The description of a NOS can be described as follows: • Serve as a recreational and social focus of a community. • A variety of facilities and features to attract casual and informal users. • Facilitate different activities to occur simultaneously. • Be central to surrounding neighbourhoods - typically up to 800 metres or a 10 minute

walk of the catchment. • Be well connected and overlooked. • Build on existing sense of place. • Contribute to biodiversity and natural area values. • Typically be between 1 and 5 hectares in area (Rutter Park is approximately 1.2

hectares). A review of other local authority public open space strategies and policies and the State Government's Public Parkland Planning and Design Guide (WA) indicates Rutter Park fits the criteria well for a NOS. It is well placed to serve the surrounding community catchment. It has good access and adjacent complementary community amenity such as the Wembley Community Centre and Wembley Primary School. The reserve is a good size with very good natural features. The current park facilities generally are in accordance with what would be expected of a NOS (except for lack of public toilet facilities). Figure 1 below provides an indication of the typical catchment of a NOS overlaid on the area surrounding Rutter Park. As can be seen from the aerial image there are no other parks in the catchment that have the community amenity that Rutter Park has, hence why Rutter Park is often used for social gatherings and community events. There are also hundreds of residences in this catchment. Many of the residents in this catchment do not have the luxury of being able to quickly pop across the road or walk just down the street to use their own toilet if the need arises. Children have been observed urinating or defecating in the Park. Our Parks should also be as inclusive as possible. Many children, elderly people with disability and others with continence issues should be able to use our most popular parks in comfort. This is reinforced by the fact Rutter Park is near a school and the recently installed play and picnic facilities were specifically designed to accommodate wheelchair users and people of varying ability.



Figure 1 - 800m radius from Rutter Park. Note the actual walkable catchment of 800m would be less than shown due to the nature of the street layout. With regards to responses received from residents requesting the public toilets be located in the Wembley Community Centre, further consultation was carried out with the Town's Community Development Directorate and the Manager of the Community Centre. Feedback confirmed the Centre does not have the appropriate infrastructure and does not operate during adequate hours to meet the needs of users of Rutter Park. Specifically the Centre is only open from 8am to 4pm Monday to Friday. It is noted that when anyone works back beyond 4 pm there are often people knocking on the door to use the toilets, demonstrating there is a demand. When other user groups use the centre outside of the above hours it is very difficult to put adequate controls in place to ensure the toilets are used appropriately if open to the general public. The location and layout of the internal toilets do not lend themselves to be accessed directly from an external door or doors. Several responses (supporting and objecting the proposed toilets) did indicate a preference for the public toilets to be located closer to the Wembley Community Centre to reduce visual impact and proximity to houses. This suggestion has been assessed and is deemed to have merit. Figure 2 below shows an alternative location for the toilets. This location is tucked into the slope near the rear of the Community Centre and next to a large Peppermint tree. This positioning should help reduce the visual impact of the built form on the reserve. It is also



located more centrally between Alexander Street and Jersey Street and views to the toilet from surrounding residents will be better filtered by surrounding trees. While the toilet is a little bit further away from the play and picnic areas it is still easily accessible by path and will be subject to good passive surveillance i.e. park users and passers-by overlooking the facility. By keeping the toilets freestanding from the Community Centre, the Centre's current and potential future use will not be compromised. The cost difference between a free standing facility and one attached to the existing Community Centre is negligible.

Figure 2 - Alternative Location for Public Toilet While the concerns of those objecting on the basis of perceptions of potential increased antisocial behaviour are appreciated, the Town believes that contemporary public toilet design, when done in accordance with best industry practice, provides good amenity with minimal negative impact. To support this position, the following key features will be included in the design:-

a) Automatic self-closing locks will be installed on the toilets which will enable the Town to adjust the opening and closing times of the toilets. This could initially be dusk until dawn and adjusted as required in response to demand from legitimate park users.



b) Security lighting will be installed outside and inside the toilets, while minimising impact on surrounding residents.

c) The format of the cubicles, which have doors opening directly outside are known to discourage loitering and gathering of undesirable individuals, particularly when subject to passive surveillance.

d) The materials used for construction of the toilet will be high quality and proven in similar situations to be well-wearing and vandal resistant. High quality finishes will also be used.

e) The toilets will be cleaned as regular as required to maintain high level of presentation. Once operational, the Park and the toilets will be monitored to see if additional security provisions should be considered such as, additional lighting, targeted ranger patrols and/or introduction of CCTV. It is hoped that the locals who use Rutter Park also take pride and ownership of the Park and will immediately report any issues so that they can be acted upon by the Town or other appropriate agencies as required. It is hoped that together the Town and the Community will continue to make Rutter Park a safe and enjoyable place to visit and live nearby. The park currently has water, electricity and sewer provision. Relevant approvals to connect onto the main sewer pipework will be obtained from Water Corporation as required. Three formal quotes for construction will be sought for the supply and installation of the toilet in accordance with the Town's procurement guidelines. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: No planning approval is required as a toilet block would be considered a land use that is consistent with the 'Parks and Recreation' purpose for which the land is reserved. A building permit will be required. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: A budget of $125,000 has been allocated in the 2017/18 financial year budget for the toilet and associated works. Based on the design work completed the project is now estimated to cost $95,000 (savings $30,000). STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.2: Improve the amenities of our local parks and sports grounds COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy 1.2.11. In accordance with the assessment criteria, letters were sent to properties adjoining or facing the park and Wembley Primary School advising of the proposal and requesting feedback. A sign was also placed in the proposed location of the toilet in the Park advising of the proposal and requesting feedback from park users. Submissions in response to the proposal were received and are summarised in this report. Council's decision/s will be provided to those individuals and organisations who submitted responses and a sign placed in the reserve notifying users of the Council's decision.



OFFICER INVOLVEMENT:

Responsible Executive Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Responsible Manager Walter Van Der Loo, Manager Infrastructure Parks Contributors Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development

ATTACHMENTS: Nil ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) submissions in response to the proposed public toilets in Rutter Park be received,

including the petition signed by 12 people objecting to the proposal in its entirety; (ii) a freestanding toilet with two universally accessible cubicles be built in an alternative

location near the rear of the Wembley Community Centre, centrally located between Alexander Street and Jersey Street; and

(iii) Council's decision/s be provided to those individuals and organisations who submitted

responses to the request for feedback on the previous public toilet proposal and a sign placed in the reserve notifying users of the Council's decision.

Committee Meeting 19 February 2018 During discussion, Mayor Shannon suggested that the item be deferred for one month in order to explore alternative design and costings for the toilet to be attached to the existing structure of the Wembley Community Centre. The Administration Recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/4 Cr Carr entered the meeting at 6.37 pm FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 19 February 2018) At the Community and Resources Committee held on 19 February 2018 additional information was requested in relation to how often and what activities the outdoor area at the Wembley Community Centre was used by Home and Community Care (HACC) clients. The WA Health Department, through their non-recurrent grant program funded the outdoor area at the Wembley Community Centre for the use of HACC clients to enjoy during the day centre hours (Monday to Friday, 10.00am to 2.30pm). Activities undertaken in this area include art sessions, BBQ's, reading, gardening and small group activities (board games, colour -in, cards, arm chair travel). In relation to usage, it is used daily Monday to Friday, 10.00am to 2.30pm depending on the programmed activities and individual senior's choice (consumer driven) for their daily centre activities. Large group activities like BBQ's are held fortnightly, weekdays.



Further to the Community and Resources Committee held on February 21 2018, the Town received another 14 submissions regarding the toilets. Thirteen submissions were additional to those recorded in the Committee Report and are all strongly in favour of the toilets. One notable supporter is the Wembley Playgroup, which indicated they sometimes have the general public enter their premises requesting to use their toilet facilities, which is disruptive to their groups and raises concern about member security. One submission is in support but requests the toilet be attached to the WCC. One submission is a multi-signatory letter opposing the alternate location (and the consultation process). It is signed by nine people from eight addresses, six of which ARE from five addresses AND are additional to those recorded in the Committee Report. So in summary of the total submissions received to date: • 16 support the proposal; • 4 other support but suggest near or attached to the WCC; • 26 oppose the proposal; and • One does not object (Dept of Ed) COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the item relating to Rutter Park Public Toilets be deferred to March 2018 in order for

the Administration to provide alternative design and costings for the toilet to be attached to the existing structure of the Wembley Community Centre;

(ii) those people who responded to the consultation be advised of Council's decisions

and any future Council reports. Carried 9/0



CR18.5 NORTH LAKE MONGER NEW TOILET FACILITY

SUMMARY: Following a Council decision in July 2017 (CR17.112), new toilets are planned to be built near the existing playground facility at Lake Monger Reserve. An amount of $150,000 has been included in the 2017/2018 Budget to facilitate the construction of the new toilet facility. Following a subsequent Council meeting in November 2017 (CR17.158) the Administration sought approval to proceed with installing the new toilet facility at a location referred to as Option 2 at Lake Monger Reserve. In order to consider this request further, Council requested additional information be provided:- • confirmation of regulatory approvals; • detailed design should be completed; • final costings; and • a further report be presented to Council. The above information has now been obtained and approval is sought from Council to proceed with the installation of a modern style modular public toilet in the location as proposed in Option 2. Following detail design, an estimate for construction is $235,000 which requires approval of an additional $85,000. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

For a number of years, the toilets at North Lake Monger have been subject to anti-social behaviour and despite a number of strategies been implemented over a period of the time, the toilets were closed to the public in May 2017. A report to Council in July 2017(CR17.112) supported these toilets being decommissioned and demolished and new toilets being built near the existing playground (Dodd Street/Gregory Street end).



A further report was presented to Council (CR17.158) in November 2017 which proposed to install a modern style modular toilet comprising of a five toilet cubicle facility in the location as proposed in Option 2. Council reviewed the above report and requested the following additional information and that this be provided in a further report: • Regulatory approvals be applied for on area within a 100 metre radius of option 2. • Detailed design be completed and a further report be presented to Council including final

costings. DETAILS: Following Council's request for the above mentioned information, the Administration is now in a position to confirm the following status:- • detailed design has been completed, with drawings and specification being compiled; • the proposed design comprises of a new sewer pump station located on Lake Monger

Reserve and a new sewer main which will transfer the effluent into the existing connection adjacent to the Dodd St toilets. From there it is transferred into the Sewer Pump Station in the Telethon Building;

• the initial concept design was submitted to Watercorp for information purposes only, no

objections reported; • the Aboriginal Heritage Directorate of the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage

have confirmed that no further approvals are required as it is within the scope described within the 2009 application. However there are several site conditions which will need to be adhered to during the construction of the toilet facility such as aboriginal heritage monitoring, site condition and excavation reporting etc;

• It is proposed to formalise the agreement with Telephone Speech and Hearing Centre in

terms of the arrangements associated with the discharge of the effluent from the proposed toilets into the sewer pump station within the grounds of the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre Building. The old memorandum of understanding needs updating; and

• formal costs have been sought for all the associated work and are estimated to be $235,000.

These costs are summarised below:-

Item no Description Cost $ 1. Supply and Construction/Fit Out of New Modular Toilet $118,000 2. Hydraulics - Installation of Water Supply to the Toilet $5,000 3. Electrical - Installation of Electricity Supply to the Toilet $6,000 4. Supply and Installation of New Sewer Pump Station $40,000 5. Supply and Installation of New Sewer Main $33,000 6. Footpath Installation (Allowance) $ 7,000 7. Aboriginal Heritage monitoring (Allowance) $10,000 8. Environmental Management Construction Plan

(Allowance) $5,000

9. Contingency Allowance (5%) $11,200 10. Total Cost $235,200



An amount of $150,000 has been included in the 2017/2018 budget to facilitate the construction of the new toilet facility. The reasons for the increase in costs (from $150,000 to $235,000) associated with the project are predominantly due to the following: • the exact location of the proposed toilet was unknown when the 2017/2018 budget was

compiled; • costs were based on supply and construction of toilet $120,000 with $30,000 allowance

for services; • costs were based on a gravity drain and a sewer pump arrangement was not included; • additional cost for directional drilling, to minimise the potential release of hazards from

contaminated areas, as opposed to trenching for the services; • additional costs for aboriginal heritage monitoring and site condition requirements; and • additional costs for environmental management construction plan. In terms of design, it is proposed to install a modern style modular toilet comprising of a five toilet cubicle facility, incorporating two universal toilet cubicles, three ambulant cubicles and two baby change stations which will accommodate a number of different user groups of Lake Monger Reserve. Outlined overleaf is an indicative floor plan and design. The current Dodd Street toilets (male and female) comprise 7 cubicles and 1 urinal.

Indicative Design of Proposed Toilet



Indicative Floor Plan

Proposed Location

A number of locations have been examined and are outlined below.



Option 2 in the above plan would appear to be the most appropriate location in terms of close proximity to the adjacent playground and walk path around the lakes edge. In addition, this area is within the Draft Lake Monger Activity Plan which showed a playground and associated toilets and received generally favourable responses (78% of responses were supportive or very supportive of this idea). Supply and delivery of the modular toilet is approximately 11 weeks from raising an order. In order to reduce the program, associated engineering infrastructure can be undertaken in advance, prior to delivery of the new toilet facility. Portable toilets have been installed at Lake Monger Reserve on a temporary basis pending approval of the proposed new facility. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There is no policy implications related to this report. Zoning Lake Monger Reserve is zoned Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). However no planning approval is required under the MRS as a toilet block would be considered a land use that is consistent with the 'Parks and Recreation' purpose for which the land is reserved. A building permit will be required for the new toilet facility.


An amount of $150,000 has been included in the 2017/2018 budget for the construction of new toilets at Lake Monger. Based on the proposed design scheme, formal quotations have been sought for the various parcels of installation work together with the supply and construction of the proposed toilet facility. Project costs are estimated to be approximately $235,000. Additional funding of $85,000 is sought. This may be sourced from the 2017/2018 Capital Works budget at the mid-year budget review by identifying savings on other projects. The following projects have surplus funding which can be re-allocated:- (a) Account No. C3611 - Rutter Park Toilet. Budget $125,000. Available $30,000.

Construction costs reduced following final design. Refer separate Community Resources item in February 2018.

(b) Account No. C5142 - Brookdale/Underwood Intersection. Budget $144,000. Available

$48,000. This saving resulted from negotiations with City of Nedlands on a Cambridge contribution towards a boundary road project.

(c) Account No. C5307 - Harborne Street - Dodd to Powis turning lane. Budget $100,000.

Available $40,000. Savings identified following detailed design. Need only $7,000 to make up $85,000.



Once Council approval has been granted, the intent would be to procure the following in individual packaged components:- 1. Supply and Construction of Toilet Facility 2. Sewer pump station installation and new sewer main 3. Electrical Works; and 4 Hydraulic Works


The construction of new toilets at Lake Monger Reserve supports a number of goals within the Town's Strategic Community Plan, "Our Community Life" specifically. The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027:- Our Community Life Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve the places where community groups can interact. Strategy 3.3: Encourage Activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: The Town has undertaken community consultation as part of the Draft Activity Lake Monger Activity Plan. The initial outcomes were presented to Council in September 2017 (CR17.144). Option 2 of the location of the new toilet facility is within the Draft Lake Monger Activity Plan (Number 6 of Area 1), near an expanded playground facility in the North-West corner of Lake Monger Reserve and received generally favourable response (78% of responses were supportive or very supportive of this idea). OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Responsible Manager Peter Maloney, Manager - Infrastructure Asset Contributors Cam Robbins, Director - Community Development

ATTACHMENTS: Nil. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the project budget for the construction of a new toilet block at Lake Monger Reserve be

increased by $85,000 from $150,000 to $235,000;



(ii) funding of the $85,000 be re-allocated from other completed capital works:- Budget Item - Rutter Park Toilet $30,000 Budget Item - Brookdale/Underwood Intersection $48,000 Budget Item - Harborne Street - Dodd to Powis turning lane $7,000 (iii) construction of the Lake Monger toilet proceed at location Option 2. Committee Meeting 19 February 2018 During discussion, Cr Bradley suggested that Option 4 should be the preferred option. Amendment Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Mayor Shannon That clause (iii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (iii) construction of the Lake Monger toilet proceed at location Option 4. Discussion ensued. Cr McAllister suggested that the item be deferred for one month to be considered with the Lake Monger Activity Plan. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the item relating to the construction of a new toilet block at Lake Monger Reserve be deferred to the March Committee meeting. Carried 9/0



CR18.6 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETINGS - 14 DECEMBER 2017 AND 25 JANUARY 2018

SUMMARY: To report on items considered by the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) at meetings conducted on 14 December 2017 and 25 January 2018 that relate to the Town of Cambridge operations and membership of MRC. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND: The purpose of the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) is to provide waste disposal facilities at least for its seven member councils within the Mindarie Region. The MRC generally meets on six or seven occasions each year for Ordinary meetings and holds special meetings when required. Strategy Workshops are also programmed. The schedule of meetings is agreed at the December meeting each year. DETAILS: MEETING - 14 DECEMBER 2017 (HELD AT VICTORIA PARK) Item 1 - MRC Ordinary Council Meetings and Workshops Strategy In setting the dates for the 2018 Ordinary Council Meetings (OCMs) consideration has been given to the following:- • The Tamala Park Regional Council meeting dates for 2018. • The WALGA Metropolitan Zone meeting dates for 2018. • Availability of Member Councils Chambers.



In addition to the above, two Strategy Workshops are included in the meeting schedule. These workshops are important as they provide the Councillors, member council CEO's and representatives on the Strategic Working Group and MRC management an opportunity to review and discuss the MRC's strategic direction. Program of Meetings Given the above, the approved schedule of OCMs for 2018, commencing at 6.00 pm is as follows:- • Ordinary Council Meeting 25 January 2018 (City of Joondalup) • Ordinary Council Meeting 22 March 2018 (City of Wanneroo) • Ordinary Council Meeting 31 May 2018 (City of Stirling) • Ordinary Council Meeting 5 July 2018 (City of Vincent) • Ordinary Council Meeting 6 September 2018 (City of Perth) • Ordinary Council Meeting 25 October 2018 (Town of Victoria Park) • Ordinary Council Meeting 6 December 2018 (Town of Cambridge) The Strategy Workshops for 2018 will be held directly after the following OCMs:- • 22 March 2018 • 6 September 2018 The MRC has in the past called a Special Council Meeting in June/July to obtain a timely approval of its Budget. The proposed schedule has included a seventh meeting to be held on 5 July 2018 to accommodate the Budget and any other items that require Councils consideration at that time. Item 2 - Protection of Buffer Required By Mindarie Regional Council to Manage Landfill The report is seeking approval for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) to approach:- 1. The owners of Tamala Park to:

(a) lodge a new Deposited Plan (refer Attachment 2) with Landgate to protect the MRC's interest in an area of land, currently leased to the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC), required by the MRC as a buffer zone to remediate any migrating gas and/or contaminated groundwater (leachate); and

(b) agree to amending the current Lease to protect the interest referred to in 1 (a).

2. The TPRC to develop a sub-lease or other appropriate legal arrangement providing

control of the Deposited Plan area to the MRC until such time as it can obtain a Certificate on Contamination Audit from a Contaminated Site Auditor accredited by the Contaminated Sites Branch (CSB) of the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER).



BACKGROUND: The MRC has entered into a Deed of Extension, Variation and Partial Surrender of Lease with the Cities of Wanneroo, Joondalup, Stirling, Vincent and Perth and the Towns of Cambridge and Victoria Park (the Owners) over part of Lot 9023 on Deposited Plan 54969 for waste management purposes including a Recycling Centre, Transfer Station and Landfill. This area is commonly referred to as the Tamala Park Waste Management Facility (Leased Area). The MRC commenced groundwater monitoring prior to the commencement of landfilling on the site and has continued to do so on a bi-annual basis since then. In 2007 elevated contaminants of concern were registered with the CSB in accordance with the Contaminated Sites Act 2006. The MRC Leased Area was raised as a "Deposited Plan for Interest Purposes Only" (DP-IPO) with the CSB and a memorial was placed on the title classifying the Deposited Area as "Possibly Contaminated - Investigation Required" (PC-IR). Item 3 - Resource Recovery Facility - Energy from Waste - Award of Tender This was a confidential item which was deferred at the previous meeting held on 9 November 2017. Deferral was again recommended in order to review legal advice on contract documentation. The Council decision on this matter was:- That the Council resolves NOT to award any Tender for the Resource Recovery Facility (Tender Request Number 2016/05) and that the current valid Tenderers, Consortium of Hitachi Zosen Inova AG, New Energy Corporation Pty Ltd and Tribe Infrastructure Development Pty Ltd (HZI Consortium) and Phoenix Energy Australia Pty Ltd be advised of the Council's decision. Comment This decision by MRC now leaves the MRC with no long term plan for ongoing management of members waste. This position will be addressed by MRC in 2018 when reviewing its Strategic Direction. The current management options are:- 1. Tamala Park landfill. Forecast to cease operation 2024/25 as all available air space will be used up i.e. the tip is full. 2. Bio-Vision contract at Neerabup. This plant has a capacity of 100,000 tonnes per year

and has a contract until around 2029. Waste diversion is low at around 51% and the process is expensive.

3. Find an alternative landfill site - either owned or by contract arrangement. 4. Seek opportunities for disposal at Energy from Waste operations on a waste supply

agreement only. Item 4 - Energy from Waste Conference As the MRC Strategic Community Plan requires the MRC Council to manage and process waste, including Energy from Waste processes, an opportunity is available for MRC Councillors to attend a Conference on Energy from Waste in Ballarat, Victoria in February 2018. The MRC resolved to fund the costs of MRC Councillors wishing to attend this Conference.



MEETING 25 JANUARY 2018 - (HELD AT JOONDALUP) Item 1 - Mid Year Budget Review This report was to describe the financial position and performance of the organisation in relation to the adopted Budget and recommend changes that will reflect the anticipated outcomes for the remainder of the 2017/18 financial year. This will provide stakeholders with a view of the likely results of the Mindarie Regional Council’s (MRC) operations at the conclusion of the financial year. It is anticipated that the MRC will move from a forecast surplus of $1,034,325 to a forecast deficit of $1,800,747, a reduction of $2,835,072 (274%). This change is primarily as a result of the effects of reduced members tonnes to the MRC. It is anticipated that there will be an overall reduction in tonnes received by the MRC of 37,581 tonnes (11.8%). This reflects the decrease in member tonnes from 252,090 tonnes to 214,509 tonnes. As a consequence of the reduction in tonnes, the MRC is proposing to increase the members’ gate fee by $6 per tonne, from $174 per tonne to $180 per tonne (excl. GST), effective from 1 February 2018. This will result in a forecast deficit of $1.8 million which is to be funded through the Participants’ Surplus Reserve (PSR). Tonnage variation The reforecast tonnes are significantly below the originally budgeted tonnage estimates. The 11.8% or 37,581 tonne reduction in expected tonnes relates largely to the changes to their bulk verge collection systems made by the cities of Stirling and Wanneroo as can be seen from the table below. This is the primary driver of the $2.8 million negative impact on the profit and loss statement. Tonnes expected to be diverted to and received back from the Western Metropolitan Regional Council (WMRC) have been reduced by half, however there is no certainty that these tonnes will be required under the MRC’s agreement with the WMRC as the DiCOM plant is still not at full production. The delivery or non-delivery of these tonnes has no impact on the budget bottom line.

Budget Reforecast VarianceCambridge 7,700 7,250 (450)Joondalup 55,218 52,129 (3,089)Perth 13,600 13,000 (600)Stirling 74,116 50,701 (23,415)Victoria park 16,500 13,500 (3,000)Vincent 14,600 14,600 -Wanneroo 70,356 63,329 (7,027)

252,090 214,509 (37,581)

RRF Residue 48,700 48,700 -Non-members 16,400 16,400 -

65,100 65,100 -

317,190 279,609 (37,581) -11.80%

WMRC Residue 18,500 9,250 (9,250)

TONNAGES RECEIVED BY THE MRC 2017/2018



Comment: The increase of $6 per tonne will potentially increase the Town of Cambridge disposal costs for the remainder of the financial year by up to $18,000. There is no requirement to budget for this as the forecast disposal tonnages are likely to be down by 250 tonnes. Within the adopted Cambridge budget for 2017/18 this is a saving of $43,500. The MRC will use the Participants Reserve Surplus Reserve (PSR) to balance the 2017/18 budget and expect to recover this $1.8 million when setting fees for the 2018/19 budget. Forecast Impact on Budget 2018/19 Based on this information, MRC will review forecast tonnage to be supplied by its members. These tonnages will be critical in setting a waste disposal fee for 2018/19 with the following scenario possible:- • Base Rate $180/ tonne • Landfill Levy $ 5/ tonne (increase to $70/ tonne from 1.7.18) • Adjust for member tonnages $ 15/ tonne • Replace Participant Surplus Reserve $ 10/ tonne (Recoup $1.8 million from losses

2017/18) $210/ tonne

The budget rate for 2017/18 was $174/ tonne with MRC tonnage disposal of 6,450 for bins and 1,150 tonnes for other bulk verge waste. The Council budget can be further reviewed only when MRC have completed a more detailed review of member tonnages.


