June 2012 OCM Minutes Asfw4er3qtr53t5w43t5-T45w 56w46yw46t4tw4

d that the O Ordinary Meeting M of Please be advised Council was held at a 6.
30pm on Tuesd day 12 June 20 012 in the Council C Chambers, Adminis stration Centre at 99 Shepperto on Road, Victoria Park.
ANTHO ONY VULETA ACTING G CHIEF EXECUTIV E VE OFFICE ER 15 June e 2012
TABLE E OF CONTENTS ITEM 1 2 3 TI ITLE O OPENING A ANNOUNCE EMENTS FROM F TH E PRESID DING MEMBER A ATTENDAN NCE 3. .1 3. .2 4 5 6 7 8 Apo ologies App proved Leave of Ab bsence PAGE NO O 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 12 2 12 2 30 0
DECLARAT TIONS OF INTERES ST PUBLIC QU UESTION TIME T PUBLIC ST TATEMENT T TIME CONFIRMA ATION OF MINUTES S PRESENTA ATIONS 8. .1 8. .2 8. .3 Petitions Presentations s (Awards s to be giv ven to the Town) Dep putations (Planning / Externa al Organisa ations)
9 10
M METHOD OF O DEALIN NG WITH A AGENDA BUSINESS B S CHIEF EXE ECUTIVE OFFICER O R REPORTS S 10 0.1 2012 Wester rn Austra alian Loc cal Gove ernment A Associatio on Ann nual Gene eral Meetin ng Delegat tion
11
FU UTURE LIFE AND BUILT B LIFE E PROGRA AM REPO ORTS 11 1.1 11 1.2 11 1.3 78 (Lot ( 304) Planet P Stre eet, Carlis sle Singl le House 53 (Lot ( 1) Gallipoli Stre eet, Lathla ain Singl le House 30-3 34 (Lot 33 36) Cannin ng Highwa ay, Victor ria Park 15 Multip ple Dwe ellings 11 1.4 Amendment No. 54 to Town Planning g Scheme e No. 1 Rec classification of 31 1 (Lots 62, 6 63, 64 4 and 100 0) Rushto on Stre eet, Victoria Park f from Local Schem me Reser rve Parks and d Recreatio on to Of ffice/Resid dential zo one Fina al Approval 11 1.5 Rev view of Co ouncils Lo ocal Plann ning Policy y - Streets scape
5 45
66 6 78 8 86 6 86 6
12
R RENEW LIF FE PROGR RAM REPO ORTS 12 2.1 12 2.2 Can nning High hway Road d Reserva ation Review Ten nder No. 12/04 To oVP Su upply and d laying of Aspha alt Serv rvices. 12 2.3 Acc ceptance of o Perth B Bicycle Net twork Gra ant Funds 2012-2013 3 2
89 9 94 4
Ordinary M Meeting of f Council Minutes M 12 2.4 Com mmunity Environm mental Working W Group G Mod difications s to Terms s of Refere ence 12 2.5
12 June J 2012 2 Propose ed 98 8
Ten nder TVP/ /12/03 P Provision of Cons sultancy S Services to Prepare an In ntegrated Movemen nt Network k Strategy (IMNS) 103 3
12 2.6
Mov vies by Burswood Reques st for Exte ension of f Licence to Occ cupy Agre eement f former La athlain Pre e-Primary School 6-8 6 Plan net Street, Lathlain 110 0
12 2.7
Ten nder No. TVP 12/05 5 Pane el Contrac ct for the e Supply of Eng gineering Maintenan nce Servic ces 115 5 123 3 123 3 130 0
13
COMMUNIT TY LIFE PR ROGRAM REPORTS S 13 3.1 13 3.2 Rec commenda ations fro m the Mem morial Gardens Pro oject Team m Rec commenda ation from m the Com mmunity Safety Wor rking Grou up Appointment of Com mmunity Member 13 3.3 Rec commenda ation from m the Com mmunity Safety Wor rking Grou up Establishm E ment of th he Comm munity Safety Work king Grou up Ann nual Work k Plan 13 3.4 13 3.5 Ten nder TVP/1 12/02 Pro ovision of Gymnasiu um Equip ment Rec commenda ation fro om the Arts Working W Group -