There are no Policy or Statutory implications related to this report.


There are financial implications related to this report. The MRC is to increase disposal fees from $174/tonne to $180/tonne from 1 February 2018. There is sufficient funds in the current budget to cover this increase. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027:- Our Natural Environment Goal 7: Council is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy 7.4: Minimise waste to landfill and increase recycling COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy 1.2.11. In accordance with the assessment criteria, no community engagement is required as this report is purely administrative in providing information to Council.



OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Responsible Manager N/A Contributors N/A

ATTACHMENTS: Nil. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Bradley That the report relating to items considered by Mindarie Regional Council at the meeting held on 14 December 2017 and 25 January 2018 be received. Carried 7/2 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and

Powell Against: Crs Bradley and Timmermanis



CR18.7 ANNUAL WASTE REPORT 2016 17

SUMMARY: The Town operates a waste management service for the Town's Ratepayers and Residents which is supported by a Waste Minimisation Officer. Many initiatives have now been in place for several years and this report summarises the activities from the 2016/2017 budget year and compares the results relevant to previous years. Overall the Town's waste tonnages collected and disposed have maintained a constant level but a significant reduction has been experienced in disposal of waste materials to landfill operations together with increased green waste collections. In 2016/2017, Council achieved a milestone by diverting for the first time over 50% of collected bin materials and achieving 50.2% diversion rate. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND: The Town has a population of 28,158 (ABS, 2016) and provides waste and recycling services to approximately 10,500 residential households and commercial properties. The Town's comprehensive waste and recycling service is designed to make it easy for residents to conserve natural resources and reduce waste destined for landfill. The Town has continued to encourage residents to aim for Maximum Recovery with an overall goal of increasing recycling rates through the kerbside 3 bin collection system to achieve the Waste Authority's target of 65% waste diverted from landfill by 2020.

The Town's standard bin system includes a 120L landfill bin (red lid) and up to two 240L and/or 360L recycling bins (yellow lid) with an option to add a 240L garden/green waste bin (lime green lid) for an additional charge. All other extra bin services attract a fee.



DETAILS: The following collection programs summarise the activities achieved during the 2016/2017 budget year. Kerbside Collections Currently the Town collects the following number of bins:

Waste Stream No. of bins in service

Collection Frequency

General Waste (Red bin) 10,889* Weekly

Recycling (Yellow bin) 12,978* Fortnightly

Green Waste (Lime Green bin)

7,339* Fortnightly

*Information correct at 31 December 2017. A total of 12,117 tonnes of kerbside waste and recycling material was collected in 2016/17 which was a decrease of 703 tonnes when compared to the 2015/16 budget period. It is also noted the Green waste tonnages continue to increase while recycling tonnages remain stable. It is also noted since the introduction of the Green waste bin the collections of General waste since 2012/13 have fallen by 21% or 1,602 tonnes mostly at the expense of green wastes.

Recycling Collection (Tonnes) Yellow

Green Waste

Collection (Tonnes)

General Waste Collection (Tonnes)

RED

Total Collection (Tonnes)

2009/2010 3,494 - 9,416 12,910 2010/2011 3,731 - 8,750 12,481 2011/2012 3,550 532 8,588 12,670 2012/2013 3,543 1,438 7,639 12,620 2013/2014 3,649 1,797 7,210 12,656 2014/2015 3,726 2,148 6,852 12,726 2015/2016 3,803 2,326 6,691 12,820 2016/2017 3,598 2,482 6,037 12,117



In 2016/17, the Town achieved a milestone of disposing less waste to landfill with a diversion rate of 50.2% as illustrated below. This is line with the Waste Authority's 2015 target of 50% waste diverted from landfill. The Waste Authority's target for 2020 is 65% diversion.

6,037.

3,598.

2,482.

-

1,000.00

2,000.00

3,000.00

4,000.00

5,000.00

6,000.00

7,000.00

General Waste Recycling Greenwaste

Tonn

es

Waste Stream

Quantity of kerbside waste and recycling collected 2016/17

General Waste

Recycling

Greenwaste

49.8%

29.7%

20.5%

Percentage kerbside waste and recyling 2016-2017

General Waste

Recycling

Greenwaste

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

Perc

enta

ge

Year

Waste and Recycling percentages per year

% Recycle

% Green

% Waste

% Landfill diversion rate



Bulk Verge Collection The Town offers residents two bulk verge collection per year in Autumn and Spring. The following quantities of material were collected from the verge in 2016/17.

Material Type Quantity Junk 1,043 tonnes

Green waste 944 tonnes Metal 60 tonnes

Waste Motor oil 1,186 Litres Batteries 66 units

Over the last three years, bulk verge junk collections have been consistent with between 1,043 to 1,156 tonnes per financial year collected. This material is processed at the Mindarie Regional Council Tamala Park landfill site. Green waste collections over the last three years have been consistent with between 955 to 1,150 tonnes collected per financial year. This material is processed at the Lemnos Street facility and is shredded. Bulk verge collections have been consistently with between 1,988 to 2,208 tonnes per financial year collected. Drop-off Days The Town hosted two free E-waste drop-off events for residents in September 2016 and March 2017. A combined total of 17 tonnes of electronic waste was collected and diverted from landfill. Items were sent to Victoria for recovery and disposal, ensuring valuable parts were recycled. The Town also held two Charity Clothing Drop-Off Days in June 2016 and April 2017. The participating charities - Vinnies, Salvos, Anglicare, Spine & Limb and Good Sammy’s collected a total of 11 tonnes of clothes, textiles and shoes was collected for charity. The events were well received by both residents and the participating charities. On Demand Mattress Collection The Town offers residents weekly on-demand mattress collection service. This service enables residents to book in a mattress recycling collection from their verge for no charge. The Town collected 1,412 mattresses which did not end up in landfill during 2016/2017 which is an increase of 340 mattresses from the previous financial year. Approximately 56 tonnes in weight was diverted from landfill saving $9,744 in disposal fees at $174 per tonne. The mattresses are deconstructed and materials repurposed. Additional Recycling at Christmas For the past 5 years, the Town has provided residents with 3 weeks in a row of recycling over the Christmas period to assist in the additional waste generated through the holidays. The program has been well received by residents and contributed to a 5.5% increase in recycling for the month of December 2016. Recycling Stations In September 2015, the Town commissioned 4 new portable recycle stations for items that should not be placed in the recycling bin.



The stations are available for use at the following locations:- • Town of Cambridge Administration • Cambridge Library • Wembley Community Centre • Bold Park Aquatic Residents can dispose of old mobile phones, batteries, fluorescent tubes, light globes, and printer cartridges at the stations.

The following quantity of materials was collected in 2016/17:-

Waste Stream Quantity Mobile phones 0.141 tonnes

Batteries 1.968 tonnes Lights 0.375 tonnes

Printer Cartridges 0.221 tonnes

Garage Sale Trail On Saturday 22 October 2016, the Town hosted the popular Lake Monger Market for the third year at the Powis Street end of Lake Monger Reserve. The event is run as part of the national Garage Sale Trail, which encourages people across Australia to "Buy, Sell, Reuse and Meet the Locals" while reducing the amount of unwanted items that go to landfill. Approximately 120 stall holders attended the event with an estimated attendance of over 3,000 people. The event had a great community atmosphere. Lake Monger Market 2016 was a great success and earned the Town the Best Council Sale award from 153 Councils across the country. It was an excellent platform for promoting the Town's waste and sustainability messages and provided an ideal opportunity for the community to come together and enjoy a fun day out. The event improves residents understanding of waste and sustainability issues and aids in building a stronger community. This event was also held in October 2017.



Better Bins Campaign The Town continues to implement the three bin kerbside collection system. Implementation of the Better Bins program has been predominantly funded by the Waste Authority and the program was finalised in December 2017. The program comprised the following three phases:- Phase 1: Red Lid Exchange of 120L and 240L Waste Mobile Garbage Bin. The red lid exchange programme commenced in July 2016 and was completed in December 2016. All green lidded general waste mobile garbage bins (120L and 240L) in the Town were exchanged for a red lid which follows the Australian Standard 4123.7 - 2006 Mobile Waste Containers - Colours, markings and designation requirements. A total of 1,945 mobile garbage bin lids were exchanged.

Phase 2: 360L Mobile Recycling Bin: Upgrade of bins During February 2017 an audit was conducted on residential properties that were presenting full or overflowing 240L mobile recycling bins. A total of 396 bins were identified as overflowing. A bin tag was affixed to each bin encouraging the resident to upgrade to a larger recycling bin. To date there has been a 10% increase in the upgrading of recycling bins.

Phase 3: Green Waste Bin Promotion The Town continues to promote the use of a green waste bin for garden waste. The cost of this service for 2016/17 was $65/year. This cost for 2017/18 has decreased to $55/year as a result of a reduced contractor collection rate. Waste and Recycling Audit - General Waste ( RED LID BIN ) This program was an initiative of the Mindarie Regional Council. The program was funded and conducted in all seven MRC member regions in order to obtain a regional profile of waste materials in all MRC council's bins. It is proposed a second audit in summer 2018 of all MRC Councils be completed. On 7 September 2017 approximately five tonne of waste from the red lid bin was collected from residential properties in the Wembley. The material was delivered to the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council where staff from Mindarie Regional Council carried out the waste audit. Of this five tonne, 3.35 tonne (70.9%) was categorised as non-recyclables and 1.37 tonne (29.1%) was categorised as recyclables. The non-recyclable contents of the red bin comprised of:- • Organics - 43.00%; • Textiles - 4.12%; • Earth - 11.10%; • Medical - 0.25%; • Pathogenic (nappies/sanitary/hygiene) - 7.33%; • Hazardous - 2.54%; • Other (computer/electrical equipment, wax, rope) - 1.18%; and • Miscellaneous - 1.39%



+ The recyclable contents of the red bin comprised of:- • Paper - 7.72%; • Cardboard - 4.48%; • Plastic - 10.1%; • Glass (Brown, clear, green) - 2.16%; • Ferrous metal (Steel cans/aerosols) - 1.77%; and • Non-ferrous metal (Aluminium cans, aluminium foil) - 2.82%.

The waste minimisation team will now use this data and focus on key recycling messages to reduce the amount of paper, plastics and other recyclables in the red waste bin. Waste and Recycling Audit - Recycling Waste (YELLOW LID BIN) On 14 September 2017, the Town's waste and recycling contractors (Suez) carried out an audit of recycling bins within the Wembley. In total, 122 recycling bins were collected totalling 1.54 tonne of material and the contents deposited at Suez Material Resource Recovery Facility in Bibra Lake. The material was sorted into different recyclable waste streams, photographed and weighed on digital scales. The contents of the yellow recycling bin included:-

43

4.12 11.1

0.25 7.33

2.54 1.18 1.39

0

10

20

30

40

50

Organics Textiles Earth Medical Pathogenic Hazardous Other Misc

Perc

enta

ge

Waste Stream

Percentage non-recyclables in red lid bin

7.72 4.48

10.1

2.16 1.77 2.82 0

5

10

15

Paper Cardboard Plastic Glass Ferrous Non Ferrous

Perc

enta

ge

Waste Stream

Percentage recyclables in red lid bin



• Aluminium cans - 0.51%; • Steel cans - 0.99%; • Glass - 27.06%; • Newspaper - 29.24%; • Cardboard/ Mixed paper - 18.34%; • Plastics - 7.87%; and • Other waste - 15.97%

Other waste included bagged recyclables, bagged general waste, textiles, timber, suitcase, plastic sheeting

Waste Education Campaign Following on from the results of the waste and recycling audits, a revised waste education campaign is being developed. The campaign will focus on encouraging the correct segregation of materials into the 3 Bin system to maximise recycling and minimise contamination. The first step is the development of an A-Z Waste and Recycling Guide which are now available on the Town's website. The annual waste and recycling guide is distributed to each residential property within the Town in early December each year. Other areas the campaign will focus on include:- • consideration of a drop-off day for household hazardous waste; • use of decals on waste collection vehicles; • review of bulk verge collection system; • developing waste guidelines for multi-unit developments; and • educating architects on better and more efficient waste and recycling systems in multi-

unit developments. This includes use of waste compounds onsite and having no bins stored on verges for collection. Use of waste chutes in multi residential and commercial developments is also encouraged.

0.51 0.99 27.06 29.24 18.34 7.87 15.97 0

10203040

Perc

enta

ge

Waste Stream

Percentage recyclables & non recyclables in yellow bin



Collection History - 1996 to 2016 The following table summarises waste collection statistics since 1996/97.


There are no Policy or Statutory implications related to this report.






The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027:- Our Natural Environment Goal 7: Council is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy 7.4: Minimise waste to landfill and increase recycling COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy 1.2.11. In accordance with the assessment criteria, no community engagement is required as this report is purely administrative in providing information to Council. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Responsible Manager Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Contributors Gráinne Whelan, Waste Minimisation Officer

ATTACHMENTS: Nil. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the Annual Waste Report 2016 - 2017 be received. Carried 9/0



CR18.8 CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY CUSTOMER SURVEY 2017

SUMMARY:

To advise Council of the results of the 2017 Cambridge Library Customer Survey. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The Cambridge Library conducts a customer survey every two years as part of its commitment to continuous improvement. The last survey was conducted in 2014 with the 2016 survey being deferred due to operational and staffing issues. The eighth Cambridge Library customer survey was conducted throughout November and December 2017. The survey sought member feedback on current services and customer input on service development. The survey was advertised in the POST newspaper, on the Library and Town's Facebook pages and the Library and Town website. Customers had the option to complete the survey in hardcopy format at the library or online via the Library website. As well as the general customer survey, separate short surveys on Story Time and Baby Rhyme Time were available as these programs are targeted at a specific audience.

DETAILS:

1. Respondents 194 responses were received to the survey, with 98% of respondents a member of the Library. 75% of respondents were female and 47% (or 91 respondents) were 60 or over. The majority of Library membership in the 0 to 14 and 40 to 49 age groups, and 58% are female.



Chart 1 - How old are you?

2. Service The response to satisfaction with services was very positive with 87% of customers responding with excellent or good in the areas of customer service, collections 84%, facilities 92% and overall satisfaction with the library service at 93%.

Chart 2 - How would you rate each of the following library services?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-14 15 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 andover

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

Age Groups

Age Groups of Survey Respondents

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

Rating of Library Services

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don't Know, N/A



Lower results with responses of excellent or good were received in online services 60%, library policies 48%, computers and printers 52% and internet access 51%. In response to this, staff will be more proactive in assisting and educating customers particularly in the area of digital services. The 51% response of excellent or good with the Inter Library Loans (ILLs) system was expected. The ILLs system is a service coordinated by the State Library of WA and is used to locate and borrow resources for our customers from the state-wide public library collection that are not available at Cambridge Library. In July 2017, Public Libraries Western Australia (PLWA), in conjunction with the State Library of Western Australia (SLWA), commenced a 6-month review of the state-wide ILLs system. As part of this review, a number of restrictions were put in place including limiting customers to 12 Inter Library Loan requests per year; no lending of Adult Fiction purchased within the last 12 months and a fee of $16.50 imposed on Inter Library Loans sourced outside the public Library network. 3. Usage Patterns 47% of respondents visit the Library weekly. Since 2012, the trend has been monthly, in line with the 4-week lending period. The increased frequency of visits to weekly usage indicates the success of the work done in this area, supporting the trend away from focusing solely on the traditional lending services to developing the Library further as a community hub and meeting space.

Chart 3 - On average, how often do you visit the Library?

* Introduction of fines, extended loan periods and increase in item numbers

Whilst borrowing continues to be a high priority for customers, with 94% of respondents placing this as very important or important value, there is also a strong emphasis on in-house services such as reference services 60%, Internet 54%, Inter Library Loans 70%, online services 67%, and newspapers and magazines 51%.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2008 2010 * 2012 2014 2017

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

pond

ents

Year of Survey

Usage patterns

More than once a week

Weekly

Fortnightly

Monthly

Seldom

Not Stated



The majority of additional comments from respondents about what they value most about the service were about the collection and appreciation of the range of stock available. Positive comments were also received about the Library space, the location and convenience of the library, the range of services available and the high standard of customer service.

Chart 4 - How important is each of the following library services to you?

4. Events 60% of respondents indicated they find out about programs and events through advertising in the Library followed by 37% finding out through the Library website. Increased external advertising will be a priority including the introduction of a library newsletter. 5. Borrowing Patterns Respondents could select more than one response to the type of items that they could borrow. The majority selected Fiction, followed by Non-Fiction and DVDs.

Chart 5 - What type of items do you usually borrow?

020406080

100120140160

Importance of Library Services

Very Important

Important

Somewhat Important

Not Important

Don't know / N A



Comments from customers indicate that they would like more books and DVDs added to the collection and further work is planned in reviewing the collections. Purchase of new Library Management Software is proposed for 2018/19 and this will allow for better reporting, analysis and management of the collection. A number of comments were received from customers requesting an increase to the size and range of the DVD collection, the introduction of video streaming platform Kanopy to Cambridge Library customers in the coming months will assist in responding to this demand. Kanopy is a video streaming platform for public libraries, delivering one of the largest collections of indie films, classic cinema, festival and educational documentaries and movies. 6. Opening Hours The response to satisfaction with opening hours remains consistent with previous years with an 84% satisfaction rate. There were some requests for longer opening hours, including 10 responses requesting Sunday opening. However, the high satisfaction rate and consistent response to this question since 2006 doesn’t support a change in hours. The Library is open a total of 56 hours per week, which is in line with the weekly opening hours of surrounding libraries including the Western Suburbs Libraries. Cambridge Library offers all day Saturday opening, which a number of surrounding libraries do not.

Chart 6 - Are you satisfied with the existing opening hours of the Library?

7. Improvements Most comments on improvement to the service were about specific services e.g. increasing the frequency of Baby Rhyme Time, increasing collections, removing restrictions like fines and renewal periods. These issues will be addressed through the marketing of services, and training of staff. Requests for improvements to the catalogue and online services will be addressed through the proposed procurement of a new Library Management System.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2017

Pere

cent

ae o

f Res

popo

nden

ts

Years surveyed

Satisfaction with Opening Hours

Yes

No



8. Shopping Centre 98% of respondents often use the shopping centre when visiting the Library, an increase from the 89% from the previous survey. Relationships continue to develop with shopping centre management, with staff from both facilities keen to continue to partner on events and displays to further engage the community. 9. Story Time Story Time is an early literacy program aimed at 3 to 5-year olds. Sessions are held twice a week and during 2016/17, 74 sessions were held with 4 018 children and parents attending. As this program is aimed at a specific audience, the response to the Story Time survey was smaller. There were 95 respondents, with most answering for more than one child attending the sessions. Most children were aged 3-years old (40%) with 64% attending a session weekly.

Chart 7 - How old is your child?

Chart 8 - How often do you come to Story Time?

32% enjoyed the craft most followed by 20% enjoying the stories.

0 10 20 30 40 50

0 years

1 year

2 years

3 years

4 years

5 years

6 years

Age of children attending Story Time

Number attending

64% 10%

12%

8% 6%

Frequency of Story Time attendance

Weekly

Fortnightly

Monthly

Rarely

First time today



The craft activity is an important aspect of the Story Time session and is related to the stories of the session. It creates the opportunity for the children to interact with each other and their parents as well as laying the foundations for developing a positive library experience for the child into the future.

Chart 9 - What does your child enjoy most about Story Time?

The satisfaction rate with Story Time was positive with 79% responding very satisfactory. 77% of respondents live in the 6014 (Jolimont, Floreat, Wembley), 6015 (City Beach) or 6018 (Doubleview, Innaloo, Churchlands, Karrinyup, Gwelup, Woodlands) postcode. All additional comments received were very positive, with many specifically mentioning their appreciation of the Youth Services Librarian. 10. Baby Rhyme Time Baby Rhyme Time is an early literacy programme aimed at 0 to 2-year olds. The sessions are held monthly and during 2016/17 11 sessions were run, with 432 babies and parents attending. The response to the Baby Rhyme Time survey was smaller with 23 respondents. 63% of children attending were aged between 1 and 2 years old with the majority of 61% enjoying the songs the most.

Chart 10 - How old is your baby?

20%

18%

23%

32%

7%

Most enjoyed Story Time activities

Stories

Rhymes

Songs

Craft

Meeting other children

02468

10121416

0-12 months 12-24 Months 24 -32 Months

Num

ber o

f Chi

ldre

n

Age of Children

Age of children attending Rhyme Time



Chart 11- What does your child enjoy most about Baby Rhyme Time?

48% attended a session rarely which is likely due to the fact that most respondents commented that they would like sessions to be more frequent.

Chart 12 - How often do you come to Baby Rhyme Time?

There was a satisfaction rating of 50% very good and 50% satisfactory. 65% of respondents live in the 6014 (Jolimont, Floreat, Wembley) postcode.

The majority of comments were that the sessions should be held more frequently. The early literacy programs and staff workflows will be reviewed to assess the feasibility of increasing sessions.

10%

29%

61%

Favourite Rhyme Time Activities

Stories

Rhymes

Songs

28%

48%

24%

Frequency of attendence

Monthly

Rarely

First Time Today




There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. The biennial survey was conducted in house with costs absorbed within the normal operating budget.


The 2017 Cambridge Library Customer survey supports a number of priority areas and goals in the Town's 2017/2027 Community Strategic Community Plan, specifically: Our Community Life Goal 3: An Active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve the places where community groups can interact Strategy 3.3: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities Our Council Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.2: Keep the community informed and consult on local matters that affect them Goal 11: A strong performing local government Strategy 11.5: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community


In accordance with Policy number 1.2.11, the community has been consulted through the 2017 Cambridge Library Customer Survey. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Responsible Manager Priya Narula, Manager Library Services Contributors Helen Balfour, Digital and Strategic Projects Librarian

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2017 Cambridge Library Customer Survey COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the 2017 Cambridge Library Customer Survey report be received.



Amendment Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (ii) a report be prepared regarding the Library Service for April 2018 regarding:

• the cost of opening the library on Sundays using a skeleton staff from 10am to 4pm; and

• the cost of providing a study area in the Boulevard Centre.

Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) the 2017 Cambridge Library Customer Survey report be received; (ii) a report be prepared regarding the Library Service for April 2018 regarding:

• the cost of opening the library on Sundays using a skeleton staff from 10am to 4pm; and

• the cost of providing a study area in the Boulevard Centre. Carried 9/0



CR18.9 FLOREAT SALVATION ARMY HOMELESS PROJECT

SUMMARY:

The Floreat Salvation Army has been working towards reducing homelessness in the Western Suburbs through connecting with the local councils within the Western Suburbs through a collaborative outreach program called the "Hub." AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The issue of homelessness and people sleeping rough is increasing in the Western Suburbs, with supporting evidence from The Salvation Army Floreat. To address this, a number of Western Suburb Councils (Cambridge, Subiaco, Nedlands, Cottesloe, Claremont, and Peppermint Grove), the Salvation Army and Wembley Police met in late 2016 to discuss what could be done as a collective to assist those living on the streets. The Salvation Army put together a two-stage project trial. 'Stage One' was designed to confirm the extent of homelessness in the Western Suburbs and incorporated the following: • Western Suburbs Councils provided the Salvation Army with known locations of people

sleeping rough prior to 20 September 2016. • Floreat Salvation Army started a food access program for the homeless one night a

week, through using a specialist equipment van from their 'Doorways Perth' feeding program.

• Floreat Salvation Army Major Lyn Jones, together with volunteers, drove the streets of the Western Suburbs offering food to the homeless.

• Stage One continued for six months and was evaluated after this time. • Stage One required NO financial commitment from Councils. The evaluation of 'Stage-One' found that although there were known locations of people sleeping rough throughout the Western Suburbs, the Salvation Army found it difficult to locate them on a regular basis as they are so transient in nature.



In Stage Two, the Floreat Salvation Army proceeded with a different approach by utilising an already existing Salvation Army service at Employment Plus in Osborne Park and bringing a hot meal weekly to the unemployed and homeless attending that service. This proved very successful, with up to 20 people attending the service. The catchment area for Employment Plus clients encompasses the Western Suburbs. Stage-Two of the project continued for six months and required NO financial contribution from Councils.

DETAILS:

As a result of the trial Floreat Salvation Army and the representatives from the respective Western Suburbs Councils have since met regularly and have proposed a collaborative project, an outreach program called "The Hub". The Salvation Army Floreat outreach 'The Hub' will undertake: 1. Provision of an outreach service making food and resources available to people in need,

as required. 2. Provision of a weekly lunch for the homeless and unemployed at Employment Plus

Osborne Park. 3. Provision of showers, clothes and emergency food at the Salvation Army Floreat to those

in need. 4. Response to referrals from the local councils identifying people in need, providing ample

or appropriate referral to more appropriate agencies. To provide these services, WESROC (Western Suburb Councils) from an Administration level have supported the program and are now via their Councils seeking support. The Salvation Army Floreat will provide annual reports to all Councils on how many individuals have accessed the service, general feedback and associated costs. In addition, a Memorandum of Understanding between the Salvation Army and the Western Suburb Councils outlining the 'Hub' undertakings will also be documented.