133 3 136 6
Esta ablishmen nt of the A Arts Worki ing Group p Annual W Work Plan 13 3.6 Rec commenda ation from m the He ealthy Lif fe Workin ng Group Esta ablishmen nt of the Healthy Life Wor rking Gro oup Annu ual Work Plan 14 BUSINESS LIFE PRO OGRAM RE EPORTS 14 4.1 14 4.2 Mul ltiple Dog Applicatio on 44 Ca arnarvon Street S Fina ancial Sta atements and Budg get Variations For The Perio od Betw ween 1Ap pril and 30 0 April 2012 14 4.3 Sch hedule of Accounts s for the Period P 1 April A 2012 to 30 Ap pril 2012 14 4.4 14 4.5 15 Fee es and Cha arges Ef ffective fro om 1 July 2012 Bus siness Life e Working g Group - Membersh M hip
142 2
145 5 148 8 148 8
152 2
159 9 162 2 165 5 168 8
A APPLICATI IONS FOR R LEAVE O OF ABSEN NCE 15 5.1 Cou uncillor J (John) Bi issett Ban nksia Ward d, 23 July y 2012 to 27 2 July y 2012, inc clusive
168 8
Ordinary M Meeting of f Council Minutes M 15 5.2
12 June J 2012 2
Min ndarie Reg gional Co ouncil Appointme A ent of Dep puty durin ng Cou uncillor Bi issetts Le eave of Ab bsence 168 8 169 9 169 9 of Burswoo od
16
M MOTION OF F WHICH PREVIOUS S NOTICE E HAS BEE EN GIVEN N 16 6.1 16 6.2 Cr Hayes H will l be Movin ng a Notice of Motio on Not tice of Motion Reconsideratio on
Entertainmen nt Comple ex Car Par rk and Req quest to C Close Glen nn Plac ce Road Reserve R 17 18 19 20 21 Q QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS M S WITHOU UT NOTICE E NEW BUSIN NESS OF AN A URGE ENT NATURE PUBLIC QU UESTION TIME T PUBLIC ST TATEMENT T TIME M MEETING CLOSED C TO T PUBLIC C 21 1.1 21 1.2 22 Mat tters for Which W the M Meeting May M be Clo osed Pub blic Readin ng of Res olutions That T May be b Made P Public 169 9 178 8 178 8 178 8 179 9 179 9 179 9 179 9 179 9
CLOSURE
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes
12 June 2012
OPENING
Almighty God, under whose providence we hold responsibility for this Town, grant us wisdom to understand its present needs, foresight to anticipate its future growth and grace to serve our fellow citizens with integrity and selfless devotion. And to Thee, be all blessing and glory forever. AMEN Acknowledgement of Country (by Mayor) I acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land the Noongar people and pay my respects to the Elders both past, present and future for they hold the memories, the traditions, the culture and hopes of Indigenous Australians.
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER

The Mayor asked Councillors to keep the Council Meeting as brief as possible due to the predicted approaching storm so staff are able to make it home safely. The Mayor congratulated that the following people that were inducted into the Sporting Walk of Fame: o Bob Govan Swimming; o Dennis Lillee Cricket; o Graeme Wishart Lawn Bowls; o Jack ODea Football; o Sydney Corser Yachting; and o Trevor Williams Volleyball. The Mayor Informed Council that a number of Tourist buses have visited the Town to view the new Artwork that have been raised.