The required $1,000 would be included in the 2018/2019 Draft Community Safety Budget. Subject to Floreat Salvation Army providing biannual reports on the program and associated expenditure, the Town's contribution may continue for a further two years (2019/2020 and 2020/2021).




Financial support towards the Salvation Army outreach program, 'The Hub', supports a number of Goals and Strategies of the Town 2017-2027 Strategy Community Plan, specifically: Our Community Life Goal 3: An Active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.4: Create and maintain safe environments Our Council Goal 12: Advocacy for the Community Strategy 12.1: Foster key relationships with government and other stakeholders


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Responsible Manager Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development Contributors Claire Turnbull, Community Safety Officer ATTACHMENT: Nil FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 19 February 2018) At the Community and Resources Committee held on 19 February 2018 additional information on CR18.9, Floreat Salvation Army Homeless Project was requested. Information was requested in relation to how many people that have the weekly lunch at the Employment Osborne Park offices reside within the Town of Cambridge. Contact was made with the Floreat Salvation Army who advised that those statistics were not available as they are dealing with transient people with no fixed address. COUNCIL DECISION:

(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the Floreat Salvation Army Homeless Project, the "Hub" be supported for a 3 year period subject to the continual collaborative support from the other Western Suburb Councils. Carried 9/0



CR18.10 PERRY LAKES WATER - AWARD OF CONSULTANCY SERVICES RFT25- 17 UPDATED REPORT

SUMMARY:

Tenders were called to undertake consultancy services to complete investigations into the selected options for improving water levels at Perry Lakes, and subject to further Council approvals, design and document the preferred option. Council, at its meeting held on 28 November 2017, decided to defer a decision on this matter for three months. Some new information has come to the attention of the Town which is pertinent, however, does not significantly change the scope of the study and, as such, can be considered within the study scope. It is recommended that the tender be awarded to Managed Recharge at a tender sum of $255,570 plus GST. It is also recommended that a revised project budget of $310,000 is adopted. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 28 November 2017, Council considered a report (CR17.163) regarding this matter and decided that the tender RFT25-17 Perry Lakes Water Study be deferred to the February 2018 Council meeting. DETAILS:

New Information Provided to the Town Immediately prior to the Council meeting of 28 November 2017, the Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and Director Projects met with a Mr Barry Carbon who is a retired officer from the CSIRO and ex head of the EPA in Western Australia. He furnished the Town with some reports from 1988 and proposed that the way to manage water levels in Perry Lakes was through 'topping up' the lakes rather than attempting to restore the groundwater table to higher levels through localised infiltration works using treated waste water.



The scope of the proposed Perry Lakes Study included, as early works, that all known reports would be reviewed by the Consultant as an aid in them forming an opinion as to the preferred methodology of improving lake levels. Analysis The recommended consultant for this study has had a cursory review of the reports in question and believes that they should be considered as part of the study. It is noted that other eminent professionals from the CSIRO have supported the waste water scheme on the basis of trials conducted in recent years in Floreat. The Stage 1 works of the consultancy project would include a report to the Town of the findings of the literature search and review. The recommended consultant for this study confirms that the tender sum can include the full review of these reports. Program The Perry Lakes Water Study has been broken into three stages: • review the three design options, undertake sufficient work to determine which options are

no longer viable - 4 months; • undertake on site drilling and modelling to ascertain how the lakes and aquifer interact

and water levels. This would also include some community consultation and information sessions - 6 months; and

• complete all risk assessments, detail design and documentation of preferred solution and regulatory approvals submissions - 8 months.

It is noted that the Town can suspend or terminate the study at any time. Budget The initial budget of $269,000 for this project was determined prior to the tenders being known for this major work. The Consultant has confirmed that their tender offer is still valid. Accordingly, a revised budget, in accordance with the Council Decision of July 2017 can now be estimated: This proposed Consultancy: $ 255,570 Tendering Expenses: $ 1,140 Internal project management $ 20,000 (initial estimate) Allowance for drilling $ 20,000 (subject to detail scope and quotation) Project Contingency: $ 13,290 Total Estimate Budget $ 310,000 Whilst it is noted that the predominate costs of the project will span 2017/2018 and 2018/19, the funding source is not rates related and the 2018/2019 draft Budget will identify the remaining funding required as carry forward works with any new funding needs.


Any proposed solution for improving water levels in Perry Lakes will require compliance with relevant Health, Environmental and Planning Regulations and Statutes, which would be undertaken at the appropriate juncture.




A Budget of $269,000 was approved for the design services funded from the Area Improvement Reserve. To date, $1,140 has been spent on tendering. It is recommended that the revised budget of $310,000 is adopted noting that on a cashflow basis, spending will extend into the 2018/2019 financial year. This will require approval of unbudgeted expenditure.


Progression of underground power programs support the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017/2027:- Our Community Life Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy; and Strategy 2.1: Focus on activating our major public open spaces

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: In accordance with Policy 1.2.11 Community Engagement, consideration of this report is purely administrative in nature and not requiring community engagement. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Brett Jackson, Director Projects Responsible Manager Not Applicable Contributors Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Tender Assessment Report (Confidential)

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That: - (i) tender RFT25-17 Perry Lakes Water Study be awarded to Managed Recharge at a

tender sum of $ 255,570 plus GST; and

(ii) a revised budget of $310,000 (ex GST) to fund the consultancy services and investigative works for Perry Lakes Water be approved as unbudgeted expenditure by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with section 6.8 of the Local Government Act with the funding to come from the Area Improvement Reserve from the proceeds of the Perry Lakes Estate development.

Committee Meeting 19 February 2018 That, in light of the decision made at the Special Council Meeting held on Tuesday 20 February 2018, it was agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination.



COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Bradley That the item relating to the tender RFT25-17 Perry Lakes Water Study be referred back to the March 2018 Community and Resources Committee. Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McAllister, Nelson, Powell and

Timmermanis Against: Cr McKerracher



CR18.11 UNDERGROUND POWER WEMBLEY WEST LEEDERVILLE WORKS AGREEMENT AND OUTCOMES OF PROPERTY OWNERS SURVEYS

SUMMARY:

Surveys were sent to 1,874 property owners in the Town of Cambridge to determine their support for underground power in the Wembley/West Leederville project area based on final proposed project costs per property. The survey closes on 16 February 2018 after the distribution of this report to the Community and Resources Committee. It is proposed to update this report prior to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 27 February 2018 once analysis of the results is completed. The survey outcomes will then allow Council to determine to proceed or otherwise the Round 6 SUPP projects. The draft Works Agreement with Western Power to undertake the project, if Council decides, is attached for information. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 28 November 2017, Council considered the matter of the budget and pricing across Wembley/West Leederville project areas (CR17.164 refers) and determined that (in part):

(i) the project budget of $10.9m be adopted for the provision of underground power in Wembley/West Leederville;

(ii) if the project proceeds, 50% of the project costs be provided from the total of

property owner contributions with the remaining 50% of the project costs funded by the Town from the Area Improvement Reserve;

(iii) a survey of property owners within the Wembley/West Leederville underground

power project be conducted to ascertain their support for the proposed charge for their relevant property and indicative preferred payment terms;

(iv) the survey brochure and form be provided to Council for endorsement prior to the survey commencing;



(v) the outcomes of the survey be considered by Council before a decision is made to

commit or otherwise to funding underground power within the Wembley/West Leederville project area;

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 19 December 2017, Council endorsed the survey brochure and survey form (CR17.184 refers) and consequently the survey commenced. DETAILS:

Survey Outcomes Survey cards, individualised for each property along with an explanatory brochure and reply paid envelope were posted on 5 January 2018 and were being received by property owners soon thereafter. Analysis of the survey results will be undertaken at the conclusion of the survey period ending on 16 February 2018 and this report will be updated in time for consideration at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 27 February 2018. It is intended that Council will be presented the survey results in the following format: Type of Property No of

Surveys Sent

Surveys Returned Returned Surveys - Support

Number % Number %

Single Residential 415

Multiple Residential 1,205

Non Residential 254

Total 1,874

Note that 23 properties within the project area were not included in the above survey as there is no charge proposed for them as these properties are on a local government boundary which means that the overhead lines remain in place (thus no network charge) and they have already paid for their underground connection (thus no connection charge). Discussion This section will be updated once the survey results are known. Financials The Town has previously decided to fund 50% of the project costs of a project budget of $10.9m (ie $5.45m). Works Agreement The Wembley/West Leederville project is different to the SUPP projects in Floreat in that Western Power treat the Wembley/West Leederville as a standard Customer Funded Works project. As such, their default position is that Western Power's Local Government Undergrounding Relocation Works Terms and Conditions apply. A copy of these terms and conditions is attached.




If a decision is made to proceed with underground power in Wembley/West Leederville, the recovery of the property owners' contributions will be undertaken as a service charge in accordance with s6.38 of the Local Government Act (1995). Pensioners and Seniors can access rebates and pensioner deferrals in accordance with the Rates and Charges (Rebates and Deferments) Act 1992.


The Town funding for the project if it proceeds will be funded from the Area Improvement Reserve from the proceeds of the Perry Lakes Development. Cash calls on the total of Town and Property Owner contributions will be made over the life of the project on a 2 monthly basis. Property Owners will not be required to start making payments to the Town until September 2018 with payment terms of up to 10 years being offered. The Town will manage the shortfall between timing of payments making up the Property Owner contribution to Western Power and receipt of payments to the Town from Property Owners.


Progression of underground power programs support the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017/2027:- OUR PLANNED NEIGHBOURHOODS Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the

character and responsive to future needs; Strategy 4.3 Make our neighbourhoods green and pleasant; and Action: Pursue underground power in the remaining areas of the Town, in partnership

with the State Government.


Property owners within the relevant project areas are being surveyed by the Town regarding underground power with cost information as it relates to them. This will provide an opportunity for gauging community support for the project. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Brett Jackson, Director Projects Responsible Manager Not Applicable Contributors Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Local Government Undergrounding Relocation Works Terms and Conditions




Recommendation to follow after analysis of survey results. FURTHER REPORT: Survey Outcomes The results of the survey as at 20 February 2018 are as follows:

Type No of Surveys Sent

Surveys Returned Returned Surveys - Support

Number % Number % Single Residential 415 214 52% 141 66% Multiple Residential 1205 507 42% 283 56% Non Residential 254 57 22% 36 63% Total 1874 778 41% 460 59%

Consistent with the surveys recently undertake in the Round 6 State Underground Power Program project areas, support for underground power is stronger from single residential property owners than multiple residential and non-residential property owners. The SUPP projects received a 66% support rate from returned surveys compared to 59% for this survey in Wembley/West Leederville. Works Agreement The Town has met with Western Power on the issue of potential ownership of the street lighting system and believes that an amendment to the Agreement is required with a clarification in Clause 12.1. If this cannot be resolved, the matter will be referred to Council. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That: (i) based on the majority support from respondents in the Wembley/West Leederville project

area that this project proceeds; (ii) subject to an amendment that provides a mechanism for the Town to own the streetlights,

the Western Power Local Government Undergrounding Relocation Works Terms and Conditions contract be endorsed by Council; and

(iii) the property owners in the Wembley/West Leederville project area be advised of this

decision to proceed.



Committee Meeting 19 February 2018 Prior to consideration of the item, Crs Carr, Everett and McAllister, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.24 pm. Amendment Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That clause (ii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (ii) subject to including an amendment to the contract to provide a mechanism for the Town

to own the streetlights, the Western Power Local Government Undergrounding Relocation Works Terms and Conditions contract be endorsed by Council;

Amendment carried 3/0 FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 19 February 2018) Western Power has considered the Town's request to amend the Wembley/West Leederville works agreement to provide a mechanism for the Town to own the street lights. They have drafted Clause 5 of the Annexure to the Terms and Conditions to deal with this. This Clause 5 is the same wording to a clause within the State Underground Power Program on the matter, which Council has previously agreed to. Council Meeting 27 February 2018 Prior to consideration of the item, Crs Carr, Everett and McAllister, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.11 pm. The nature of their interest is that Cr Carr owns two properties in the affected area. Cr Everett is the contractual owner of No. 2 Abbotsford Street. Cr McAllister owns a commercial and residential property in the affected area. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That: (i) based on the majority support from respondents in the Wembley/West Leederville

project area that this project proceeds; (ii) subject to including an amendment to the contract to provide a mechanism for the

Town to own the streetlights, the Western Power Local Government Undergrounding Relocation Works Terms and Conditions contract be endorsed by Council; and

(iii) the property owners in the Wembley/West Leederville project area be advised of

this decision to proceed. Carried 6/0 Crs Carr, Everett and McAllister returned to the meeting at 7.12 pm.



CR18.12 DOCUMENTS SEALED - FEBRUARY 2018

SUMMARY:

To advise Council of documents that have been affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







DETAILS:

There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of the Municipality to be placed on documents, however, Council Policy directs the type of documentation to which the seal may be affixed, and requires a subsequent report to Council. A schedule of documents affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge appears below:

Date Sealed Document Details Purpose No. Copies

22 Dec 2017 Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017.

This local law was adopted at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 17 Dec 2017.

1

22 Dec 2017 Town of Cambridge Private Property Amendment Local Law 2017.

This local law was adopted at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 28 Nov 2017.

1



22 Dec 2017 Town of Cambridge Waste Management Local Law 2017.

This local law was adopted at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 17 Dec 2017.

1

23 Jan 2018 Withdrawal of Caveat - 3 Kintyre Crescent Floreat.

Advised property sold and settlement on 9 Feb 2018, subject to the outstanding monies being paid to the Town.

1

30 Jan 2018 Withdrawal of Caveat(s) - 11 Balandi Way City Beach.

Dwelling constructed complies with Town requirements, and caveat no longer required.

1

7 Feb 2018

Funding Agreement - The State of Western Australia and Electricity Networks Corporation Trading as Western Power and Town of Cambridge

Floreat North as Part of the Underground Power Program Round Six.

3

7 Feb 2018


Floreat East as Part of the Underground Power Program Round Six.

3

7 Feb 2018


Floreat West - Floreat East as Part of the Underground Power Program Round Six.

3






Sealing of Council documents is consistent with the Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 priority area of Capacity to Deliver and goal of transparent, accountable governance.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Responsible Manager N/A Contributors Karen Exley-Mead PA to CEO



ATTACHMENTS:

Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to the documents as listed in the schedule as it appears in this report. Carried 9/0



CR18.13 REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 - SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SPORT AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

SUMMARY:

The Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) have commenced a review of the Local Government Act 1995. The review is to be undertaken in two phases, and the comment period on the first phase closes on 9th February 2018. This report and report attachment summarises the issues from the discussion paper and seeks the Council position on the eleven topics identified, such that the Council's positon can be put to the Department. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

On 20 June 2017, the Local Government Minister announced that the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) would commence a review of the Act. This is the first major review since the Act was introduced more than 20 years ago. In November 2017, the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) launched the review, commencing with industry and community workshops and a discussion paper for the first phase.

DETAILS:

It has been stated that a review of the Act is overdue by Government. Some parts of the Act restrict the ability of local governments to deliver services to the community. Other parts have not kept pace with modern technology and community expectations.



The review will introduce changes that will modernise the Act and identify ways to reduce red tape to ensure Western Australian communities benefit from efficient and effective Councils now and into the future. The review is being conducted in two phases:- Phase one of the review will focus on four key areas:

• Making information available online • Meeting public expectations for accountability • Meeting public expectations of ethics, standards and performance • Building capacity through reducing red tape*

Commencing in 2018, phase two will ensure local governments are positioned to deliver for the community by examining ways to:-

• Increasing participation in local government elections • Increasing community participation • Introducing an adaptive regulatory framework • Improving financial management • Building capacity through reducing red tape* • Other matters raised in phase 1 consultation *matter to be dealt with in both phases

The need to conduct the review in two phases is to ensure that those aspects of the Act that are clearly outdated are addressed sooner rather than later and have therefore been prioritised. Other matters that are more complicated and would require detailed consideration of the options available have been listed for consideration as part of phase two. The review will be supported by a reference group with representation from the Western Australian Local Government Association, Local Government Professionals Australia (WA), Western Australian Electoral Commission, Western Australian Council of Social Service, Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the WA Rangers Association. Local governments will be engaged throughout the review, with a discussion paper for the first phase released in November this year by the DLGSC, followed by a series of workshops. The discussion paper can be found here: DLGSCI Discussion Paper WALGA has also circulated its own discussion paper for comment. This was undertaken prior to the launch and therefore does not directly correlate to the phase one discussion paper. The WALGA document. The WALGA Discussion Paper incorporates a number of proposals that have either been raised through Zone or Sate Council meetings or are matters that have been highlighted by the sector as requiring attention. A hard copy of both discussion papers will be circulated with the agenda. The proposals have been transposed into the submission table shown at Attachment 1 and the proposed Council response added for consideration. Once confirmed, the responses will then be forwarded to the Department of Local Government before the closing date of 9 February 2018.



https://www.dlgc.wa.gov.au/Publications/Pages/Local-Government-Act-Review-Phase-1-Consultation-Paper.aspx






Goal 9: Transparent, Accountable Governance Strategy 9.1: Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Responsible Manager Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance and Contracts Contributors Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Discussion Paper Summary and Town of Cambridge Response 2. Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) - Discussion

Paper (hard copy) 3. WALGA Review of Local Government Act 1995 - Discussion Paper (hard copy)


That Council endorses the responses to the Local Government Act 1995 review discussion paper (as amended by Council) in Attachment 1 and the responses be forwarded to the Department of Local Government. COUNCIL DECISION (December 2017): (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) That the item relating to the Review of the Local Government Act 1995 be deferred to the February 2018 Council meeting. FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 18 December 2017)

Subsequent to the original report, the DLGSC amended the due date for submissions from 9th February 2018 to 9th March 2018. WALGA prepared a discussion paper in July 2017 with the aim of obtaining the sectors issues for the Act review. The State Council endorsed positions following sector input and Zone consideration at the December 2017 State Council meeting. The adopted WALGA position was circulated to Elected Members in January and Attachment One updated. Elected Members considered the topics raised in the DLGSC discussion paper at an Elected Member Forum this month and Attachment One has been updated to reflect the notes taken from that session.



ATTACHMENT: 1. Discussion Paper Summary and Town of Cambridge Response (Revised). ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: + That Council endorses the responses to the Local Government Act 1995 review discussion paper (as amended by Council) in Attachment 1 and the responses be forwarded to the Department of Local Government. Committee Meeting 19 February 2018 During discussion, Members agreed that whilst Attachment One generally reflects comments raised at the Elected Member Forum, further amendments were required. It was therefore agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination. Council Meeting 27 February 2018 During discussion, the Mayor proposed some amendments to the Town's submission. COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That the item be deferred to a Special meeting of Council to be held no later than 8 March 2018. Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Powell

and Timmermanis Against: Cr Nelson



CR18.14 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY - ANNUAL REVIEW

SUMMARY:

In August 2017, the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) released a best practice model guide to delegations. The Town has used this tool to undertake a comprehensive review of the delegations made under the Local Government Act and all other legislation that permits a delegation to the Local Government. This report facilitates a Council review of its delegations to the Chief Executive Officer and seeks those delegations to be reaffirmed (or otherwise) in a new Delegations Register and reaffirm its delegations made under all legislation. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Section 5.46 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that delegations from the Council to the Chief Executive Officer are reviewed by the Council at least once every financial year. The previous review was considered by the Council at its meeting held on 20 December 2016. A local government may delegate to the CEO the exercise of any of its powers or the discharge of any of its duties under the Act other than those such as any decision requiring an absolute majority, accepting major tenders, appointing an auditor or borrowing money. A full listing of the exceptions can be found at Section 5.43 of the Local Government Act 1995. The CEO may also delegate to any employee of the local government the exercise of any of the CEO’s powers or the discharge of any of the CEO’s duties under this Act other than the power of delegation. The Department of Local Government, Sports & Culture has an operational guideline which discusses the principles, concepts and approach to delegations. LG Operational Guideline 17 Delegations

https://www.dlgc.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/DLGC_LG_Operational_Guideline_17_Delegations.pdf

https://www.dlgc.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/DLGC_LG_Operational_Guideline_17_Delegations.pdf



In August 2017 the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) released Parts 1 and 2 of the WALGA Decision Making Practice Toolkit dealing with decision making and delegations. The toolkit is supported by templates and is a good resource tool to supplement the DLGSC Operational Guideline. Parts 3 through to 6 are still under development. The document has been included in the attachments to this report.

DETAILS:

The work undertaken by WALGA has been comprehensive and provides an opportunity for the Town to review its approach to delegations. The revised format for the delegations register provides Council specific information on the legislation being delegated, the function of the legislation, any conditions placed on the delegation, and the power to sub-delegate. The new standard template for all delegations includes: Instrument of Delegation Content Description of Content Head of Power The title of the legislation under which the delegation is made. Express Power to Delegate The specific legislation reference enabling delegation. Express Power or Duty The specific legislation reference for the power or duty which is delegated Delegator The decision maker as described in the legislation as being responsible

for exercising the Express Power or Duty and which is making the decision to delegate.

Delegate The position to which the Express Power or Duty has been delegated. Conditions and / or Limitations Imposed by the Delegator on the Delegate. Conditions and limitations are

at the complete discretion of the Delegator. They may include however a description of when the delegation can / cannot be used or the time frame for which the delegation is valid – refer s.5.45(1)(a).

Express Power to Sub-Delegate The specific legislation reference enabling delegation, if any. Some legislation will not include Powers to Sub-Delegate.

Compliance Links Any Relevant Legislative, Local Law, Policy or Guideline that relates to the delegation

Record Keeping Delegations to Committee Audit Committee The Audit Committee has been delegated the power to meet with the auditor at least once every year on behalf of the Council. This is an existing power. Delegation Register Reference

Delegations Register Title Legislation Legislation Reference

Legislation Title

1.1.1 Audit and Risk Committee Local Govt Act 1995

s7.12A(2) Duties to local government with respect to audit

Development Committee It is suggested that the Development Committee be delegated authority to 1 exercise all powers and discharge all duties under the 'Deemed Provisions', Schedule 2

of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 and Town Planning Scheme No. 1.

2. make recommendations to the Western Australian Planning Commission on subdivision applications, including recommending the imposition of subdivision conditions or the clearance of subdivision conditions (Part 10, Planning and Development Act 2005).



3. make recommendations to the Western Australian Planning Commission on development applications where the Western Australian Planning Commission is the determining authority (Cl. 28(3) of Metropolitan Region Scheme and Section 6 of Planning and Development Act 2005).

These delegations are subject to conditions that are detailed in the Delegations Register. The justification for the proposal to delegate Development Application decisions to Development Committee is as follows: • To allow more time at Council meetings for strategic or 'higher level' discussion; • To improve processing times for development applications (potential to reduce

processing by 7 days under current meeting schedule); • To give more 'value' to the Committee meeting from an applicant and community's

perspective - they can attend and present at the meeting knowing that a decision can be made;

• Decision making efficiency is consistent with the following statements of the Town's Strategic Corporate Plan 2017-2027: o Our Future Focus | Our Council | "Improve the timeliness and ease of transactions

with the Town of Cambridge." o Focus Areas | Our Council | "Secondly, they want to see the Council as efficient

and not overly bureaucratic." • A review of applications through all of 2017 show that 98.4% (63 out of 64) applications

that were passed by Committee with at least 4 votes were also passed by Council (see below). The one application where the Committee resolution differed from Councils was due to amended plans being submitted between Committee and Council that addressed the reasons for the Committee recommending the application be refused (66 Kimberley St, 19 December 2017 Council meeting). Excluding this application, all of Council resolutions were consistent with Committee's recommendations where the Committee vote was 4 or more.

• The risk of Committee making a decision that is not consistent with Council is low, based on the 2017 statistics and the conditions on the Committee's delegation.

DA statistics for the period 1 March 2017 - 19 December 2017 1 Total number of DAs determined by Council 77 2 Number of DAs passed by Committee with a unanimous vote 51 3 Number of DAs passed by Committee with 4 votes one way or another 13 4 Total DAs passed by Committee either unanimous or 4 votes (point 2 +3) 64 5 Number of occurrences where Council resolution differs from Committee's

unanimous or 4 votes decision 1*

*Committee vote was 1/4 to approve, Council vote was 9/0 to approve following receipt of amended plans that addressed the Committee's reasons to recommend refusal. Delegation Register Reference


Legislation Title

1.1.2 Planning and Development Act 2005 - Council delegated development approval functions to Committee

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

Schedule 2 Deemed Provisions for Local Planning Schemes



Local Government Act Council last reviewed its Delegations register in December 2016 and removed the following Delegations from the CEO and these have not been included in the new Delegations Register. 12. Closing Certain Thoroughfares to Vehicles (Exceeding 4 Weeks) 34. Policy Regarding Payment to Retiring Employees 35. Payments to Retiring Employees 48. Action Against Land For Unpaid Rates And Charges As a result of the WALGA template, the following delegations are suggested to be included in the Delegations Register. These delegations have been previously "acted through" or have been captured in other documents. "Acting through" is the process in which officers carry out a function of the local government in which they have no discretion in decision making. Delegation Register Reference


Legislation Title

1.2.2 Perform function outside the district

Local Govt Act 1995

s3.20(1) Perform function outside the district

1.2.3 Compensation for Damage Incurred when Performing Executive Function

Local Govt Act 1995

s3.23 Arbitration

1.2.5 Powers of Entry

s3.32 s3.33 s3.36

Notice of entry Entry under warrant Opening fences

1.2.11

Obstruction of Footpaths and Thoroughfares

Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996

reg5 (2) reg 6 reg 7A reg 7

Interfering with or taking from LG land Obstruction of public thoroughfare Obstruction of public thoroughfare Encroaching on public thoroughfare

1.2.13

Public Thoroughfares - Dangerous Excavations

(Uniform Local Provisions)

reg 11 (1) (4) (6) (8)

Dangerous Excavation in or Near Public Thoroughfare

1.2.14

Corssing - Construction Repair Removal


reg 12(1) reg 13 (1)

Crossing from a public thoroughfare to private land

1.2.15

Private Works on, over or under Public Places


reg 17

Private works on, over or under public places

1.2.16

Give Notice to Prevent Damage to Local Government Property from Wind Erosion and Sand Drift


reg 21(1)

Give notice to prevent damage to local government property from wind erosion sand drift

1.2.18

Tenders for Goods and Services

reg 11 reg 13

When tenders have to be publically invited Requirements when local governments invite tenders when not required to do so

1.2.20 Panels for Pre-qualified Local reg 24 (AB) Pre-qualified panels



Delegation Register Reference


Legislation Title

Suppliers of Goods and Services

Government (Functions & General) Regulations 1997

reg 24(AC)(1b) reg 24 (AD) (3) (6) reg 24 (AH) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1.2.22

Payments from the Municipal or trust Funds

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996

reg 11 reg 12(1)(a)

Payments procedures for making Payments from municipal fund or trust fund - restrictions on making

1.2.25 Rate Record Amendment Local Govt Act 1995

6.39 (2)(b) Rate record

1.2.26

Agreement as to Payment of Rates and Service Charges

Local Govt Act 1995

6.49

Agreement as to payment of rates and service charges

1.2.27

Determine Due Date for Rates and Service Charges

Local Govt Act 1995

6.50.

Rates or service charges due and payable

1.2.28

Recovery of Rates or Service Charge

Local Govt Act 1995

6.56

Rates or service charges recoverable in court

1.2.29

Recovery of Rates Debt - Require Lessee to Pay Rent

Local Govt Act 1995

6.60.

Local government may require lessee to pay rent

Building Act 2011 Delegations made under the Building Act are not required to be reviewed annually and were last considered by the Council in April 2012 after the adoption of the new Building Act. Section 127(1)(3) of the Building Act permits delegation to the Local Government and its employees. Delegation Register Reference


Legislation Title

2.1.1 Grant a Building Permit Building Act 2011 Building Regulations 2012

s18 s20 s22 s27(1) (3) reg 23 reg 24 reg 26

Further Information Grant of a building permit Further grounds for not granting an application Impose conditions on permit Application to extend time Extension of time Approval of new responsible person

2.1.2 Demolition Permits Building Act 2011

s21

Grant of demolition permit





Legislation Title

2.1.3 Occupation Permits or Building Approval Certificates

Building Act 2011 Building Regs 2012

s55 s58 s62(1)(3) s65(4) reg 40

Further Information Grant of Occupancy Permit Conditions imposed by permit authority Extension of period of duration Extension of period of duration of time of occupancy permit or building certificate

2.1.4 Designate Employees as Authorised Persons

Building Act 2011

s96(3) s99 (3)

Authorised persons Limitations on powers of authorised persons

2.1.5 Building Orders Building Act 2011

s110(1) s111(1) s117(1) (2) s118(2) (3) s133(1)

A permit authority may make a building order Notice of proposed building order other than building order A permit authority may revoke a building order or notify that it remains in effect Permit authority may give effect to building order if non-compliance A permit authority may commence a prosecution for an offence against this act

2.1.6 Inspection and Copies of Building Records

Building Act 2011

s131(2)

Inspection, copies of building records

2.1.7 Referrals and Issuing Certificates

Building Act 2011

s145A Local government functions

2.1.8 Private Pool Barriers - Alternatives Solutions

Building Act 2011

reg 51 Approvals by permit authority

2.1.9 Smoke Alarms - Alternative Solutions

Building Act 2011

reg55 reg61

Terms Used Local government approval of battery powered smoke alarms

Bush Fires Act 1954 Delegations made under the Bushfires Act are not required to be reviewed annually and were last considered by the Council in October 2009. Delegations made under the Bushfires Act are not commonly used in the Town of Cambridge, however, they may be necessary in an emergency. Section 48 of the Bushfires Act permit delegation to the Local Government, Mayor, CEO and Chief Fire Control Officer.





Legislation Title

3.1.1 Make Request to FES Commissioner - Control of Fire

Bush Fires Act 1954

s13(4)

Delegation by local government

3.1.2 Prohibited Burning Times - Vary

Bush Fires Act 1954

s17(7)

Prohibited burning times may be declared by minister

3.1.3 Prohibited Burning Times - Control Activities

Bush Fires Regulations 1954

reg 15 Permit to burn, form of, and apply for use after refusal

3.1.4 Restricted Burning Times - Vary and Control Activities

Bush Fires Act 1954 Bush Fires Regulations 1954

s18 () (11) s22(6) (7) reg15C

Restricted burning times may be declared by FES Commissioner Burning on exempt land and adjoining exempt land Local government may prohibited burning on certain days

3.1.5 Control of Operations Likely to Create a Bush Fire


s27D reg 39C reg 39D reg 39E

Requirements for carriage and deposit of incendiary material Welding and cutting apparatus, use in open air Explosives, use of Fireworks, use of

3.1.6 Burning Garden Refuse / Open Air Fires


s24F s24G s25 s25A reg 27(3)

Burning garden refuse during limited burning times Minister or local government may further restrict burning of garden refuse No fire to be lit in open air unless certain precautions taken Power of Minister to exempt from provisions of section 25 Permit, issue of

3.1.7 Fire-Breaks Bush Fires Act 1954

s33 Local government may require occupier of land to plough or clear fire-breaks

3.1.8 Appoint Bush Fire Control Officer/s and Fire Weather Officer

Bush Fires Act 1954

s38 Local Government may appoint bush fire control officer

3.1.9 Control and Extinguishment of Bush Fires

Bush Fires Act 1954

s.46 Bush fire control officer or forest officer may postpone lighting fire

3.1.10 Recovery of Expenses Incurred through Contraventions of this Act

Bush Fires Act 1954

s.58 General penalty and recovery of expenses incurred

3.1.11 Prosecution of Offences Bush Fires Act 1954

s.59 s.59A

Prosecution of offences Alternative procedure – infringement notices



Cat Act 2011 Delegations made under the Cat Act are required to be reviewed annually and were last considered by the Council in April 2013 after the adoption of the new Cat Act. Section 44 of the Cat Act permits delegation to the Local Government and its employees. Delegation Register Reference


Legislation Title

4.1.1 Cat Registrations Cat Act 2011 s.9 s.10 s.11

Registration Cancellation of registration Registration numbers, certificates and tags

4.1.2 Cat Control Notices Cat Act 2011 s.26 Cat control notice may be given to cat owner

4.1.3 Approval to Breed Cats Cat Act 2011 s.37 s.38 s.39

Approval to Breed Cats Cancellation of approval to breed cats Certificate to be given to approved cat breeder

4.1.4 Appoint Authorised Persons Cat Act 2011 s.48 Authorised persons 4.1.5 Applications to Keep

Additional Cats Cat (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 2013

r.8 r.9

Application to keep additional number of cats Grant of approval to keep additional number of cats

Dog Act1974 Delegations made under the Cat Act are required to be reviewed annually and were last considered by the Council in October 2009. Section 10AA of the Dog Act permits delegation to the Local Government and its employees. Delegation Register Reference


Legislation Title

5.1.1 Part Payment of Sterilisation Costs / Directions to Veterinary Surgeons

Dog Act 1976 s.10A Payments to veterinary surgeons towards costs of sterilisation

5.1.2 Refuse or Cancel Registration

Dog Act 1976 s.15(2) s.16(3) s.17A(2) s.17(4) (6)

Registration periods and fees Registration procedure If no application for registration made Refusal or cancellation of registration

5.1.3 Kennel Establishments Dog Act 1976 s.27 Licensing of approved kennel establishments

5.1.4 Appoint Authorised Persons Dog Act 1976 s.29(1) Power to seize dogs 5.1.5 Recovery of Moneys Due

Under this Act Dog Act 1976 s.29(5) Power to seize dogs

5.1.6 Dispose of or Sell Dogs Liable to be Destroyed

Dog Act 1976 s.29(11) Power to seize dogs

5.1.7 Declare Dangerous Dog Dog Act 1976 s.33E(1) Individual dog may be declared to be dangerous dog (declared)



5.1.8 Dangerous Dog Declared or Seized – Deal with Objections and Determine when to Revoke

Dog Act 1976 s.33F(6) s.33G(4) s.33H(1

Owners to be notified of making of declaration Seizure and destruction Local government may revoke declaration or proposal to destroy

Food Act 2008 Delegations made under the Food Act are not required to be reviewed annually and were last considered by the Council in December 2009 after the introduction of the new Act. Section 118 of the Food Act permits delegation to the Local Government and its employees, however, there is no power of sub delegation unless specifically authorised by the Regulations. All delegation must be made to the officer who will be responsible for the decision making. Delegation Register Reference


Legislation Title

6.1.1 Determine Compensation Food Act 2008 s.56(2) s.70(2) (3)

Compensation to be paid in certain circumstances Compensation

6.1.2 Prohibition Orders Food Act 2008 s.65(1) s.66 s.67(4)

Prohibition orders Certificate of clearance to be given in certain circumstances Request for re-inspection

6.1.3 Food Business Registrations Food Act 2008 s.110(1) (5) s.112

Registration of food business Variation of conditions or cancellation of registration of food businesses

6.1.4 Appoint Authorised Officers and Designated Officers

Food Act 2008 s.122(1) s.126(6) (7) (13)

Appointment of authorised officers Infringement Officers

6.1.5 Debt Recovery and Prosecutions

Food Act 2008 s.54 Cost of destruction or disposal of forfeited item

6.1.6 Abattoir Inspections and Fees

Food Regulations 2009

r.43 r.45

Local government may require security Withdrawal of inspection services

6.1.7 Food Businesses List – Public Access

Food Regulations 2009

r.51 Enforcement agency may make list of food

Graffiti Vandalism Act 2016 Agenda Oct 2016 Delegations made under the Graffiti Vandalism Act are not required to be reviewed annually and were last considered by the Council in October 2016 after the introduction of the new Act. Section 16 of the Graffiti Vandalism Act permits delegation to the Local Government and its employees.





Legislation Title

7.1.1 Give Notice Requiring Obliteration of Graffiti

Graffiti Vandalism Act 2016

s.18(2) s.19(3) (4)

Notice requiring removal of graffiti Additional powers when notice is given

7.1.2 Notices – Deal with Objections and Give Effect to Notices


s.22(3) s.24 (1)(b) (3)

Objection may be lodged Suspension of effect of notice

7.1.3 Obliterate Graffiti on Private Property


s.25(1) Local government graffiti powers on land not local government property

7.1.4 Graffiti Vandalism Act 2016

s.28 s.29

Notice of entry Entry under warrant

Public Health Act 2015 - Agenda December 2016 At its meeting in December 2016, Council approved the following delegation: "That Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, pursuant to s5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995 and s21(1)(b)(i) of the Public Health Act 2016, to delegate the powers and functions of the Public Health Act 2016 to the Chief Executive Officer." This delegation is included in the Register. Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911 Delegation Register Reference


Legislation Title

9.1.1 Appointment of Deputy, Discharge and Powers of Duties

Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911

s.26 Powers of local government

9.1.2 Appoint of Authorised Officers - Health (Asbestos) Regulations

Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992

r.15D Infringement Notices

Planning and Development Act 2005 Delegations made under the Planning and Development Act are required to be reviewed annually. The Planning and Development Act only permits delegation of Section 214 to the Local Government and its employees, however, the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 permit delegation.





Legislation Title

10.1.1 Illegal Developments Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911

s.214(2) (3) (5)

214. Illegal development, responsible authority’s powers as to

10.2.1 Local Government Functions - Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations and Town Planning Scheme No 1

Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 Town Planning Scheme No 1

See Delegations Register

See Delegations Register

Local Laws It is intended that a review of the delegations made under the Towns Local Laws be submitted to the March 2018 Council Meeting. This would include:

• Animals Local Law • Local Government and Public Property Local Law • Health Local Law • Parking Local aw • Private Property Local Law • Trading in Public Places Local Law • Waste Local Law


There is a direct relationship between Council policies and delegated authority, as the Chief Executive Officer will be guided by Council policy when exercising any delegated authority. Relevant powers and duties are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with section 5.42 of the Local Government Act, subject to the limitations specified in section 5.43. Section 5.46 provides that the Chief Executive Officer is to maintain a register of delegations made.


Nil.


Our Council Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1: Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge


Nil



OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Responsible Manager Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Contributors Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Delegation of Authority Register


That pursuant to: Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995; Section 127(1)(3) of the Building Act 2011 Section 48 of the Bush Fires Act 1954 Section 44 of the Cat Act Section 10AA of the Dog Act 1974 Section 118 of the Food Act 2008 Section 16 of the Graffiti Vandalism Act 2016 Section 21(1)(b)(i) of the Public Health Act 2016 Section 26 of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911 Section 214 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the delegation of the exercise of those of its powers and duties contained in the Delegation of Authority Register (Attachment 1), to the Chief Executive Officer or otherwise authorised person. Committee Meeting 19 February 2018 During discussion, Members agreed that the Delegation of Authority Register should be further considered at an Elected Members Forum. The Administration Recommendation was then voted upon and lost 1/4. For: Cr Carr Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, McAllister and Timmermanis COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the Delegation of Authority Register be further considered by an Elected Member Forum by the end of May 2018. Carried 9/0



CR18.15 REVIEW OF STANDING ORDERS LOCAL LAW

SUMMARY:

The Town's Standing Orders Local Law is required to be reviewed. This report informs Council on WALGA's Model Council Meeting Local Law, identifies the difference between the Model and Council existing Standing Orders and seeks direction from Council on the review of the Standing Orders. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The Standing Orders Local Law provides for the orderly conduct of meetings of the Council and Committees and guidance to the community in relation to understanding the meeting process. The Towns' Standing Orders Local Law was last reviewed in 2008 when a minor change was made to the existing Standing orders that were gazetted in 2007. This 2008 law was built around the WALGA model Standing Orders Local Law at the time, but included recommendations from the Department of Local Government who had recently completed a review into the operations of the Council. The law was contemporary at adoption is now due for a comprehensive review to capture changes to meeting procedures and to modernise terminology and application. The WA Local Government Association (WALGA) produced a series of ‘model’ local laws that cover a significant portion of areas requiring regulation by local governments. These model local laws have been produced by solicitors engaged by WALGA and vetted by the WA Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, which reviews all local government local laws and has the power to recommend to Parliament they be disallowed if need be.



While the Committee still carefully scrutinizes new local laws, those based on the WALGA Models are less likely to be problematic. They have also been tested in many areas by other local governments. As such in order to most efficiently deal with the issue confronting the Town, it is proposed to adopt a Standing Orders Local Laws based on the WALGA Model.

DETAILS:

A review of the Standing Orders will identify opportunities to: • improve the overall arrangement and drafting • amend or improve provisions within the local law, or insert new provisions based on best

practice. • include changes suggested by Elected members • include amendments after an assessment of operational matters (eg electronic voting) Due to the identified amendments and the need to improve drafting standards, it is suggested that the current Standing Orders be repealed and a new local law created. It is impractical to produce a copy of the WALGA model local law with changes 'marked up' given the number of alterations. To achieve the same outcome, the areas of differences between the WALGA Model and the Towns existing Standing Orders have been detailed in the comparison table in Attachment 3.


The procedure for making local laws is detailed in the Act and is a specific legislative process that must be adhered to in order for the local law to be accepted by the Western Australian Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. Section 3.12(2) of the Act states that the first action in the process of making a local law is for the Mayor to give notice to the meeting of the purpose and effect of the proposed local law. Regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 states that this is achieved by ensuring that: (a) the purpose and effect of the proposed local law is included in the agenda for that

meeting (b) the minutes of the meeting of the Council include the purpose and effect of the proposed

local law.


Costs will be incurred in advertising the proposed Standing Orders Local Law for public comment. Those costs can be met through Council's approved operating budget.


Our Council Goal 9 Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge




The development of local laws requires statutory advertising and consultation with members of the public throughout the local law-making process. This includes: • giving state-wide public notice advertising the proposed local law and inviting

submissions to be made within no less than six weeks from the date of advertising, including:

• advertising in a newspaper circulating throughout the state • displaying public notices at the Town of Cambridge Administration Centre, public libraries,

and customer service centres • advertising on the Town's website • providing a copy of the notice and a copy of the proposed local law to the Minister

responsible for the Act under which the proposed local law is being made. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Responsible Manager Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Contributors Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Standing Orders Local Law - Town of Cambridge 2 Local Government (Council Meetings) Local Law- WALGA Model 3 Comparison Table


That a draft Meeting Procedure Local Law, based on the WALGA model, be presented to the April 2018 Council Meeting. Lost 2/3 For: Crs Carr and McAllister Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley and Timmermanis COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That a report into any inconsistencies between the existing Town of Cambridge Meeting Procedure Local Law and overarching State legislation and regulations be prepared, in conjunction with the Model Procedure Local Law and the WALGA Model Standing Orders for consideration at a future Elected Member Forum. Carried 9/0



CR18.16 ANNUAL INSURANCE REVIEW

SUMMARY:

Historically the Town has been a member of the Local Government Insurance Scheme and has purchased its insurance through the scheme. The Town is aware that several Councils marketed tested for their insurance coverage in 2017/18. This report seeks approval from Council for the Chief Executive Officer to seek quotes from, and appoint a suitable qualified consultant to assist in tendering for Council insurance for 2017/18.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The Local Government Insurance Scheme (LGIS) was established in 1995 when the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) launched a self-insurance Scheme for Local Governments and contracted Jardine Lloyd Thompson Pty Ltd (JLT) as Scheme Managers. The Scheme was set up as a "Members' mutual" at the time when the sector was unable to access stable, cost effective cover. In order to be a member of the LGIS Scheme the Council is required to be a member of WALGA. Similar schemes operate in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, with around 95% of local governments participating in self-insurance schemes. The LGIS Scheme is governed by a Board of nine Directors including four from member Local Governments. WALGA, as the Scheme trustee, periodically commissions independent reviews of the Scheme and its business model to enquire into the performance of the Scheme, governance systems and alternatives to existing arrangements. The last review was completed in June 2017.

LGIS liaise with the Town on an annual basis to determine the extent of the insurance coverage required. LGIS then pool the total value of the insurance coverage required from all its members to gain the best rates from the market.



Whilst the pooled local government insurance coverage is put to the market annually, the scheme management arrangements are not. In Victoria and South Australia, the scheme management arrangements and demonstrated value for money have come under scrutiny of the respective Auditor Generals and raised as a particular governance matter. However it was noted by the South Australian Auditor General that "it is unlikely that another single provider could provide a similar breath of services at similar costs". South Australia Auditor General Report Victoria Auditor General Report pp 36 Market Conditions The current oversupply of capacity within the global insurance market and soft market conditions has led to greater competition amongst insurers. This has been the catalyst for a number of local governments to test the market and validate (or otherwise) the LGIS Scheme payments. It is understood that a small number of Councils in other states, (two in NSW and five in Victoria), have left the respective Local Government Association based schemes to pursue commercial insurance.

In Western Australia, twelve Local Governments undertook a separate tender process last year, with two leaving the scheme completely and one that only renewed the liability protection.

The Town's current Insurance portfolio and policy limitations for the past two years are as follows:

2016/2017 2017/2018

Sum Insured Premium Ex GST

Sum Insured

Premium Ex GST

Self Insurance Schemes LGIS Property Scheme $168.8M $182,000 $184.5M $180,500 LGIS Liability Scheme (Includes Professional Indemnity/Casual Hirers)

$300M $195,500 $500M $195,500

Crime (previously Fidelity Guarantee) $500,000 $3,500 $1M $4,000 LGIS Workcare Scheme (Includes Journey Injury)

$15.93M $286,500 $16.5M $239,000

Members Scheme Contributions Credit / Dividend

-$47,000 -$43,000

Other Insurance Policies Motor Vehicle and Plant $2.6M $46,000 $2.7M $48,500 Management Liability (Previously Councillors and Officers)

$5M $9,300 $5M $9,300

Cyber Liability - $1M $4,500 Events Cancellation Insurance $1,300 $2,400 Personal Accident & Corporate Travel $1,200 $1,200 Contract Works $500,000 $750 $500,000 $750 Marine Transit (Transport of Goods) $200 $200 $493M $679,250 $711M $642,850

https://www.audit.sa.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=b2gc6QuJZcY%3D&tabid=294&portalid=0&mid=884&forcedownload=true

https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/20150226-Support-for-Local-Gov.pdf



DETAILS:

It is open for Cambridge to undertake a similar exercise to other local governments if it wishes to test the market competiveness of LGIS premiums. However, a procurement specialist will need to be engaged to coordinate this exercise. It is estimated that this would cost around $10,000 to $20,000. It is also understood that the whole process would take around twelve weeks, which would require the Town to initiate the project expeditiously if insurance quotes are to be established for the next financial year. As such, if the Council decides to go test the market, a procurement specialist will be appointed in March. Initial research indicates the minimum time required to complete a tender process is 12 weeks. Quotes for procurement advisors would need to be called and a consultant appointed before the end of March 2018. It is recommended that the Town request quotes from suitable qualified consultants to assist in the tendering of Councils insurance for 2017/18 and that this process commence immediately.


Contractual Matters LGIS require a minimum of 60 days' notice if the Town is considering leaving the scheme. Local Government Act 1995 5.49. Workers’ compensation arrangements (4) If an eligible body wishes to join or leave the arrangement, WALGA is to apply to

WorkCover WA to seek a variation in the group exemption. If the Town decides to leave the LGIS Worker Compensation Scheme approval must be sought form the Minister through Workcover WA. This process is timely and has meant Councils having to obtain short term coverage from LGIS until Ministerial approval is granted. It has resulted in a loss of any predicted savings in the first year. (6) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), WALGA may —

(a) of its own motion, make representations and submissions to the Minister on any matter or thing relating to or affecting its members; and

(b) with the approval of the affected members, arrange contracts of insurance on behalf

of all or any of its members for any purpose.


It is estimated that the cost to engage a consultant to conduct the insurance tender and review process will be approximately $15,000 to $25,000. This amount is accommodated in the risk budget.




Goal 9 Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge


Nil OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Jason Lyon, Director, Corporate & Strategic Responsible Manager Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Contributors Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the Town call public Tenders for its annual insurance coverage for the 2017/18

financial year; (ii) the Town call quotes for and appoint a suitable qualified consultant to assist in the

Tendering for insurance purposes for 2018/19. Carried 9/0



CR18.17 TENDER RFT34-17 FOR MICROSOFT AGREEMENT

SUMMARY:

Microsoft Products are core pieces of system software that are used by the Town of Cambridge to manage its Information Technology Environment. Due to its importance the upgrading of Microsoft products to the latest release is essential for the effective management and security of the Town's IT Environment. As part of the Town's obligation in using Microsoft Products, it is required that the Town maintain compliance with the licencing agreement. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The Town first entered into a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (MEA) in 2001 under a 3 year agreement. It was last renewed in 2007 with an end date of October 2010. A review was conducted in April 2010 and the Town at that point decided not to renew the Agreement due to the timing set out in the Town's Corporate Business System (CBS) roadmap from Technology One and the Local Government Reform agenda. In December 2013, the Town's CBS was upgraded to the Connected Intelligence (Ci) version, which then paved the way for the Town to upgrade its Microsoft environment. This allowed the Town to upgrade Microsoft product versions to the last of those permissible under the 2010 MEA. Pre-2014 Microsoft Versions Upgrade Rights within last MEA Windows XP Windows 7 Office 2003 Office 2010 Exchange 2003 Exchange 2010 Windows Server 2003 Windows Server 2008

All the upgrades have now occurred and the Town no longer has any additional upgrade rights under the 2010 MEA.



During the Local Government reform merger talks, negotiations with Microsoft for a new MEA were at an advanced stage before reform was terminated. The cessation of reform resulted in a termination of the negotiations with Microsoft as the Town prioritised the urgent upgrading of Technology One products before reviewing the future direction of its Microsoft portfolio. The IT review in April 2016 recommended a new Microsoft agreement be established, due to the risk of utilising old server software, specifically SQL Server, and its reduced support levels. In August 2016, consultants conducted an ICT Security review and also recommended upgrading to the latest versions of Microsoft products together with security patches, updates and service packs to ensure the highest level mitigation against the threat of Cybercrime attack. Since the last Microsoft upgrade 4 years ago, the Town has not performed any further upgrades to its Microsoft Environment. The licensing requirements from Microsoft have also changed due to the increased usage of virtualisation in computer server technologies. The number of licences are now based on the physical server size and specifications in that, the more capability a physical server has, the more licences are required.

DETAILS:

Initially, the Town set out to tender for the full suite of Microsoft products licence agreements, which covered: • Windows 10 • Office 2016 • Windows Server 2016 • SQL Server 2016 • Exchange Server 2016 However, due to the strategic review of the ICT, the tender was terminated and a new scope issued for the essential server licences: • Windows Server • SQL Server • Exchange Server Full details of the tender are contained in attachment 1.


The Local Government Act 1995 requires a public tender to be called when the value of the contract exceeds $150,000. In accordance with Council Policy, Council approval is necessary for the award of tenders greater than $150,000 unless the decision is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer. Local Government Regulations provide for the Town to seek clarification of tenders, as well as capability to negotiate with other tenderers if the preferred tenderer and Town fail to enter into a Contract. There are no Policy implications related to this report.



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The value of this contract each year is approximately $162,000 p.a. over a three year period. The budget has a provision for the current year of $200,000.


This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s priority area of ‘Capacity to Delivery’ and corresponding goal of ‘Open and Transparent Governance’. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No.1.2.11 and consultation is not required as this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

OFFICER INVOLVEMENT:

Responsible Executive Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Responsible Manager Steve Platts, Manager Information Technology and Communications Contributors Andy Ong, Team Leader Information and Business Systems

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Confidential Evaluation and Recommendation Report COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That Option 2: Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (MEA) be selected and Insight Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd be awarded the contract for RFT 34-17 over a period of three years for a lump sum of $487,065 ex GST. Carried 9/0



CR18.18 RELATIONSHIPS AUSTRALIA - EXEMPTION FROM RATES

SUMMARY:

An application from Relationships Australia for rates exemption under Section 6.26(g) (charitable use) for the second story of their premises at 156 Railway Parade is the subject of an appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal. The matter was initially considered by the Chief Executive Officer and then referred to Council in July 2017, where it was decided that the initial decision to not approve the application be affirmed. Mediation was held on 11 January 2018, attended by the Town’s legal counsel, McLeods, the Mayor and the Director Corporate & Strategic. As a result of additional information which was provided at the mediation, this report resubmits to Council the application for rates exemption for the second story of 156 Railway Parade, with a recommendation for approval. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Previous Report CR17.120, July 2017 refers. Section 6.26 of the Local Government Act (the "Act") outlines the circumstances under which land within a local government district is not rateable land. This includes property of the Crown, non-government schools, churches, and land that is used exclusively for charitable purposes. In order for the Town to make a determination on an application for exemption from rates, an applicant must provide certain information about themselves (the applicant), the property and the use/service provided. Ordinarily, this is simply a matter of fact, however, sometimes there are circumstances where judgement must be applied, with the Town assuming a Quasi-Judicial role. This is particularly the case where a service is not entirely charitable, or property is not exclusively used for a charitable purpose.



A decision made by a Local Government may be objected to by an applicant, and an application for a review of that decision may be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), under Section 6.77 of the Act. The SAT has taken a broad approach to the interpretation of charitable purpose in certain cases and this has a bearing on how Local Government's apply Section 6.26 of the Act. An application from Relationships Australia for rates exemption under Section 6.26(g) (charitable use) was received in 2016 for 156 Railway Parade West Leederville. This is a three story building with the majority of community support services being delivered from the first floor. The application was assessed and a partial rates exemption ($12,907 out of $30,971) was granted for the first story, which is used to deliver community support services. On notification of the Town’s initial decision, Relationships Australia requested that the partial exemption be extended to the second floor, which is used as Relationship Australia's corporate head office. This was considered by Council in July 2017, where it was decided that:

(i) the decision of the Chief Executive Officer to refuse a rates exemption on the

second storey portion of 156 Railway Parade be affirmed; (ii) Relationships Australia be advised of Council's decision and their right to lodge an

objection to the State Administrative Tribunal. Subsequently, Relationships Australia appealed to the SAT and mediation was held on 11 January 2018, attended by the Town’s legal counsel, McLeods, the Mayor and the Director Corporate & Strategic.

DETAILS:

In the initial decision, the Town formed the view that the charitable use provisions of the Act would not apply to the second story of the premises owned and occupied by Relationships Australia. This was on the basis that the Corporate Office provided support to all Relationship Australia's operations and services in W.A., some of which are charged as a fee for service. The particular activities which the Town focused upon were certain courses offered by RAWA, in the category of Professional Development as opposed to what might be described as the more therapeutic· or life-skills courses. The courses 'Defusing Angry and Abusive Customers' and 'Introduction to Being a Supervisor', were particularly focused upon. During mediation, Relationships Australia clarified aspects of the Professional Development courses, noting that the Professional Development courses were targeted to, and basically subscribed to only by, personnel engaged in the therapeutic counselling sector. Following the detailed explanation, the Town’s representatives formed the view that that a rates exemption ought to be granted in relation to Level 2 of 156 Railway Parade. This position was indicated to the mediator and the RAWA representatives, subject to: (a) RAWA confirming in writing the circumstances of the professional courses; and (b) Council endorsing the officer recommendation to grant the exemption. Accordingly the Tribunal made orders which authorise the Town to reconsider its existing decision, and provides for a fall-back mediation on 6 March 2018 in the event that this matter is not resolved by consent.



The attachments include a summary of the mediation from McLeods and further information provided by Relationships Australia, following mediation.


Section 6.26 of the Local Government Act outlines the circumstances under which land within a local government district is not rateable land. A decision made by a Local Government may be objected to by an applicant, and an application for a review of that decision may be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), under Section 6.77 of the Act.


Rates on the second story of 156 Railway Parade are $12,907 (16/17); and $10,693 (17/18).


Nil


Nil OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Responsible Manager Not Applicable Contributors Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS:

1. SAT Orders 2. McLeods Advice of Mediation (CONFIDENTIAL) 3. Relationships Australia advice of training services (CONFIDENTIAL) COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the application from Relationships Australia for rates exemption for the second story of their property located at 156 Railway Parade be approved. Carried 9/0



CR18.19 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - DECEMBER2017 AND JANUARY 2018

SUMMARY:

Under the Local Government Act (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, payments of accounts made by the Town are to be submitted to Council. The report contains a summary of payments made for the month with detailed payment listings attached providing more information. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







DETAILS:

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing of all payments issued for the past two months.


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”.


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.


The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Community Plan's goal of transparent, accountable governance.



COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level - Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Responsible Manager Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Contributors Nil ATTACHMENTS:

1. Account Payment Listing COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts, as detailed below and attached, be confirmed:

Carried 9/0

(i) CHEQUE PAYMENTS

Date From Date To Details Amount

Municipal Fund 01-December-2017 07-December-2017 054548 - 054590 $124,065.12Municipal Fund 08-December-2017 15-December-2017 054591 - 054608 $29,556.76Municipal Fund 16-December-2017 20-December-2017 054609 - 054630 $41,099.93Municipal Fund 01-January-2018 04-January-2018 054631 - 054669 $50,188.86Municipal Fund 12-January-2018 12-January-2018 054670 - 054694 $79,585.82Municipal Fund 13-January-2018 19-January-2018 054695 - 054715 $85,784.53Municipal Fund 24-January-2018 25-January-2018 054716 - 054731 $27,665.25Wembley Golf Course 01-December-2017 31-December-2017 000592 - 000592 $273.20Wembley Golf Course 01-January-2018 31-January-2018 000593 - 000593 $215.55

$438,435.02

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)

Date From Date To Details Amount

Investments 01-December-2017 31-December-2017 INV01005 - INV01007 $6,053,719.30Investments 01-January-2018 31-January-2018 INV01008 - INV01013 $9,918,543.25Direct Bank Charges 01-December-2017 31-December-2017 Sup 415 - Sup 419 $104,804.06Direct Bank Charges 01-January-2018 31-January-2018 Sup 420 - Sup 425 $119,452.40Accounts Payable 01-December-2017 05-December-2017 E29990 - E30079 $671,994.37Accounts Payable 07-December-2017 14-December-2017 E30080 - E30172 $418,133.66Accounts Payable 14-December-2017 28-December-2017 E30173 - E30393 $3,094,961.96Accounts Payable 03-January-2018 04-January-2018 E30394 - E30399 $34,784.92Accounts Payable 05-January-2018 09-January-2018 E30400 - E30492 $704,413.12Accounts Payable 15-January-2018 19-January-2018 E30493 - E30592 $678,876.60Accounts Payable 19-January-2018 22-January-2018 E30593 - E30669 $249,381.79Accounts Payable 25-January-2018 30-January-2018 E30670 - E30733 $569,682.32Payroll 01-December-2017 31-December-2017 Pay1001 - Pay1012 $1,375,510.43Payroll 01-January-2018 31-January-2018 Pay1013 - Pay1019 $1,344,885.50Wembley Golf Course 01-December-2017 31-December-2017 EP000273 - EP000278 $227,859.80Wembley Golf Course 01-January-2018 31-January-2018 EP000279 - EP000283 $117,538.15

Total EFT Payments $25,684,541.63

TOTAL PAYMENTS $26,122,976.65



CR18.20 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - JANUARY 2018

SUMMARY:

The Council invests funds that are surplus to operational requirements with various financial institutions and reports on the amounts invested, the distribution of those funds and the financial performance of each investment, being interest earned, against year to date budget. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity guidelines as set out in the policy.

DETAILS:

Investment Portfolio Performance At its February meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.50%. Conditions in the global economy continue to improve over the past year with better than expected growth in a number of advanced economies, with growth also evident in Asian economies with increased international trade. The Chinese economy also continues to grow solidly. The Reserve Bank is forecasting for Australian economic growth to continue, with business conditions remaining positive and non-mining business investment improving. Increased public infrastructure investment is also supporting the economy. Uncertainty remains with respect to household consumption with income growth slow and debt levels high. Employment growth grew strongly over the past year and is forecast to continue. Inflation remains low but is forecast to rise as the economy strengthens. Low interest rates continue to support economic growth.



Looking forward, in terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates remain much the same. The major banks rates for one to three month terms are on average 2.02%, for terms of four to six months on average around 2.39% and for terms of seven months to nine months on average around 2.45%. The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day period) was 1.85% for January 2018. The 90 days BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of future interest rates) was 1.78% at 31 January 2018. As Council’s investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 1.50% for January 2018 is the more appropriate performance measure. Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash rate with a weighted average interest rate of 2.49%. The weighted average investment period of 216 days (approximately seven months) is consistent with term deposit rates (with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 2.46%. Investment Portfolio Performance for January 2018 The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 12 month period January 2017 to January 2018.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00Interest Rates

Investment Performance For January 2017 to January 2018

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate



The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the Town's investment portfolio, since January 2015.

The total investment at the end of January 2018 is $74.9 million which consists of Municipal Funds of $22.8 million, Reserve Funds of $43.8 million, Endowment Lands Funds of $6.3 million and Trust Funds of $2 million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from January 2017 to January 2018.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Jan-15 Apr-15 Jul-15 Oct-15 Jan-16 Apr-16 Jul-16 Oct-16 Jan-17 Apr-17 Jul-17 Oct-17 Jan-18

Interest Rates

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance For January 2015 to January 2018

Weighted Avg Interest 90 UBS Bank Bill Index



0369

121518212427303336394245485154576063666972757881

Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 May 17 Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18

Millions Investment Portfolio

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal



The Managed Cash Funds performance as at the end of January 2018 is as follows:

Term(Days) Rating

Current Interest

RateJanuary 2018

IncomeTotal Amount

Invested

% of Funds

Invested

Weighted Average Interest

Floating Rate Notes .Emerald Reverse Mortgage "AAA" 2.17% $1,150 $623,424 0.83% 0.02%

Sub-total $1,150 $623,424 0.83% 0.02%Term Deposits and Bank BillsBANKWEST - Term Deposit 364 "A1+" 2.45% $207 $101,134 0.13% 0.00%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.45% $1,071 $517,231 0.69% 0.02%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.45% $2,117 $1,023,836 1.37% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 336 "A1+" 2.60% $4,416 $2,042,170 2.73% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 273 "A1+" 2.50% $4,309 $2,041,588 2.72% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.45% $3,163 $1,526,015 2.04% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 140 "A1+" 2.50% $625 $1,014,566 1.35% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 273 "A1+" 2.55% $4,356 $2,020,595 2.70% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 152 "A1+" 2.50% $2,123 $1,008,630 1.35% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 140 "A1+" 2.50% $3,185 $1,512,432 2.02% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 187 "A1+" 2.45% $3,121 $1,511,277 2.02% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 166 "A1+" 2.45% $3,121 $1,507,048 2.01% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 105 "A1+" 2.50% $1,544 $2,506,147 3.34% 0.08%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 161 "A1+" 2.55% $3,144 $1,503,144 2.01% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 126 "A1+" 2.50% $616 $1,000,616 1.34% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 150 "A1+" 2.55% $265 $1,900,265 2.54% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.52% $2,203 $1,036,741 1.38% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.50% $4,363 $2,065,125 2.76% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.54% $4,370 $2,042,001 2.72% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 364 "A1+" 2.60% $4,416 $2,042,170 2.73% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 355 "A1+" 2.60% $4,416 $2,041,885 2.72% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 140 "A1+" 2.54% $7,644 $3,573,321 4.77% 0.12%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.50% $4,272 $2,021,052 2.70% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 2.57% $4,365 $2,017,744 2.69% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 151 "A1+" 2.55% $2,166 $1,008,244 1.35% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 201 "A1+" 2.55% $3,249 $1,511,737 2.02% 0.05%AMP - Term Deposit 365 "A1" 2.60% $10,599 $4,838,979 6.46% 0.17%Westpac - Term Deposit 367 "A1+" 2.57% $6,548 $3,024,925 4.04% 0.10%Westpac - Term Deposit 362 "A1+" 2.52% $1,413 $663,190 0.88% 0.02%Westpac - Term Deposit 364 "A1+" 2.52% $4,281 $2,008,975 2.68% 0.07%Westpac - Term Deposit 364 "A1+" 2.62% $2,297 $2,002,297 2.67% 0.07%Suncorp - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.55% $2,227 $1,036,360 1.38% 0.04%Suncorp - Term Deposit 210 "A1" 2.45% $2,134 $1,035,630 1.38% 0.03%Suncorp - Term Deposit 154 "A1" 2.50% $2,181 $1,035,801 1.38% 0.03%Suncorp - Term Deposit 175 "A1" 2.50% $4,345 $2,064,065 2.75% 0.07%Suncorp - Term Deposit 210 "A1" 2.55% $4,441 $2,064,685 2.76% 0.07%Suncorp - Term Deposit 203 "A1" 2.61% $4,508 $2,042,056 2.73% 0.07%Suncorp - Term Deposit 299 "A1" 2.60% $4,416 $2,041,885 2.72% 0.07%Suncorp - Term Deposit 189 "A1" 2.55% $3,249 $1,514,881 2.02% 0.05%Suncorp - Term Deposit 193 "A1" 2.55% $7,125 $3,317,122 4.43% 0.11%Suncorp - Term Deposit 186 "A1" 2.55% $2,166 $1,008,244 1.35% 0.03%Suncorp - Term Deposit 215 "A1" 2.55% $3,249 $1,511,737 2.02% 0.05%Suncorp - Term Deposit 238 "A1" 2.50% $2,123 $1,006,370 1.34% 0.03%Term Deposit Matured in Jan $13,441

Sub-total $159,593 $74,313,915 99.17% 2.47%

Total Investments $160,743 $74,937,339 100.00% 2.49%

Weighted Average 216 2.49%




The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.


Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this. The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below:

Actual as at

30 June 2017 Budget

2017/2018

YTD Budget as at January

2018

Actual as at January

2018 % General * $434,576 $477,500 $245,700 $277,115 58.0% Reserves $955,700 $1,044,000 $613,800 $647,686 62.0% Endowment Lands $21,813 $154,000 $60,000 $52,048 33.8% External Investments $1,412,089 $1,675,500 $919,500 $976,849 58.3% Endowment Lands (Internal Loans) $579,111 $795,500

$464,700 $461,196 58.0%

Total Investments $1,991,200 $2,471,000 $1,384,200 $1,438,045 58.2% * Includes Bank Account Interest of $22,902.


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan, specifically: Goal: 11 A strong performing local government. Strategy: 11.1 - Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is purely administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Responsible Manager Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Contributors Nil

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Prudential Consolidated Investment Report - January 2018




Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the Investment Schedule as at 31 January 2018, as attached, be received. Carried 9/0



CR18.21 BUDGET REVIEW 2017- 2018

SUMMARY:

A review of this financial year's 2017/2018 budget projects a surplus of $96k for year-end based on current known events. This is the culmination of variations forecast for year-end across both revenue and expenditure budget items both favourable and unfavourable. Whilst there are some variations to operating revenues within business unit areas, overall operating revenue is tracking to budget. The exception is a favourable profit on disposal of assets of $558k, with St John's Wood Estate land proceeds exceeding budget by $550k. The net proceeds have been transferred to the Endowment Lands Account. Variations to operating expenditure is generally due to timing differences, with a current underspend of $1.6 million compared with the year to date budget. Expenditure overall is expected to be below budget at 30th June by $7 million mainly due to a $6.1 million cash flow timing reduction to the underground power program and non-capital works totalling $810k to be carried forward for the 2018/2019 financial year. The capital program will likely be below year end budget by $3.4 million with a reduction of $2.5 million in capital works which are carried forward into next year. A deletion of a building capital works project with a budget of $660k funded by a capital contribution and expected savings of $200k within the road works infrastructure program, account for the remaining balance. As per the rate setting statement, $1.27 million of carry forward works are funded by general purpose funds, with the remainder funded by a mixture of grant, reserve and endowment lands funds. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Under Regulation 33A of the Financial Management Regulation 1996, Council is required to conduct a budget review of its adopted annual budget after considering changes in its operating environment since the beginning of the financial year with a view to forecasting the financial impacts likely to arise for the remainder of the year.



The following tasks have been undertaken: • conducting an assessment of material variances to determine whether they are

permanent or timing differences; • identify any offsetting increases in income or reductions in expenditure that will help

reduce major variances; • establish whether the budget review process and recommendations have a material

impact on the long term plans; • establish whether at the close of the financial year there is sufficient working capital to

meet current commitments before the following year’s budget is adopted; • identify projects that may not be completed and which will need to be carried forward into

the new financial year for inclusion in the following year’s budget; • identify grants and contributions received that are likely to remain unspent at the close of

the financial year.

DETAILS:

The purpose of this report is to provide a brief overview with more detail provided in the report attachment.

Revised Budget

2017/2018 $'000

YTD Budget 31-Dec-17

$'000

YTD Actual 31-Dec-17

$'000

YTD Variance

$'000

YTD Variance

%

Forecast 30-Jun-18

$'000 CASH SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) FROM OPERATIONS BEFORE ABNORMALS

(2,222) 6,929 7,851 922 13.3% (1,853)

ABNORMAL OPERATING ITEMS( included in above) Underground Power Project (17,650) 0 0 0 0% (11,500) St Johns Wood Estate 11,200 11,200 11,750 550 4.9% 11,750

CASH SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) FROM OPERATIONS (8,672) 18,129 19,601 1,472 8.1% (1,603) NON OPERATING ACTIVITIES SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (1,108) 7,123 10,099 2,976 41.8% 1,134

SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) FROM ALL ACTIVITIES (9,779) 25,252 29,700 4,448 17.6% (469)

OPENING FUNDS/CASH RESERVES UTILISED (NET)

9,714 (8,963) (10,197) (1,235) 13.7% 565

CLOSING FUNDS (66) 16,289 19,502 3,213 19.7% 96

The end of year result is expected to finish plus or minus $250k from a balanced budget position carried forward from last year. The following commentary should be read in conjunction with the revised rate setting statement and detailed commentary contained in attachment one.



Operations The net cash position for operations was estimated to be an $8.6 million deficit, after adjusting for non-cash movements. The forecast year end position is $1.6 million, a $7 million variance due to a timing difference in the underground power project. The current year estimated expenditure is reduced from $17.6 million to $11.5 million. Other areas of revenue and expenditure are forecast to only experience minor fluctuations from budget for year end, with the exception of the following budget items:. City Beach and Floreat Commercial Lease Revenue Restaurants and Cafes at City Beach and Floreat have a base rent and also a component of rent which is based on turnover. The combined base turnover is $19 million, however, last year, the combined turnover was $26 million. The forecast to the end of this financial year is $25 million. This will result in a reduction in the expected rent revenue from $1.47 million to $1.37 million, a $100k reduction. Non-Operating Revenue Non-operating revenue is forecast to be below budget by $530k with $16.2 million projected for year end. The decrease in revenue is a mixture of the following adjustments:

• An additional $550k land sale proceeds from the St Johns Wood Estate land sales, taking

the total amount to $11.75M. • A contribution from the City Beach Surf Club builder budgeted for this year was

recognised in the 2016/2017 financial year, post the adoption of the budget. Therefore this budget can be deleted.

• A reduction in grant funding of $420k from Main Roads for capital road works project "Grantham/Harborne Street intersection safety" deferred to 2018/2019. Project design and scope has been changed and is currently awaiting Main Roads approval.

Non-Operating Expenditure Non-operating expenditure is $2.5 million below the $5.2 million year to date budget and is expected to finish the year around $15 million. The following works are identified to be carried forward into next financial year:

Carry Forwards Amount

Buildings Bold Park Aquatic Centre -Replace large heat pumps and BMS 350 Floreat Beach Kiosk- detail design/hospitality feasibility & leasing 150

500 Furniture and Equipment Various system upgrades and land line replacement out centres 275

275 Roadworks Grantham St/Harborne St - Intersection Safety 656 City Beach Precinct - Challenger Pde Pedestrian Paths and Crossing 60 716



Parks City Beach - Lighting Replacement Stage 1 240 City Beach Oval South (Playground with shade) 80 Beecroft Park - Park Improvement Program 42

362

Total 1,853 In addition to the above carry forward projects, there were also a number of budget reallocation suggested from savings identified during the review, within the capital works programmes, which are being presented for consideration to the February Community and Resources Committee meeting as follows:

• CR18.5 "North Lake Monger New Toilet Facility", reallocating $85k to the North Lake Monger New Toilet facility, to enable works to be completed, from savings within building capital works, Rutter Park Toilet ($30k), and road works projects "Brookdale/Underwood Intersection" ($48k) and "Harborne St -Dodd to Powis turning lane" ($7k).

• CR18.1 "Tender for Civil Drainage Works at McCourt Street-Woolwich Street',

reallocating $122k to McCourt Street/Woolwich Street drainage project , to enable landscaping works to be completed, from capital roadworks projects "Gregory/Ruislip intersection" ($75K), and "Harborne St-Dodd to Powis turning lane" (remaining $33k saving). A further amount of $14k savings identified from non-capital works project "Demolition of 77 McCourt Street" makes up the balance.

These identified savings have not been included in determining the year end forecast position.

Reserve and Endowment Lands Account Transfers

Overall there is expected to be a reduction in the drawdown from reserves of $6.5 million and a reduction in the drawdown from the Endowment Lands Account of $881k. The reserve movement is due to a reduction in cash flow requirements for the underground power project budget ($6.1 million), and the Endowment Lands Account funds movement due to Bold Park Aquatic Centre - replacement of large heat pumps and BMS project ($350k) and Floreat Beach Kiosk capital project ($150k), identified as carry forwards for the 2018/2019 financial year. Estimated Year End Financial Position for 2017/2018 Financial Year An analysis of the variations to date, indicate that the year-end position will fall within plus or minus $250,000 (0.3% of the overall net budget). The current forecast based on trends to date indicates a surplus of $96k.

Current Budget Forecast Movement Main Variance2017/2018 30 June 18 Increase

(Decrease)$ $ $

Transfer to Reserve 7,815 7,865 50- Transfer to Endowment Lands Account 13,394 13,944 550- St John's Wood ProceedsTransfer from Reserve 20,024 13,532 (6,492) Underground Power ProjectTransfer from Endowment Lands Account 7,087 6,206 881 Bold Park Aquatic Heat Pumps



Budget Amendments Section 9 of the agenda attachment provides a summary of the budget amendments received.


The Local Government Act (1995) Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 33A, expands on this requirement to include an annual budget review to be carried out between 1 January and 31 March for each financial year. The intention is to ensure local governments conduct at least one budget review each financial year. This report complies with this requirement. In accordance with the Regulations, the results of the budget review are to be submitted to Council within thirty days of the review being completed. Council is then required to consider the results of the review and determine whether or not to adopt the review, any part of the review or any recommendations made in the review. As per Regulation 33A, a copy of both the review and Council’s determination are then to be provided to the Department of Local Government within thirty days. Budget Implementation and Management Policy 3.2.2 It is the function of the Chief Executive Officer to cause Council decisions to be implemented and manage the day-to-day operations of the Town. To ensure the Chief Executive Officer has the capacity to undertake this role, the Chief Executive Officer may reallocate funding to accommodate over expenditure variances. The reallocation of funds shall result in a revised budget for the purpose of producing the monthly financial report and accordingly be reported as a permanent variance.


The projected budget for year-end indicates a surplus position of $96,000.


The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal of financial sustainability, by ensuring the Town's expenditure is matched by its revenue.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Responsible Manager Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Contributors Not Applicable



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summarised Statement of Financial Activity as at 31 December 2017 and notes accompanying the statement.


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the report on the budget review for the 2017/2018 financial year be received and the

variances to the budget be noted; (ii) the following budget amendments be approved as listed below: Budget Item Original Revised Change

Budget Budget Increase

(Decrease)

$ $ $

Underground Power Project Underground Power Project 17,650,000 11,500,000 (6,150,000) Transfer from Reserves 17,650,000 11,500,000 (6,150,000) (Timing Difference) Building Depreciation Building Depreciation 2,893,500 3,433,500 540,000 (Non Cash Adjustment) City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club - Capital Project Capital Contribution 660,000 0 (660,000) City Beach Surf Club (cash Reserve for Panel Sealing) 660,000 0 (660,000) (Timing Difference) St John's Wood Land Sales Land Proceeds 11,200,000 11,750,000 550,000 Transfer to Endowment Lands Account 11,200,000 11,750,000 550,000 Gain on Disposal Of Assets 11,200,000 11,750,000 550,000

(Additional Revenue) Carried 9/0



8. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

CR18.22 ST PAUL'S CHURCH PARKING ARRANGEMENTS

Refer Item 13.1

COUNCIL TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2018

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\18 MINUTES\FEBRUARY\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 234

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

10.1 MODEL LITIGANT POLICY FOR CIVIL LITIGATION - JANUARY 2018

SUMMARY:

The Town has adopted a Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation. The Council has required that a status report be provided to each Council meeting regarding the conduct of any civil litigation and the legal costs incurred. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

At the Town's Ordinary Council meeting of 19 December 2017 the council adopted a Model Litigant Policy. The decision made at the meeting is detailed below:

That:- (i) the Town ADOPTS the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation; (ii) the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation be effective immediately and be applied to

all civil litigation currently being undertaken or responded to by the Town; (iii) the Town will receive a report from Chief Executive Officer regarding the conduct of

any civil litigation undertaken and the legal costs incurred by the local government at each full Town meeting.

The Policy has been adopted is adopted and this report provides the information required to be presented monthly in clause (iii) above.



DETAILS:

The following table provides a summary of the civil Litigation the Town is currently engaged in as at 31 January 2018: Party Description Cost Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd Repurchase of Lot 501 Omaroo

Terrace, City Beach $96,381


Council Policy 1.2.17 Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation applies which states "This Policy has been endorsed by the Town to assist in maintaining proper standards in litigation".


The costs of litigation are not known prior to the adoption of the Budget. Whilst there is a general provision for legal expenses in various cost centres there may not be sufficient provision allocation. The 2017/18 operating expenditure budget is approximately $49 million and the legal costs are generally managed within this overall budget.


The status report regarding the conduct of any civil litigation and the legal costs incurred is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017/2027 Goal 9 - Transparent, accountable governance.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is administrative. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Responsible Manager Not applicable Contributors Not applicable

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil



Council Meeting 27 February 2018 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Carr, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.23 pm.

COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Everett That the Civil Litigation status report for January 2018 be received. Carried 8/0 Cr Carr returned to the meeting at 7.24 pm



10.2 UNDERGROUND POWER PROJECTS: OWNERSHIP OF STREET LIGHTS

SUMMARY:

There is a possibility that the Town would save money by owning, operating and maintaining street lights within areas of underground power rather than continue to pay Synergy fixed fees for these services. Discussions have progressed with the State Government and Western Power regarding street lighting being installed as part of the SUPP and Wembley/West Leederville projects with a view that the Town would like to continue discussions on ownership. It is considered that it is now appropriate that a Council decision is made regarding the ownership of the street lighting such that discussions can proceed or if necessary intervention from the State Government sought. It is recommended the Council decides that its preference is to own and operate the street lighting being undertaken in the SUPP and Wembley/West Leederville underground power projects and commence negotiations on the matter. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The majority of streets within the Town have lighting that is owned, operated and maintained by Western Power1. Synergy is the authority who bills the Town for this service. Currently this service costs the Town in excess of $650,000 pa for operation of 3,300 street lights. There is potential to reduce these costs if the Town undertook its own management of the street lighting as well as 'future proofing' the Town to avail itself of emerging technologies and opportunities.

1 With the exception of Howtree Place and a 400m section of Cambridge St, which is owned, operated and maintained by the Town.



DETAILS:

Street Lighting: Background Information The Town of Cambridge has approximately 3,300 individual street lights of a mix of various light technologies (Sodium, Metal Halide, Mercury Vapour and Fluorescent) either affixed to existing Western Power overhead network poles (in areas of overhead power) or dedicated street lighting poles (in areas of underground power and where needed elsewhere). Approximately 2,270 MWh of energy is used annually and the cost to the Town is approximately $ 650,000 pa for Western Power provided street lighting. With the upcoming SUPP and Wembley/West Leederville underground power projects, all street lighting will now be on dedicated street lighting poles. The SUPP and Wembley/West Leederville projects, at the current design status, will require ~1,200 new street lights of which 580 will be new 22W LED lights for local access roads and the remainder either Metal Halide or High Pressure Sodium. The Town is working with Western Power to ensure that during construction, wherever practical, that the entire street lighting system is LED. The Town pays Synergy for street lighting. The tariffs for street lighting charged by Synergy are approved by the State Government annually and are dependent on the lamp type and the hours being used (dusk to dawn, dusk to midnight, dusk to 1:15 am). The Town is usually on a dusk to dawn switching. The Synergy Tariff for each lamp is a bundled charge which incorporates:

1. Synergy's cost of energy as a retailer 2. Synergy's charge for administration 3. Western Power's asset charges to maintain the street light 4. Western Power's charges for use of their network

Items 1 and 2 are determined by Synergy and the State Government whereas items 3 and 4 are regulated charges approved by the Economic Regulatory Authority on a 5 year basis. Some typical examples of charges (in ¢ per day, ex GST) are shown in the following table:

Lamp Type Western Power Use of Network

Charge

Western Power Asset Charge

Synergy Charge

Total Z Tariff Charged by

Synergy

22 W LED 7.93 16.66 4.18 28.77

70 W Metal Halide 10.66 48.65 16.04 75.35

250 W Sodium 20.11 31.47 27.51 79.09 Table 1: Typical Lamp Charges, ¢ per day, based on average 12 hr run time per day



Local Government Street Lighting Working Group The Town has representation at a Street Lighting Working Group which includes local government, WALGA, Synergy, Western Power and the Public Utilities Office of the State Government. The working group was convened to: • Establish transparency in pricing for street lighting from Western Power and Synergy • Promote understanding within the State and Utilities of the costs of street lighting being

borne by ratepayers • Lobby for the timely introduction of newer LED lights for all street lighting applications • Lobby for inclusion of smart metering technologies as a means of establishment of a

business case for local governments to seek contestability for the energy component of street lighting

• Discuss mechanisms whereby Western Power's asset systems can identify the cost of existing street lighting areas if a local government wishes to 'buy back' the system

• Establish agreed mechanisms for lamp replacement strategies where newer LED lamps are available in preference to older discharge lighting systems

Whilst this working group is in early stages, it has proven beneficial in that there is good understanding from all parties of the issues relevant to Local Government and the concerns raised. It is noted that within the western suburbs, the City of Nedlands is pursuing an underground power project with Western Power in which the City will own the street lights, the Town of Claremont is also pursuing a similar project but will not own the street lights. Further information is being sought from the City of Subiaco as they have differing circumstances for various parts of their City. Street Lighting Advancements LED street lighting is becoming more relevant and prevalent worldwide on the basis of: • Lower energy consumption per lumen of light produced • Much longer lamp life • More consistent colour rendering throughout the life of the lamp • Capability for advanced control of light levels (dimming and brightening) Along with LED Street Lighting is also the introduction of 'Smart Controllers' at each light. Whereas traditionally a simple photo-electric cell is used to turn the light on and off, these new controllers have advanced capability to meter and measure energy usage and via 3G/4G on board connections, lights can remotely controlled and monitored. This results in lower fault rectification times and capability for more interactive management of street lighting. Furthermore, advances in these controllers can include aspects such as GPS tracking, CCTV, sound recording and the like. Many International cities are moving towards 'Smart City' concepts where street lights and their poles are being used for many new purposes to improve the amenity for the population. Western Power has introduced a 22W LED light which can be used for lighting of local access roads.



Western Power has recently tendered for LED light fittings to replace their existing catalogue of older technology gas discharge lamps (Metal Halide, High Pressure Sodium, Mercury Vapour) used on distributor roads, intersections, crossings and the like. Indications are that they will procured later this year, however a regulated tariff is some time away as this requires further work by Western Power and Synergy. The SUPP and Wembley/West Leederville projects have been designed on the basis of the 22W LED for local access roads with Metal Halide and High Pressure Sodium for other areas. Advice has been given that, once the LED equivalents are in the Western Power warehouse, they will be installed in the SUPP / Wembley/West Leederville areas. There may be a timing difference in some streets in getting full LED roll out however the Town's project management are working with Western Power to achieve 100% LED roll out. Ownership of Street Lighting The current design of the SUPP and Wembley/West Leederville projects requires the installation of approximately 1,200 new lights (of which 580 will be 22W LED and the remainder Metal Halide or High Pressure Sodium) - with a view to change this to 100% LED. Based on the current published tariffs, and the current mix of lights, the annual cost to the Town for this lighting is estimated at $230,000, of which $121,000 is reflected in Western Power's asset charges. If the Town was able to own and operate the street lighting, under the current regulatory regime, each pole (or series of poles on the same circuit) would be considered a single connection to the Western Power network (usually at the nearest green dome in the verge). There is a Synergy tariff for these connections (Unmetered Supply - UMS Tariff) which covers the use of the Western Power network and the estimated energy consumption. If the Town owned the street lighting for these projects, the cost of the UMS would be $150,000 pa. The Town would have to then cover the cost of maintaining these street lights, replacing damaged poles and lamp maintenance. Whilst the Town has not yet completed a full business case on the maintenance component of the issue, it is difficult to forecast that $80,000 pa (the difference between a fully maintained Western Power system and the Town UMS option) would be incurred in maintenance year on year. It is also relevant that once approval is given to contestability of the aggregated load of street lights (through the use of smart meters), the base cost of the energy component will fall further. Ownership of the street lights and poles also affords the Town the ability to go forward in further 'Smart City' initiatives or other improvements which would be difficult to enact if Western Power retained the ownership. Procurement - Costs within SUPP and Wembley/West Leederville Projects As the street lighting component of these projects is designed and tendered, it would be relatively simple from a technical basis to identify and cost the street lighting system to be owned by the Town. The Town and property owners are fully funding the Wembley/West Leederville project. Accordingly, there should be no cost to the Town in having ownership of the street lights in this project.



Within the SUPP projects, the Town and property owners are funding 90% of the project costs. The materials and installation of street lighting in these projects (before prorate share of project management, overheads and contingency) is $1.795m (of which the State is funding $179,500 and the Town/property owners the balance). This gives an indication of a reasonable procurement cost to take over the ownership of the street lights in these projects. Procurement - Contractual Arrangements The SUPP agreements deal with ownership of assets by parties other than Western Power (ie Local Governments) in two areas: 19.2 Subject to Clause 19.3, the Parties acknowledge that unless otherwise agreed, all

infrastructure (including, without limitation, all cables, connection pillars, transformers, street lights, street light columns, communication cables, conduits, pipes, pits and other infrastructure, whether located above ground or below ground) installed as part of or in conjunction with the Project shall vest in and be owned by Western Power and Western Power shall be solely responsible for its ongoing maintenance and operation from the Practical Completion of the Project.

and 21.1 If approved by the Program Manager, additional work that is requested to be

undertaken that is outside of the Equivalent Project Scope of Work, shall be a cost borne by the relevant Party requesting such additional work. This includes stand- alone transmission system infrastructure changes. Special lighting or decorative street light columns shall become the property of the requesting Party unless otherwise agreed between Western Power and the LGA. Where this work impacts on the Project as determined by the Program Manager, only Program Preferred Vendors shall be used and scheduling shall be to the Project Team’s requirements to ensure effective integration of the work.

Both clauses have mechanisms for the Town to own the street lighting; however they do require the consent of Western Power. Procurement - Outside of SUPP and Wembley/West Leederville Projects If a decision was made to delete the street lighting aspects of these projects and the Town decided to install its own system, whilst theoretically possible, it is strongly recommended that this is not pursued due to: • The necessity for the Town to 'take over' design and specification for tender and tender

the works to match the Western Power construction program. This is probably impossible to achieve within the SUPP project timetable without delaying the project

• The necessity for Western Power's contractor removing overhead poles and the Town's contractor installing street lights in the same area and similar timeframe would be not practical from a constructability aspect

It is noted that the City of Nedlands, who intend to own the street lights within their Western Power underground power project have agreed that Western Power undertakes the work and hands over the built assets to the City.



Decision to Proceed If Council decides to proceed to own the street lighting in the SUPP and Wembley/West Leederville project areas, the Town should immediately advise Western Power and the Public Utilities Office via the appropriate project mechanisms and await their approval or rejection. This would also be backed up by current communication from the Mayor to the Minister seeking that this matter is addressed. Making such a decision to proceed gives the strongest signal to Western Power and the State of the Town's determination on this matter. This would be similar to decisions made by the City of Nedlands and then approaches made by them to Western Power in achieving approval for them to own the street lights in their current fully funded underground power project with Western Power. Remaining Areas of the Town At this point in time, it is not recommended the Town immediately pursues taking over ownership of the existing street light system in the remainder of the Town. Further due diligence would be necessary in terms of the asset condition, written down value in the Western Power system and the matters relating to points of connection. This could be explored as a subsequent matter.




If the Town was able to negotiate ownership of the street lighting from the SUPP projects there will be a requirement of additional funding in the order of $179,500 plus overheads to achieve this. This could be funded from the Area Improvement Reserve.


Ownership of street lighting supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017/2027: Our Council Goal 11: A strong performing local government Strategy 11.5 Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community


In accordance with Policy 1.2.11 Community Engagement, consideration of this report is purely administrative in nature and not requiring community engagement. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Brett Jackson, Director Projects Responsible Manager Not Applicable Contributors Not Applicable



ATTACHMENTS:

Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr McAllister, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That:- (i) the Town proceeds with a position to take ownership of the street lighting poles,

associated wiring from the point of supply and lights being installed in the Floreat West, Floreat East and Floreat North SUPP project areas;

(ii) subject to a decision to proceed with underground power in the Wembley/West

Leederville area, the Town proceeds with a position to take ownership of the street lighting poles, associated wiring from the point of supply and lights being installed in this project;

(iii) negotiations commence with Western Power and the Public Utilities Office on this

matter to determine a fair and equitable cost to the Town; and (iv) the terms of any agreement requires further Council approval. Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson

and Timmermanis Against: Cr Powell



10.3 TELETHON AND SPEECH AND HEARING CENTRE - PERMISSION TO HOLD GAMING NIGHT

SUMMARY:

Telethon Speech and Hearing are seeking Landlord approval to hold the Carbon Business Groups Annual Charity Poker night on the 9 March 2018 with all proceeds from the event going to Telethon Speech and Hearings programs and services. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

On 16 August 1999, the Town entered into a Ground Lease with the Speech and Hearing Centre for Children WA (now Telethon Speech and Hearing) to construct an independent school offering diagnostic, therapy and support services for children with hearing loss and speech and language delays. Telethon Speech & Hearing (TSH) is a Western Australian based not-for-profit organisation and registered charity.

TSH receives 50% of its funding from Federal and State Governments, however, TSH rely on donations, benefactors, bequests, venue hire and regular charity events to raise money to further support and fund the work undertaken at the centre.

DETAILS:

The Town has received an application from Telethon Speech and Hearing to conduct a gaming night in the auditorium at the premises on 9 March 2018. The application is made under the Gaming and Wagering Commission Act 1987. This application requires the signature of the landowner for approval prior to submission to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (formerly Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor).



The event is the Carbon Business Group's Annual Charity Poker Night. The event details are as follows: • The event to be held on Friday 9 March 2018 between 6.00pm to 11.00pm • Expecting approximately 80 attendees • $50 ticket must be pre-purchased, no walk ins • Two cash tables, the rest will use chips • Raffles running throughout the night • Tickets have already been purchased from the public to attend this event • All proceeds going to Telethon Speech and Hearing Carbon Group is an accounting, insurance, finance and financial planning firm that donates 0.5% of company turnover to charitable organisations. Carbon Group runs quarterly networking events and charity events to raise money for community charities and organisations as part of their company ethos. Last year, Carbon Group raised $14,000 for St Vinnies Big Charity Poker Night. The current Ground Lease between the Town and Telethon Speech and Hearing does not specify that gaming is prohibited.


The gaming application is lodged under Section 55 of the Gaming and Wagering Commission Act 1987. The Act consolidates the law relating to minor gaming in Western Australia and provides the opportunity for clubs and charities to raise funds through lotteries, bingo, two-up and gaming events. Further, it is advised that Development Approval is not required for a temporary use which is in existence for less than 48 hours under Schedule 2, Part 8, Clause 61(2)(d) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.




Goal 1 A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.1 Encourage and support participation in a range of activities and events at which communities can gather and interact


Nil OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Responsible Manager Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance and Contracts Contributors Paul O'Keefe, Coordinator Property and Governance



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr McAllister, seconded by Cr Nelson That:- (i) in the capacity of landlord, the Town of Cambridge consents to the Telethon

Speech and Hearing's request to conduct the Carbon Business Group's Annual Charity Poker Night to be held on 9 March 2018 be approved for that date only;

(ii) the Chief Executive officer be delegated to sign the application as the landowner

for approval prior to submission to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (formerly Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor).

Carried 9/0



10.4 SUBMISSION TO WALGA ON THIRD PARTY APPEAL RIGHTS IN PLANNING

SUMMARY:

The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) is seeking local government comment on a proposed preferred model to introduce third party rights of appeal into Western Australia's planning framework. WALGA's proposed preferred model is as follows:

'Support the introduction of Third Party Appeal Rights for decisions made by Development Assessment Panels'.

This report recommends that Council provide a submission to WALGA, as detailed in this report. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

In December 2016, WALGA State Council resolved to undertake research on third party appeals around Australia and further consult with members regarding its current policy position. WALGA prepared a discussion paper on a variety of options and points and sought comment and feedback from local governments during May and June 2017 (refer Attachments 2 and 3). On 23 May 2017, Council decided that:

(i) Council supports the introduction into the State Administrative Tribunal of third party appeal rights against development approvals and/or the conditions or absence of conditions of an approval; and

(ii) the Town's Administration forward the Council resolution to WALGA before the

comment period is closed. (Refer '11. Urgent Business', 23 May 2017 Council minutes)

The submissions received by WALGA were collated into four options that broadly captured the range of responses in support of third party appeals (see Attachment 1 for further information). Two workshops were held during November 2017 with local government representatives and based on the feedback from these workshops, WALGA is seeking local government comment



on the following statement as the preferred model of third party appeal rights in planning in Western Australia:

Support the introduction of Third Party Appeal Rights for decisions made by Development Assessment Panels.

COMMENT: WALGA's proposed preferred model of third party appeal rights differs from Council's resolution from 23 May 2017 in that WALGA's model is limited to only decisions made by Development Assessment Panels (DAPs), whereas Council's position is that third party appeal rights should be available for all development approvals, regardless of the decision maker (i.e. including local government, DAPs, Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority and WAPC). Based on Council's previous resolution on 23 May 2017, it is recommended a submission be made to WALGA that: 1. Advises WALGA that Council does not support the proposed preferred model where third

party appeal rights for decision made by DAPs are introduced; and 2. Council's preferred model is that third party appeal rights should be available for all

development approvals, including the conditions or absence of conditions of an approval, based on the following reasons:

• the rights of a third party to appeal a decision provides for a more equitable planning

system than what presently exists in that all persons affected by a planning decision have a right to review the decision on planning grounds, rather than just the proponent;

• third party appeal rights can lead to better and more proactive community engagement in the planning process, ideally before a decision is made, however also during an appeal process should that situation occur; and

• third party appeal rights can improve transparency in decision making by allowing third parties the ability to scrutinise and challenge decision making. Greater levels of transparency can then lead to greater levels of accountability.

Council's decision on 23 May 2017 did not raise any measures to address potential implementation and operational issues, such as uncertainty to proponents or vexatious and frivolous appeals. It is recommended that Council further elaborate on its position in support of third party appeal rights to address some of these matters:

• appeal rights should be limited to parties who are demonstrably affected by, or interested, a decision. For example, a party that provided a submission on an application prior to its determination.

• appeal rights should be limited to where there has been an exercise of discretion by the decision maker under the planning framework and/or where the development proposal involves matters of substantial public interest to the local community.

• criteria should be included to address vexatious or frivolous appeals that are not based on accepted planning grounds;

• the opportunity to appeal a decision should be limited to a specified timeframe, similar to the current 28 day appeal period adopted by SAT.


The introduction of third party appeal rights in the planning framework within Western Australia would require considerable amendments to planning legislation and policy, including the Planning and Development Act 2005.




There are no relevant financial implications associated with this report.


The following goals of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027 are broadly relevant to this report. Goal 4 Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and

responsive to future needs Goal 12 Advocacy for the Community


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy Level No.1.2.11 and consultation is not required as this matter is administrative in nature. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Contributors Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development

ATTACHMENTS:

1. WALGA invitation to comment - 1 December 2017 2. WALGA discussion paper - April 2017 3. 'Third Party Appeal Rights: Past and Future', Judge Christine Trenorden, 2009 COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Powell That, in response to the invitation to comment on the proposed preferred model for third party appeal rights in planning in Western Australia, the Western Australia Local Government Association be advised that:- (i) Council does not support the proposed preferred model where third party appeal

rights for decision made by DAPs are introduced; (ii) Council's preferred model is that third party appeal rights should be available for

all development approvals, including the conditions or absence of conditions of an approval, based on the following reasons:

(a) The rights of a third party to appeal a decision provides for a more equitable

planning system than what presently exists in that all persons affected by a planning decision have a right to review the decision on planning grounds, rather than just the proponent;

(b) Third party appeal rights can lead to better and more proactive community engagement in the planning process, ideally before a decision is made, however also during an appeal process should that situation occur;



(c) Third party appeal rights can improve transparency in decision making by

allowing third parties the ability to scrutinise and challenge decision making. Greater levels of transparency can then lead to greater levels of accountability.

(iii) a third party appeal rights system should address the following considerations:

(a) Appeal rights should be limited to parties who are demonstrably affected by, or interested in, a decision. For example, a party that provided a submission on an application prior to its determination.

(b) Appeal rights should be limited to where there has been an exercise of discretion by the decision maker under the planning framework and/or where the development proposal involves matters of substantial public interest to the local community.

(c) Criteria should be included to address vexatious or frivolous appeals that are not based on accepted planning grounds.

(d) The opportunity to appeal a decision should be limited to a specified timeframe, similar to the current 28 day appeal period adopted by the State Administrative Tribunal.

Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson, Powell

and Timmermanis Against: Cr Everett



10.5 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE TRANSITION OF HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES - EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST (EOI 45-17) OUTCOME

SUMMARY:

This report seeks Council approval of the transition of the Town's Home and Community Care (HACC) services to a suitable and experienced existing North Metropolitan Region HACC service provider from 1 July 2018. The recommended HACC Service Provider was identified through the evaluation of Expressions of Interest submitted by HACC service providers to deliver the Town's HACC contract from 1 July 2018, and has been endorsed by the Western Australian Department of Health. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The Home and Community Care (HACC) Program is a joint funding initiative of the State Government’s Department of Health and the Commonwealth Government’s Department of Health. Under the HACC program funding is provided to eligible entities, such as local government authorities and aged and disability service providers, to deliver basic support services for people with a functional disability and their carers to assist them to continue living independently at home. The HACC program has undergone significant changes in its funding arrangements and service delivery model in recent years. This reform is going to continue over the next five months, as the HACC program transitions from being managed by the State Government to the Commonwealth Government; and it will be renamed the Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP), commencing on 1 July 2018.



In Western Australia, all HACC services for people over 65yrs (and 50 years and over for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people) will be transitioned to the CHSP from 1 July 2018. HACC services for people aged under 65 years will continue to be funded and managed by the WA Department of Health, with some clients transferring to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The Town of Cambridge has been providing HACC services at the Wembley Community Centre (WCC) for over 20 years. The Town's HACC services are branded as Cambridge Senior Services, and include: • Home Support services (domestic assistance, social support, respite and personal care); • Podiatry services; • Centre based day care; • Meals at Home; • Transport; and • Home maintenance.* * This service type ceased in 2013/2014 The Town of Cambridge has a current contract with the WA Department of Health to deliver HACC services within its local government boundary, which in accordance to the HACC program is in the North Metropolitan Region. There are 27 organisations contracted to provide HACC services within the North Metropolitan Region. In late 2017, the Town conducted an internal review of its senior services and it was concluded that continuing to provide direct service delivery in the new aged care reform environment would put the Town at financial risk in future years. Furthermore, it was determined that HACC service delivery is no longer the core business of local government in particular as the not-for-profit sector is actively participating in the industry and continuing to grow at a rapid rate. For these reasons, Council at its meeting on 19 December 2017 decided the following: "That:

(i) the significant changes occurring in relation to the Home and Community Care

Program merging with the Commonwealth Home Support Program from 1 July 2018 be noted;

(ii) no new Home and Community Care referrals be accepted from the Regional Assessment Service from 1 January 2018;

(iii) the Town exits the provision of Home and Community Care services on 30 June 2018;

(iv) a Communication and Transition Plan be commenced immediately, including information sessions with clients, staff and volunteers to advise them of the Town's support in transitioning to new arrangements and ensure continuity of care;

(v) the Town continues to liaise with the Western Australian Department of Health to ensure that support is provided for the transition of clients and staff;

(vi) the Town undertakes an 'Expressions of Interest' process utilising the Expression of Interest document attached, to identify a suitable and experienced existing North Metropolitan Region HACC service provider to deliver the Town's HACC contract from 1 July 2018; and

(vii) the results of the EOI process, including the preferred HACC Service Provider, be presented directly to Council in February 2018."



Since the Council resolution above was made, the Town has developed a comprehensive Communication and Transition Plan and placed a strong focus on consultation and communication with care recipients and their carers, staff, volunteers, the WA Department of Health and other service providers. The Town is committed to the continued provision of HACC services at the current level until 30 June 2018. Furthermore, the Town undertook an 'Expressions of Interest' process in January/February 2018 to appoint a preferred North Metropolitan Region HACC service provider to continue to deliver the Town's HACC services from 1 July 2018. This report details the outcomes of the Expression of Interest process and recommends a preferred provider to continue to deliver the Town's HACC services from 1 July 2018.

DETAILS:

The Town undertook an 'Expression of Interest' (EOI 45-17) process to appoint a preferred North Metropolitan Region HACC service provider to continue to deliver the Town's HACC services from 1 July 2018. Undertaking an EOI process was also the preferred methodology of the WA Department of Health to find an alternate HACC provider to take over the Town's HACC contract, from 1 July 2018. By undertaking an EOI process, the Town is able to: • ensure continuity of care for all existing HACC clients; • ensure continuity of employment for its HACC staff (albeit under different terms and

conditions of new employer); and • ensure continuity of engagement for its HACC volunteers. EOI opening and closing dates and Service Provider Information Session The EOI opened on 24 January 2018 and closed on 12 February 2018. The Town held an information session for all North Metropolitan Region HACC service providers at the Wembley community Centre on 24 January 2018 to explain the EOI process and answer any questions service providers had about the Council resolution or criteria to be addressed within the EOI. A total of 24 service providers attended the information session. Of the 24 service providers that attended the information session, 12 submitted a formal written response to the EOI. Submissions received were assessed in accordance with the qualitative and compliance criteria outlined in the EOI document. Details in relation to the evaluation assessment are provided as a Confidential Attachment. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

The Town of Cambridge has signed a letter of extension with the WA Department of Health, Subacute, Community and Aged Care Directorate for the 2017/18 financial year. With the pending transfer of State health to Federal health, extensions are offered on an annual basis and the Town has not yet signed an extension of agreement with the Department for beyond 30 June 2018. Changes to the Town's involvement in HACC will be reflected in the biannual review of the Town's policies, envisaged April/May 2018.




As part of the HACC service transition process to the preferred service provider, the Town will incur costs associated with staff time to assist in the service transition process, however, these costs will be absorbed by the current annual operational budget (employee costs). In addition, the Town will have costs associated with staff redundancies. Options for staff to transition to new service providers are being examined. An overview of costs are included as part of the Confidential attachment.


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017 - 2027: Priority Area 1: Our Community Life Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.3: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities.


The Town consulted with the WA Department of Health and 27 North Metropolitan HACC service providers throughout the EOI process. Broad community consultation was not required to inform this report. However, The Town has developed and is consistently implementing its Communication and Transition Plan actions to keep all stakeholders informed of the service transition progress. This includes clients, carers, staff and volunteers. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Responsible Manager Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development Responsible Officer Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Overview of Assessment of EOI Submissions (CONFIDENTIAL) Council Meeting 27 February 2018 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Timmermanis disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Town of Cambridge Transition of Home and Community Care Services - Expressions of Interest (EOI 45-17) outcome, I declare that I know the CEO of one of the proponents and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly."



COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr McAllister, seconded by Cr McKerracher That:- (i) the Town approves Rise Network as the preferred North Metropolitan Region HACC

service provider to continue to deliver the Town's HACC services from 1 July 2018; (ii) a licence agreement for use of the Wembley Community Centre be approved

between the Town and Rise Network to the satisfaction of the Town's Chief Executive Officer for a 3-5 year period effective from 1 July 2018.

Carried 9/0



10.6 RFT46-17 LEGAL SERVICES LITIGATION - LOT 501 OMAROO TERRACE, CITY BEACH

SUMMARY:

The purpose of engaging a legal practitioner for litigation services is to represent the Town of Cambridge in a contract dispute relating to the Sale of Lot 501 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach. The Town of Cambridge has invoked the repurchase option under the sale contract and is in dispute with the buyer in this matter. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The Town of Cambridge sold Lot 501 Omaroo Terrace to Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd (BDI) that settled in March 2014 at a price of $4,000,000 inclusive of GST. BDI subsequently prepared plans for a development on the site comprising 31 dwellings that was considered by the Council of the Town of Cambridge in September 2016 (Item DV16.129). The Council considered the proposed development to be an over-development of the site and decided to defer the matter for three months to enable BDI to amend the proposal. BDI appealed this matter to SAT which resulted in a hearing being held over three days in May and June 2017. The SAT made a decision on 14 September 2017 affirming the Town's decision to refuse the development application. The Town of Cambridge issued a default notice in May 2017 and notice to repurchase in July 2017. The matter has subsequently followed the process under the Contract for Sale and a writ seeking declaratory and injunctive relief has been issued by BDI. It is this writ that is the subject of litigation services the Town of Cambridge now requires. Mediation has not resolved the matter and the parties are now preparing for trial, although it is possible the matter may be settled before then.



DETAILS:

The next steps in this matter are to prepare a full defence and counterclaim including document discovery and to prepare witness statements. The legal fees should this matter proceed to trail are expected to exceed $150,000, which required the Town to call Tenders for legal representation. Tenders have been sought from appropriately qualified litigant lawyers specialising in commercial property contractual matters to act on behalf of the Town. Scope of requirements To advise and represent the Town of Cambridge in relation to and in connection with the: (a) repurchase of Lot 501 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach; (b) Supreme Court proceedings brought against the Town of Cambridge by Bigdeal

Investments Pty Ltd (BDI); and (c) any subsequent matters, yet to be identified at the Town of Cambridge's discretion, in

connection with the development of the land by BDI. The fees of Senior Counsel to act on behalf of the Town of Cambridge at trial are excluded from the scope of this contract. The Town of Cambridge has adopted a Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation and the legal services under this contract must be delivered in accordance with the requirements of that policy. A copy of the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation was attached with the tender. Tender submissions The Tender was advertised on 13 January 2018 and closed on 30 January 2018. At the designated closing time, five legal firms submitted a tender. Details of the assessment of tenders are included in the confidential evaluation report attached.


Council Policy 1.2.17 Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation applies which states "This Policy has been endorsed by the Town to assist in maintaining proper standards in litigation". The Local Government Act 1995 requires a public tender to be called when the value of the contract exceeds $150,000. Council approval is necessary for the award of tenders greater than $150,000 unless the decision is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer.


The legal fees should this matter proceed to trail are expected to exceed $150,000, which will require the Town to call Tenders for legal representation. There is no specific budget provision for this legal action and the costs will be met within the Town's 2017/18 and successive budgets.




The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017/2027 Goal 9 - Transparent, accountable governance.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is administrative. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Executive Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Responsible Manager Not applicable Contributors Not applicable ATTACHMENTS:

1. Confidential Evaluation Report Council Meeting 27 February 2017 Prior to consideration, Cr Carr, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.40 pm.

COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Cr Everett That the tender for RFT 46-17 Legal Services Litigation - Sale Contract Lot 501 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach be awarded to Minter Ellison. Carried 7/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and

Timmermanis Against: Cr Powell Cr Carr returned to the meeting at 7.41 pm.



11. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil



12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

12.1 RECISSION OF ITEM 4.1 DECISION OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 7 FEBRUARY 2018 (CONFIDENTIAL)

Submission by Cr Powell REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY: The motion is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following: (d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and which

relate to a matter to be discussed at the meeting. The motion and background are provided in a confidential attachment. Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That the item be considered behind closed doors at Item 12.10. Carried 6/3 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and

Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr, McAllister and Powell



12.2 ALDERBURY RESERVE – DRINKING FOUNTAIN WITH DOG WATERING BOWL

Submission by Cr McKerracher That:-

(i) the Town install a drinking fountain with dog watering bowl at Alderbury Park in the

immediate vicinity of the location identified on the attached map by 30 June 2018; and (ii) Council approves the funds required for the above unbudgeted project (being estimated

at $14,000) being identified and applied to the project by the administration allocating savings already identified by the administration in the parks budget arising from completed or near completed park projects.

BACKGROUND: During the public consultation period over the Alderbury Sports Ground in 2017, the Town became aware that a portion of Alderbury Reserve is used extensively by a large group of residents as a dog exercise area. In August 2017, a resident submitted and Council received, a 65 page petition requesting Council “To permanently maintain the south-east corner of Alderbury Reserve as an off-leash dog area. We overwhelmingly oppose the proposal that this space be utilised as a permanent junior or senior, sporting facility at any time”. The petitioner advises the petition contained 886 signatures. Dog park users would like a water fountain with a dog watering bowl (similar to the design of the Bent Street Park water fountain with dog bowl) to be installed in the dog exercise area in the location shown on the map below. The location on the map is the location where the majority of users of the dog exercise area congregate under shady trees and adjacent existing seats. The residents currently cart their own bowls to the park for their dogs and place them near seats under trees. The dog exercise area is used on a daily basis and has its own Facebook page called “Friends of Alderbury Dog Park” with 85 members. In addition many local residents recreate in this area playing sport and a water fountain would be of benefit to general recreational users of this area as well. Whilst it is acknowledged that a water source is available at the Scout Hall, that fountain is located in an on leash area as well as being very close to a path. Residents with dogs off leash do not use this area as there is no seating and as the northern side of the path is an on leash area, they risk fines if their dogs stray beyond the path and the designated off leash area. For this reason it seems logical from a safety perspective to keep some separation between the dog exercise off leash area and other areas of the park. Discussions with the Director of Infrastructure and Manager of Parks are that the installation of a water fountain in the location requested can be regarded as a discrete project separate from the overall planning/needs assessment currently taking place concerning Alderbury Reserve. In addition, the Manager of Parks has advised he has reviewed parks expenditure and can identify savings from four completed or near completed park projects which could be made available to fund this project.



ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: The high level of park use in the proposed location for the drinking fountain with dog watering bowl supports this request. If there is adequate water pressure, a supply can be taken from the existing water connection within the park adjacent the Scout Hall, avoiding the need to install another water meter. If there is inadequate water pressure to accommodate the installation of the drinking fountain, officers will investigate the technical requirements and associated costs to provided adequate pressure and provide a report back to Council at a later date, identifying options to progress the project. BUDGET: The estimated cost to undertake the installation of a drinking fountain with dog watering bowl on a concrete pad is $14,000. Funds are available for redirection to carry out the above proposed works from the following current Parks project budgets: • City Beach Park - Investigate damaged Toodyay stone wall - $3,872 (underspend) • Lake Monger Reserve - Replace Drinking Fountain - $4,431 (underspend) • Various Parks - Entry Statements - $3,511 (underspend) • Bent Park - Replace bitumen path - $5,000 (estimated underspend) LAW: Council has the ability to approve unbudgeted expenditure by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995.



COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Cr Bradley That:-

(i) the Town install a drinking fountain with dog watering bowl at Alderbury Park in

the immediate vicinity of the location identified on the attached map by 30 June 2018; and

(ii) Council approves the funds required for the above unbudgeted project (being

estimated at $14,000) being identified and applied to the project by the administration allocating savings already identified by the administration in the parks budget arising from completed or near completed park projects.

Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson




12.3 GREENING LANEWAYS AND STREETS

Submission by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) the CEO provide a report on a program to reduce the amount of hard paving on traffic

islands and verges between footpaths and kerbs, and replace with waterwise landscaping by 15 March 2018;

(ii) the Manager of Parks provide a report on the cost of the use of deep soil tree wells for

use in laneways in Wembley and West Leederville by 15 March 2018. Council consider the installation of deep soil wells in laneways prior to the installation of any bitumen in laneways programmed for 2018;

(iii) the Treescape Plan be reviewed by the Manager of Parks by the end of March 2018 with

direction to promote the use of canopy trees where possible and discourage the use of small native trees, and the review report be brought to an EM Forum for discussion in about April 2018;

(iv) the Manager of Parks remove the Paperbark trees currently planted in the island on the

corner of Rochedale and Stephenson Ave and plant a number of mature large trees in the island.

BACKGROUND: In July 2016 Council passed a motion that the CEO prepare a report to reduce the amount of hard paving on traffic islands and verges between footpaths with waterwise landscaping. In particular the Mayor gave the example of the large paved islands around the intersection of Cambridge Street and Selby Street. These large paved islands are seldom used by pedestrians and would be a much better entry statement to Wembley if they were landscaped and planted with canopy trees. Despite the motion being passed there has been no report provided by the CEO. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: The following comments are provided specific to each of the four items raised in the Notice of Motion. 1. Replacement of hard paving on traffic islands and verges between footpaths and

kerbs with water wise planting In July 2106 the following notice of motion (Item 12.4) was submitted by the Mayor and decided by Council:



"That the CEO Prepare a report to reduce the amount of hard paving on traffic islands and verges between footpaths and kerbs and replacing with waterwise landscaping." Two reports partially address the decision by referring to other initiates which are ongoing. 1. Report CR17.90 27 June 2017 - Park Tree Inventory and Urban Strategy.

These include: • priority and Precinct Streets Tree Planting Programme; • Parks Tree Planting Programme; • various natural areas planting; • Ecozoning Programme; and • reducing paving in road improvement projects (also in response to Notice of Motion

12.4 July 2016 - Paved Verges and Traffic Islands) In the meantime the Town continues to implement initiatives, programmes and projects that help contribute to the improvement of our urban forest.

2. Report (CR17.23) 28 March 2017 - Infrastructure Parks Proposed Works Program

This matter was referred to in the report endorsed by Council on 28 March 2017 (CR17.23) with regards to Infrastructure Parks' programme of works for 2017, with reference to the preparation of a further report for Council for consideration prior to the development of the 2018/19 budget The following potential initiatives were considered for inclusion in the proposed Infrastructure Parks works for the 2017/18 financial year: • Outdoor fitness equipment; and • Retrofitting existing paved areas with trees and planting (NOM 12.4. July 2016)

At this stage these initiatives have been deferred to allow proper development of the scope and potential costs. These will be addressed and presented to Council for consideration prior to being developed for inclusion in the 2018/19 financial year budget.

The report will identify locations across the Town where paving could be replaced by water wise planting, comment on measures that need to be undertaken and estimate costs to enable successful establishment and ongoing maintenance of these areas. This commentary will take into account issues such as plant and tree species characteristics to suit the circumstances (safety sight lines, non-irrigated, harsh conditions, underground services, etc.), and statutory Safety In Design requirements for implementation and ongoing maintenance and replacement (safety for workers and road corridor users).

Works have been carried out in the past twelve months which include the planting of road islands at the Rochdale Road and Stephenson Avenue intersection (refer Item 4 below) and tree planting in the paved median on Kirkdale Avenue (refer photo over).



Kirkdale Avenue

With regard to the example provided it is likely that the replacement of the paved islands with planting beds in this location (as highlighted in the aerial image below) would be fairly costly, as the irrigation would need to be fully redesigned (non-irrigated planting is not recommended in this high-profile location), paving removed and amended and planting carried out all under a high degree of traffic management, which adds a lot of cost during construction (and ongoing maintenance). Selby/Grantham/Cambridge paved traffic islands

The paved islands are also more difficult for tree planting. Currently the overhead powerlines prevent any more from being planted and even if the lines come down, safety sightlines would be compromised. Further investigation would be required to enable an estimate of cost for the capital works and implications on annual maintenance costs pending the direction from Council with regards to expected treatments in this area. An opportunity has been identified for the large lawn triangle surrounded by Cambridge, Selby and Grantham Streets to plant an ornamental collection of large feature trees to create greater visual structure and impact to this high profile location. The marked-up aerial below shows the intent of the tree planting proposed but is indicative only and will be dependent on which power lines can come down in this area - there are some high voltage lines that will remain. There may also be an opportunity to plant some trees around the edge of the rose garden to complement the layout of this area. The tree planting works can be carried out this year within current budgeted tree planting programmes.



Opportunities for additional tree planting

3. Deep soil tree well installation in laneways programmed to be sealed in 2017/18

financial year

The lanes listed for sealing this financial year are Clohessy Lane and Connor Lane. Locations, aerial images and site views are provided below.

Clohessy Lane Connor Lane



Clohessy Lane is a bit better vegetated than Connor Lane in the sense there are more trees in backyards with their canopy overhanging the lane. From a greening and shading perspective there is some argument for introducing more tree canopy in the bare sections of the lanes. With regards to actual planting in these lanes there are a number of factors to consider: 1. The lanes are 5m wide and when resurfaced, the carriageway is 4m - 50cm is required

on both side for kerb and an area behind the kerb to allow for the discrepancies in property boundary treatments and levels. This provides minimal space for a tree while allowing a vehicle to pass by the tree. Consideration will need to be given regarding the impact of vehicle movements along the lane, including passing if going in opposite directions. If trees are installed the lanes may need to be converted to one way traffic movements. This would require further investigation.

2. When lanes are sealed, residents are encouraged to build laneway access to garages

when lots are subdivided. There aren’t many garages currently on these two lanes but the amount will likely increase as blocks are subdivided. The full width of the lane is required to turn into a garage. Therefore no trees can be installed opposite and the lead up to garages. Any installed trees may need to be removed at a later date if a new garage is proposed as part of a development application (if an alternative location for the garage is not possible for whatever reason);

3. Property owners may request (and have the right) to have trees pruned to the

boundary line. Given the narrow lane corridor, this could result in significant reduction in canopy and poorly formed trees; and

4. The sewer runs down the middle of the lanes and is made of vitreous clay pipes.

These pipes are susceptible to tree root damage and clogging. The sewer main and pipe connections to each property may also restrict potential deep tree planting wells.

With these constraints in mind the best options for planting trees in the lanes is to plant trees on an alignment offset 1m from the boundary. The trees would have to have a mature trunk no wider than 1m in diameter. Actual planting locations would have to be determined on a case by case basis depending on existing tree locations, rear access to properties and underground services. With regards to deep tree planting well technologies or structural soil systems, the Administration been advised that for medium to large trees a growing medium of approximately 20 - 35m3 is required for healthy root establishment. At 90cm deep that would equate to approx. 22 to 38m2 per tree. These growing zones can however potentially overlap as tree roots share these zones. Based on current case studies, it costs approximately $10,000 per tree to supply and install these systems under road carriageways (excluding any additional passive watering systems such as permeable paving and the like). The results do however look very promising and much larger trees are established far quicker than through conventional tree planting methods. By comparison, conventional tree planting in these situations would be approximately $1,500 per tree (more if larger nursery stock required), and the risk will be that we achieve poor growth, unhealthy trees susceptible to stress and/or potential root damage to the roadways. Refer attachments for further information on case study in Perth metropolitan area (Attachments Item 12.3).



For Council to consider installing trees in Clohessy Lane and Connor Lane, direction would be needed in regards to progressing the matter as follows: 1. Carrying out further assessment of potential locations for trees keeping in mind

constraints identified above and proposing draft final locations; 2. Research into options for deep soil structural tree well systems ; 3. Obtaining of estimates to supply and install deep soil structural tree well systems in

nominated locations; 4. Council approval of the design to release for community engagement (including

potential conversion to one way traffic flow); 5. Reporting back to Council on outcomes of community engagement and next steps

include funding. The administration is also exploring opportunities to employ deep tree well structural soil systems for the car park improvements between Clancy's and Odyssea and the Oban Road median and verges as part of the review of parking provision in the road reserve adjacent the shopping centre, with the intent of achieving better quality large shade tree canopy outcomes.

4. Review of Treescape Plan

A review of the Treescape Plan is currently underway to explore opportunities for improving canopy cover. This review will focus on alternative larger canopy for currently nominated species for streets and potential impact on future canopy cover. The removal of overhead power lines (assuming it will proceed) also provides the Town the opportunity to explore larger canopy species in more streets. The review will include an assessment of current processes and guidelines for street tree planting and ability of owners and residents to obtain exemptions. The review will need to occur in parallel with development of the Urban Forest Strategy (funds budgeted for 2017/18 financial year) and all endeavours will be made to ensure the initiatives are coordinated and complimentary. Administration is currently finalising scope for data collection and analysis of canopy cover across the Town and related information to inform the development of the Urban Forest Strategy. Discussions have been held with several agencies and proprietors to determine the most cost effective sources and methods to collect the appropriate data. In the meantime, locations have been identified for planting up to 600 verge trees this year. Street selection has been based primarily on those streets with large canopy tree species (i.e. minimum 10m and up to 40m in height) as nominated in the Treescape Plan. A presentation of an update of the Treescape Plan review can be provided at elected members in April with the intention of obtaining elected members input into ways forward to improve canopy cover in the Town. It is unlikely a comprehensive report can be completed prior to the Forum.

5. Replacement of Paperbark trees in traffic island on corner of Rochedale Road and

Stephenson Avenue Further clarification and direction is required regarding this matter to enable a full response to be provided by Administration or for that matter to be able to action the matter in a way that meets the intent of the Notice of Motion, in particular: • What species is requested; and • What size are the trees to be at time of planting (at least an indication of height)



Further information is provided below to assist elected members in considering this motion. Roadworks were carried out in 2017 to adjust the turning lanes at the intersection of Rochedale Road and Stephenson Avenue. The Town took the opportunity to replace the existing concrete road islands with water wise groundcover and tree planting. Paperbark trees (Melaleuca quinquinervia) were selected for these islands as they are a fast growing, tall (up to 15m) hardy Australian native tree suited to these harsh growing conditions. The tree was also selected to match the species already used in the median of Rochedale Road to the south of the intersection and their trunk does not get too wide and interfere with safety sightlines for drivers and pedestrians. Photos below show before and after the works. Before After (showing location of new trees)



Before After (showing location of new trees)

The Paperbark trees are growing well and are expected to put on almost a metre of height each year and a lot more canopy bulk in a short time. It is common knowledge in the horticulture industry that installing more advanced nursery stock or transplant trees (particularly in hostile growing conditions) often results in stagnated growth. The smaller nursery stock tends to far outperform the larger tree over the lifetime of the tree. If the existing trees were to be replaced, the new trees would need to be planted in the same locations and have a similar size trunk at maturity to the Paperbarks to minimise risk associated with safety sightlines for drivers and pedestrians. Cost for replacement trees cannot be determined until tree species and size of stock is confirmed by Council. For information, Administration is also working towards tree and landscaping improvements in the areas surrounding this intersection. The Town has been liaising with Bold Park to plant over 100 - 200 trees in the verges around Bold Park. The areas highlighted in red in the aerial image below fall under this category and will be planted with a variety of local native trees propagated from seeds source and provided by BGPA. It is important that we plant specimens that come from local



seed stock to support the environmental values of the Park. The plants are currently being grown on and will be planted over the next couple of years as they get large enough. The Town is also planning on planting additional street trees this year in the Town's verges highlighted in blue, in particular the wide section of verge on Stephenson Ave, which will accommodate large canopy tree species quite well. Paperbarks are not proposed in these additional works. Verges for additional large canopy tree planting on Stephenson Ave and Rochedale Rd

There is an opportunity to replace the seasonal unirrigated grass in the section of verge on the Southern side of Stephenson Avenue highlighted below with water wise native planting if instructed by Council. This would require further investigation to determine costs and then included in the draft 2018/19 financial year budget for consideration if the Administration is directed by Council to progress the design works. Extent of Stephenson Avenue verge for potential water wise planting



BUDGET: Budget implications will depend on any additional works identified as part of this report that are not currently budgeted. LAW: There are no legal implications related to this report. Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Nelson That:- (i) the CEO provide a report on a program to reduce the amount of hard paving on

traffic islands and verges between footpaths and kerbs, and replace with waterwise landscaping by 15 March 2018;

(ii) the Manager of Parks provide a report on the cost of the use of deep soil tree wells

for use in laneways in Wembley and West Leederville by 15 March 2018. Council consider the installation of deep soil wells in laneways prior to the installation of any bitumen in laneways programmed for 2018;

(iii) the Treescape Plan be reviewed by the Manager of Parks by the end of March 2018

with direction to promote the use of canopy trees where possible and discourage the use of small native trees, and the review report be brought to an EM Forum for discussion in about April 2018;

(iv) the Manager of Parks remove the Paperbark trees currently planted in the island on

the corner of Rochedale and Stephenson Ave and plant a number of mature large trees in the island.

Amendment Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (v) the Town defer the bituminising of laneways until after the report on (ii) has been

provided. Amendment carried 5/4 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis Against: Crs Bradley, McAllister, Nelson and Powell Discussion ensued. Cr McAllister suggested that the Administration should be given more time to produce the reports and review the Treescape Plan.



Amendment Moved by Cr McAllister, seconded by Cr Powell That clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) be amended to read as follows:- (i) the CEO provide a report on a program to reduce the amount of hard paving on

traffic islands and verges between footpaths and kerbs, and replace with waterwise landscaping by 15 July 2018;


for use in laneways in Wembley and West Leederville by 15 July 2018. Council consider the installation of deep soil wells in laneways prior to the installation of any bitumen in laneways programmed for 2018;


with direction to promote the use of canopy trees where possible and discourage the use of small native trees, and the review report be brought to an EM Forum for discussion in about August 2018;

Amendment lost 3/6 For: Crs McAllister, Nelson and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis During discussion, the Mayor advised that, in accordance with Clause 9.8 of the standing Orders, the motion be divided into separate motions. (i) the CEO provide a report on a program to reduce the amount of hard paving on


Carried 7/2 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and

Timmermanis Against: Crs McAllister and Powell (ii) the Manager of Parks provide a report on the cost of the use of deep soil tree wells


Carried 6/3 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs, Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Powell and Timmermanis Against: Crs Bradley, McAllister and Nelson



(iii) the Treescape Plan be reviewed by the Manager of Parks by the end of March 2018 with direction to promote the use of canopy trees where possible and discourage the use of small native trees, and the review report be brought to an EM Forum for discussion in about April 2018;

Carried 7/2 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and

Timmermanis Against: Crs McAllister and Powell (iv) the Manager of Parks remove the Paperbark trees currently planted in the island on

the corner of Rochedale and Stephenson Ave and plant a number of mature large trees in the island.

Carried 6/3 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and Timmermanis Against: Crs Bradley, McAllister and Powell (v) the Town defer the bituminising of laneways until after the report on (ii) has been

provided. Carried 5/4 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis Against: Crs Bradley, McAllister, Nelson and Powell COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) the CEO provide a report on a program to reduce the amount of hard paving on





with direction to promote the use of canopy trees where possible and discourage the use of small native trees, and the review report be brought to an EM Forum for discussion in about April 2018;

(iv) the Manager of Parks remove the Paperbark trees currently planted in the island on

the corner of Rochedale and Stephenson Ave and plant a number of mature large trees in the island;

(v) the Town defer the bituminising of laneways until after the report on (ii) has been

provided.



12.4 BAMFORD LANE

Submission by Mayor Shannon That the Administration be required to prepare a report for tabling to Council at the April 2018 meeting regarding: (i) the traffic and access issues in Bamford Lane associated with current and any

future development on the East side of Bamford Lane with a view to considering the landowner ceding 1m of land along the east side of Bamford Lane or adjusting the development controls over those blocks bounding Bamford Lane to facilitate and ensure continued rear access to lots of land fronting Oxford Close.

BACKGROUND: Due to the continued difficulty with parking and accessing on-site parking off Bamford Lane, it is important to ensure continued access for vehicles in the area. Bamford Lane is only 3.17m, wide and currently services at least 8 properties directly and provides access via Mullane Lane to a further 20 properties at least. Mullane Lane is a dead end and the means of access is via Bamford Lane. Therefore in order to future proof access to these properties the Town needs to prepare a plan of action. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: There is no current policy direction relating to this request for a traffic study. The West Leederville Precinct Planning Policy 6.5 provides incentives in the way of plot ratio bonuses for redevelopment of properties in the Cambridge High Street and Southport Street Nodes that cede land to allow effective widening of rights of way to allow for two-way traffic (0.2 bonus) or cede land for strategic rights of way connections (0.5 bonus) (Table 1: Bonus plot ratio refers). Developments may also be required to be set back from adjacent rights of way at ground level to facilitate two way access. In all cases above, the opportunity to achieve laneway widening is limited to circumstances of major redevelopment of sites. An alternative for Council is to purchase or acquire properties for the purpose of laneway widening.



BUDGET: No consultancy allowance is made within the budget to complete this report. It is anticipated that $10,000 would be required to complete the study of traffic and access issues. LAW: Bamford and Mullane Lanes are vested in the Town of Cambridge. All traffic flow in public streets and laneways are controlled by the Road Traffic Act 1974 and Road Traffic Code 2000. All regulatory traffic signage and pavement markings are required to be approved by Main Roads WA. The Planning Development Act 2002 enables the preparation of planning scheme and associated planning policies. Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (gazetted 31 March 1998) - governs all planning decision-making. Council Meeting 27 February 2018 Mayor Shannon withdrew her motion



12.5 TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Submission by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) the CEO provide a report each month to the elected members regarding meetings that he

attends or participates in that involve discussions regarding the Town’s landholdings; (ii) the CEO may only attend meetings with third parties to negotiate or deal with land owned

by the Town when independent lawyer, Michael Henderson acting on behalf of the Town attends such meetings;

(iii) the Town engages Michael Henderson to act on behalf of the Town in relation to any

dealings with the land owned by the Town. BACKGROUND: Given the Town’s two roles as landowner and approving authority it is important that an independent legally training advisor attend meetings which involve dealings with the Town’s land holdings to ensure the probity of any discussions held. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: To ensure clarity in the scope of the engagement and role of the lawyer, Council will need to be clear about its intent, which appear on the face of it to be twofold:

a) Act as a probity auditor to ensure the Town's processes and actions are not conflicted by its dual function as landowner and Regulator under the Planning and Development Act; and

b) Provide advice and represent the Town in commercial negotiations With respect to point (ii), the Town in the past has utilised a separation of roles and responsibilities, with any regulatory matters being dealt with by the Planning Directorate and being reported through the Planning and Development Committee, and any property (commercial) matters being dealt with through the Corporate and Strategic Directorate and through the Community and Resources Committee. This separation of roles and functions was typically utilised by the City of Perth when it dealt with development matters involving its land. The proposal for the probity service is an opportunity to take the separation further. Council is the decision maker and will still be placed in the dual role, and should therefore implement a process it feels comfortable with. The third point (iii) seeks to engage legal services to act on the Town's behalf. In this role, Council will need to confirm its intended scope, which could encompass advice on (for example):



• Negotiating strategies; • Rights and obligations; • Essential Terms; • Risks It is possible that the scope would encompass advising the Town on its right, obligations, A final point from a practical point of view is that the definition of "negotiate or deal" with need to be established, as the Town deals with land matters on a regular basis. It is suggested that: • the definition from Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act dealing with disposals be

taken, which states that: "dispose includes to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of, whether absolutely or not;" and

• the exemptions of Regulation 30 of the Local Government Functions and General 1996 also apply.

Clarification is required whether or not the requirement for the independent lawyer being present at meetings applies to the administration of existing leases the Town has in place for both commercial and community tenants. Finally, it is not unusual for specific delegation and extent of authority to be made to the Chief Executive Officer on a case by case basis when dealing with certain land matters, particularly making an offer to negotiate and purchase. This occurred twice during 2017 on land acquisition proposals in City Beach and West Leederville (77 McCourt Street). It is envisaged there would be no change to this approach. The administration has not previously worked with Michael Henderson and it is noted that the Mayor has circulated Mr Henderson's profile under separate cover. It is suggested that if decided by Council, a policy be submitted for consideration. BUDGET: The Town has an established budget for legal advice on property related matters of $45,000. This budget provision can be reviewed periodically if an increase is required. LAW: Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act deals with land disposals, and Regulation 30 of the Local Government Functions and General 1996 deals with exemptions. Council Meeting 27 February 2018 Prior to consideration, Cr McKerracher, disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item 12.5 I declare that she has a personal association with the solicitor named in the motion and that we worked together at the same law firm for a period of approximately 14 years from 1994 and have over the years occasionally socialised together. As a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly."



Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That:- (i) the CEO provide a report each month to the elected members regarding meetings

that he attends or participates in that involve discussions regarding the Town’s landholdings;

(ii) the CEO may only attend meetings with third parties to negotiate or deal with land

owned by the Town when independent lawyer, Michael Henderson acting on behalf of the Town attends such meetings;

(iii) the Town engages Michael Henderson to act on behalf of the Town in relation to

any dealings with the land owned by the Town. Cr Everett left the meeting at 8.34 pm and returned at 8.35 pm. During discussion, in accordance with Clause 9.11 of the Standing Orders, the Mayor with the consent of the seconder of the motion amended clauses (ii) and (iii) of the motion to read as follows:- (ii) the CEO may only attend meetings with third parties to negotiate the sale, purchase,

lease or licence of land (excluding not for profit) owned by the Town when independent lawyer, Michael Henderson acting on behalf of the Town attends such meetings;

(iii) the Town draft a Policy on the operation of Clauses (i) and (ii). COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) the CEO provide a report each month to the elected members regarding meetings

that he attends or participates in that involve discussions regarding the Town’s landholdings;

(ii) the CEO may only attend meetings with third parties to negotiate the sale,

purchase, lease or licence of land (excluding not for profit) owned by the Town when independent lawyer, Michael Henderson acting on behalf of the Town attends such meetings;

(iii) the Town draft a Policy on the operation of Clauses (i) and (ii). Carried 5/4 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Everett, Nelson, McKerracher and Timmermanis Against: Crs Bradley, Carr, Powell and McAllister



12.6 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR WEST LEEDERVILLE AND WEMBLEY

Submission by Mayor Shannon That the CEO engage a traffic consultancy to: (i) undertake a traffic study in relation to the flow of traffic along Cambridge Street,

Grantham, Lake Monger Drive and Salvado Road extending from Southport Street to Selby Street;

(ii) provide its report by the end of March 2018 with specific comment on the narrowing of

Cambridge Street, West Leederville and the impact on traffic flow of the bus service stopping the only lane;

(iii) provide recommendations for the amendment of the traffic island configuration to provide

better traffic flows through West Leederville. BACKGROUND: Nil ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: Council has the following policies which relate to the motion: Policy 5.2.17 Road Design Policy Policy 5.2.21 Road Traffic Policy With regard to the production of a traffic study bounded by Selby Street, Grantham Street - Lake Monger Drive, Southport Street and Salvado Road, it is possible that future specialist traffic advice will be required for the Town after clarifying the scope and purpose of such a study in a brief. In relation to impacts of narrowing Cambridge Street in (ii) above, given the conditions of scoping, funding and clarifying the purpose of the report, it would not possible to report back in March 2018. The proposed traffic study report should firstly be clarified, with its scope and purpose. When the West Leederville Planning & Urban Design Study was adopted by Council - (Development Committee DV10.122 December 2010), a report attachment included Porter's traffic assessment which forecasted changes in traffic volumes in surrounding streets if the High St went ahead. The study indicated that the 'High St' works wouldn’t have significant adverse effect on the road system.



BUDGET: There is no budget allocation within the 2017/2018 adopted budget to conduct a traffic study. Potential costs depending on the level of detail required is expected to be in the order of $25,000 - $80,000. This is to conduct a traffic study along Grantham Street - Lake Monger Drive, Cambridge Street and Salvado Road between Selby Street - Southport Street. Assessing a budget requirement would initially require preparation of a Terms of Reference document in order to finalise the issues requiring analysis and to resolve the level of detail required in the final report. Once this is finalised, a brief can be circulated to traffic consultants to assist with development of a required budget. LAW: There are no legal requirements related to this reports other allocating funds to complete the study. Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That the CEO engage a traffic consultancy to: (i) undertake a traffic study in relation to the flow of traffic along Cambridge Street,

Grantham, Lake Monger Drive and Salvado Road extending from Southport Street to Selby Street;

(ii) provide its report by the end of March 2018 with specific comment on the

narrowing of Cambridge Street, West Leederville and the impact on traffic flow of the bus service stopping the only lane;

(iii) provide recommendations for the amendment of the traffic island configuration to

provide better traffic flows through West Leederville. Cr Bradley left the meeting at 9.00 pm and returned at 9.04 pm. In accordance with Clause 9.11 of the Standing Orders, the mover of the motion, with the consent of the seconder, amended the motion to read as follows:- That the CEO:- (i) prepare a report defining the scope for a traffic study in relation to the flow of traffic along

Cambridge Street, Grantham, Lake Monger Drive and Salvado Road extending from Southport Street to Selby Street to be considered at the March Council meeting;

(ii) provide a report by the end of March 2018 with specific comment on the narrowing of

Cambridge Street, West Leederville and the impact on traffic flow of the bus service stopping the only lane.



COUNCIL DECISION: That the CEO:- (i) prepare a report defining the scope for a traffic study in relation to the flow of

traffic along Cambridge Street, Grantham, Lake Monger Drive and Salvado Road extending from Southport Street to Selby Street to be considered at the March Council meeting;

(ii) provide a report by the end of March 2018 with specific comment on the narrowing

of Cambridge Street, West Leederville and the impact on traffic flow of the bus service stopping the only lane.

Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson,

Powell and Timmermanis Against: Cr Carr



12.7 LOCALS FIRST APPROACH

Submission by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) the CEO provide a report to Council for the March Ordinary Council meeting which

outlines a suggested scope for the Town to implement a Local First policy which would provide reduced fees for use of Town facilities by not for profit organisations and local state schools;

(ii) the fees charged at the Boulevard Centre be amended to allow not for profit organisations

to hire the Town facilities without the requirement to pay for staffing costs to set up and close rooms or provide tea and coffee facilities;

(iii) the CEO implement a policy that when public submissions are sought the respondents

are invited to supply an email address to allow notification of the date and time of the committee and council meeting at which the item will be reconsidered by the Town. The notification should explain the ability to make a deputation.

BACKGROUND: Nil ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. The Administration comments are broken up into the three points of the proposed motion. (i) The CEO provide a report to Council for the March Ordinary Council meeting which

outlines a suggested scope for the Town to implement a Local First policy which would provide reduced fees for use of Town facilities by not for profit organisations and local state schools.

POLICY: The Town does not have a Local First Policy with respect to fees and charges generally, but has a specific policy on free use of the sporting grounds/reserves, 2.1.23. The Town already provides discounts for local not for profit organisations at a number of its facilities including: • Quarry Amphitheatre (34%), • The Boulevard Centre (49% on the Lakes Room and 33% on Boulevard North and

South), • Wembley Community Centre (60%); and • Leederville Town Hall (37%).



The Town also has a specific policy, 2.1.23 - Use of Sporting Grounds/Reserves by Local Schools that accommodates free use to local primary schools.

The current priorities of the Community Development team are: • Alderbury Sports Ground Needs Assessment • Aged Friendly Community Plan; and • Transition from the Town's Home and Community Care program to new service provider. The additional work required by the motion is not provided within the current available staff

resources. The proposed motion precludes completing the framework for a scope of works Local First

Policy for the March 2018 Council meeting. A more realistic time frame would be June/July 2018 Council meeting.

BUDGET:

Nil

LAW:

Section 6.16 and 6.17 of the Local Government Act deal with setting of fees and charges and the considerations that may be made by Council in determining a fee or a charge. (ii) The fees charged at the Boulevard Centre be amended to allow not for profit

organisations to hire the Town facilities without the requirement to pay for staffing costs to set up and close rooms or provide tea and coffee facilities

POLICY: In accordance with section 6.12 of the Local Government Act 1995, the CEO is authorised to waive fees and charges should special circumstances apply. Policy 1.2.9 covers the use of facilities for ratepayers/resident associations. The Boulevard Centre was constructed as part of the 2002 Cambridge Library redevelopment. The Boulevard Centre has a number of meeting/function rooms available for hire, including: • The Boulevard North • The Boulevard South • The Boulevard Hall (combined North and South) • Lake Monger Room • Perry Lakes Room • The Lakes Suite (combined Lake Monger Room and Perry Lakes Room); and • Oceanic Room As the finishes of The Boulevard Centre was of a higher standard to other facilities within the Town, setting up fees were implemented in 2002 to protect the surfaces and equipment. The Boulevard Centre fees and charges along with the other Town's facilities are reviewed annually (usually, May/June). Although, in accordance with 6.12 (1) (b) of the Local Government Act 1995, the CEO is authorised to waive fees and charges should special circumstances apply.



A number of different categories of hire are applicable including: • Agency - Not for profit community based organisations and local Government • Government - All State and Federal Departments and organisations: • Commercial - All commercial and private hirers. Staffing The current practice is that the staff set rooms up - furniture, water, audio equipment and the current adopted 2017/2018 charges applicable are $41 per hour per staff Monday to Friday, $49 per hour per staff Saturdays, $56 per hour per staff Sundays and $76.50 per hour per staff (direct cost recovery). If Not-For-Profit organisations were to set up and clean up themselves they would need to extend their room hire time and a number operational issues would arise: • Movement of equipment - Town staff are trained in Occupational Health and Safety

manual handling and are familiar with venue, hirers are not • The Boulevard Centre often has back-to-back room bookings and therefore the

turnaround time for set-up and clean-up by staff is critical; and • A back-of-house area where furniture and Audio visual equipment is stored is not in a

public area of the building. Tea and Coffee In relation to tea and coffee, users can bring their own tea and coffee for their function and there are no costs associated with this.

BUDGET: For the 2016/2017 financial year the Town derived $17,230 from staffing costs form the Agency category of hire. Of the $17,230, approximately $1,000 was from local Not-For-Profit organisations. LAW: The CEO is authorised to waive fees and charges should special circumstances apply in accordance with section 6.12(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995. (iii) The CEO implement a policy that when public submissions are sought the

respondents are invited to supply an email address to allow notification of the date and time of the committee and council meeting at which the item will be reconsidered by the Town. The notification should explain the ability to make a deputation.

POLICY: The Town is currently developing a Communication Strategy to ensure communications to the community are effective, relevant and reaches the intended audience. Areas included in the strategy are improved management of Customer e-mail contact details, enhanced personalised communication and Community Engagement improvements.



As an interim solution e-mail mailing lists could be established for each Community Engagement project so that participants wanting to be kept up to date could be informed of progress including Committee and Council meeting details. At this interim stage, and to simplify administration of this process, each Community Engagement project will be treated separately with no cross referencing to previous projects hence participants will have to provide their current e-mail address each time. BUDGET: Nil LAW: Nil

COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) the CEO provide a report to Council for the March Ordinary Council meeting which

outlines a suggested scope for the Town to implement a Local First policy which would provide reduced fees for use of Town facilities by not for profit organisations and local state schools;

(ii) the fees charged at the Boulevard Centre be amended to allow not for profit

organisations to hire the Town facilities without the requirement to pay for staffing costs to set up and close rooms or provide tea and coffee facilities;

(iii) the CEO implement a policy that when public submissions are sought the

respondents are invited to supply an email address to allow notification of the date and time of the committee and council meeting at which the item will be reconsidered by the Town. The notification should explain the ability to make a deputation.

Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson




12.8 COLLECTION OF PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING DATA

Submission by Mayor Shannon That Council commence the collection of benchmarking data as from 1 March 2018 in order to allow the CEO to provide a report to council after 30 June 2018 which provides benchmarking data against measures identified in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND: Nil ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: The administration has reviewed the data requested and it is considered that most of the data is available, however, the extent of resources to collect and report on the data has not been determined. In March 2017, a report was submitted to Council outlining a framework for Performance Measurement which forms the basis for developing our benchmarks further. The Business Area Planning (including risk planning) has been the focus of the management group in the first half of the year and follows a comprehensive format. It is planned to be shortly briefing the Strategic Planning and Major Projects Committee on the form, content and progress of the BAPs, but in summary, the BAPs provide: 1. Introduction 2. Business Area Summary 3. Business Area Overview 4. Organisation and Resources 5. Critical Issues for the Business Area 6. Related Plans and Policies 7. Corporate Business Plan Priorities for this Business Area 8. Four Year Budget 9. What is needed from other areas to deliver this Plan? 10. What do other areas need from the Business Area to deliver their Plans? 11. Services (for each service)

a. Description b. Sub Services c. Service Objective d. Levels of Service e. Service Performance Measurement f. Delivery Model g. FTE h. Major Suppliers & Contractors i. External Partnerships



j. Funding the Service (Funding Policy) k. Assumptions and Uncertainties l. Changes to Service Levels m. Outlist - Projects & Actions n. Risks

As can be seen from the above, the administration is collating standardised and comprehensive information set to enable Council to review its services, service levels and assess performance. This is a work in progress with still more to be done but significant progress has been made to date. The Town participated in the PWC Australia and New Zealand benchmarking project in 2016 and 2017. The 2016 results were reported in summary form to an elected member forum last year and the 2017 data is currently being reviewed. The Town has also agreed to participate in comparing the PWC data with similar sized councils in the central Perth area. Some of the data relates to qualitative information that will need to be gathered via a community survey. BUDGET: The resources required to manage data collection and reporting have not been assessed. LAW: Nil COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That Council commence the collection of benchmarking data as from 1 March 2018 in order to allow the CEO to provide a report to council after 30 June 2018 which provides benchmarking data against measures identified in Attachment 1. Moved by Cr McAllister, seconded by Cr Powell That the item be deferred to consider what the Town needs and what it wishes to get out of the benchmarking data. Lost 3/6 For: Crs Carr, McAllister and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and

Timmermanis The original motion was then put and carried 7/2 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and

Timmermanis Against: Crs McAllister and Powell



12.9 INVESTIGATION OF POTENTIAL CLAIM

Meeting Behind Closed Doors Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Bradley That the following matters be regarded as confidential in accordance with Section 5.23 (2)(d) and of the Local Government Act 1995. Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson

and Powell Against: Cr Timmermanis At 9.28 pm, the Mayor requested all persons other than Elected Members and Council Officers to leave the Council Chamber. Submission by Mayor Shannon REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY: The motion is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following: (d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and which

relate to a matter to be discussed at the meeting. The motion, background and administration comments are provided in a confidential attachment. COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That the motion, as detailed in the confidential attachment, be adopted. Discussion ensued. Cr McAllister suggested that the item be deferred. Moved by Cr McAllister, seconded by Cr Powell That the item be deferred. Lost 3/6 For: Crs McAllister, Nelson and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis The original motion was then put and carried 7/2 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and

Timmermanis Against: Crs McAllister and Powell



12.10 RECISSION OF ITEM 4.1 DECISION OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 7 FEBRUARY 2018 (CONFIDENTIAL)

Submission by Cr Powell REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY: The motion is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following: (d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and which

relate to a matter to be discussed at the meeting. The motion and background are provided in a confidential attachment. COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Cr McAllister That the motion, as detailed in the confidential attachment, be adopted. Lost 4/5 For: Crs Carr, McAllister, Nelson and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Carr That the meeting be reopened to the public. Carried 9/0 The meeting was reopened to the public at 10.37 pm. The Mayor advised that she is closing the meeting and Items 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3 will be considered at a later date.



13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

13.1 ST PAUL'S CHURCH - PARKING ARRANGEMENTS

13.2 REVIEW OF LEGAL ADVICE - OCEAN GARDENS CONSTITUTION CHANGES

13.3 EXECUTIVE MATTERS - DIRECTOR PROJECTS



14. CLOSURE There being no further business, the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting closed at 10.37 pm