ATTENDANCE
Cr T (Trevor) Vaughan Cr J (John) Bissett (Deputy Mayor) Cr K (Keith) Hayes Cr R (Rowena) Skinner Cr D (David) Ashton Cr D V (Vin) Nairn Cr V (Vicki) Potter Mr A (Anthony) Vuleta Mr (N) Nathan Cain Ms R (Rochelle) Lavery Mr W (Warren) Bow Ms N (Nicole) Anson Mr R (Robert) Cruickshank Ms K (Kathleen) Highfield 12 5
Mayor: Banksia Ward:
Jarrah Ward:
Acting Chief Executive Officer: Directors: Acting Directors: Executive Manager Built Life: Secretary: Public:
Ordinary M Meeting of f Council Minutes M
12 June J 2012 2
3.1
Ap pologies
M Mr A (Arthu ur) Kyron M Ms T (Tina) Ackerma an C Cr C (Claire) Anderso on
Chief Exe ecutive Of fficer: Director C Community Life: Banksia W Ward:
3.2
Ap pproved Leave of f Absenc ce

C Cr A (Adam m) Vilaca
Ward: Jarrah W
DE ECLARAT TIONS OF O INTER REST
Declaratio ons of inte erest are to be mad de in writing prior to t the com mmenceme ent of the e Meeting, (a form to o assist Elected E Me embers an nd Staff is s attached d at the end of this s Agenda). Declaration of Fina ancial Inte erests Nil
rtiality Declaration of Interest affecting impar Elected M Members (in accorda ance with R Regulation n 11 of the e Local Go overnment t [Rules of f Conduct] Regulation ns 2007) and a employ yees (in ac ccordance with the C Code of Co onduct) are e to declare any intere est that ma ay affect their t impar rtiality in co onsidering g a matter. . required t This declaration do oes not re estrict any right to participate p in or be present during d the e making pro ocess. The e Elected Member/employee is s also enc couraged to t disclose e decision-m the nature e of the inte erest. sition Name/Pos Item No/S Subject Nature of Interest Anthony y Vuleta Director Renew R Life e Program m 12.2 - As phalt Tend der Interest th hat may af ffect impartiality 1. I am m friends with w the Gen neral Mana ager of Roads 2000 Mr M Martyn Glo over, who has h provide ed a tende er for this item m. I hav ve been ex xtended ho ospitality by y Fulton Hogan, H in my r role as Pre esident of IPWEA, wh hich has su ubmitted a tend der for this item
Extent of Interest 2.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Name/Position Item No/Subject Nature of Interest Extent of Interest Councillor Keith Hayes
12 June 2012
16.1 - Burswood Entertainment Complex Car Park and Request to Close Glenn Place Road Reserve Interest that may affect impartiality Member of the Burswood Park Board
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Ms Debbie Allen, 34b Mars Street, Carlisle WA 6100 What is the recent progress with the roll-out of the National Broadband Network in Victoria Park? Answer Commencement of the roll-out is scheduled to start in July/August and will be a 12 month timeframe for installation, 1st & 2nd parts of the roll-out will take place in that timeframe from Miller Street across through to Burswood Road. Further information can be found on the Towns website.
PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME
Ms Tracy Pola, 53 Gallipoli Street, Lathlain WA 6100 Ms Pola asked Council if they could approve her submitted plans and grant that the requesting setback be changed from 3m to 2.2m. Ms Pola believes this will not affect residents but it will impact their living. Mr Peter Lessiter, 40 Oats Street, East Victoria Park WA 6100 Mr Lessiter requested that consultation should be done prior to rubber speed bumps being placed within the Town.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Potter
That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 be confirmed. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
12 June J 2012 2
8 8.1
PR RESENTA ATIONS Pe etitions
Mr Sam Z Zammit, 31 Alvah Stre eet, ST JA AMES WA 6102 Submitted d a 21 sign nature Petition oppos sing speed d cushions s being pla aced on Ald day Street t between B Burlington Street and d Berwick S Street.
RESOLVE ED: Moved: Councillor Ashton n Seconded: Co ouncillor Potter P
The Petit tion dealing with speed s cus shions be eing place ed on Ald day Street t between n Burlingto on Street and Berw wick Street t be refer rred to the e Director r of Renew w Life for r investiga ation, in ac ccordance e with the Administr ration Pro ocedure AD DP09. The Motio on was Pu ut and CARR RIED: (7-0) )
In favour o of the Motio on: Mayor Vaughan; V C Cr Bissett; Cr C Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner r; Cr Nairn; ; Cr Potter
8.2
Nil
Pre esentatio ons (Awa ards to b be given to the Town)
8.3
Nil
De eputation ns (Plann ning / Ex xternal Organisations)
ME ETHOD OF O DEAL LING WIT TH AGEN NDA BUS SINESS
12 June J 2012 2
10
CH HIEF EXE ECUTIVE E OFFICE ER REPO ORTS
10.1 2012 West tern Aus stralian Local Governme G ent Asso ociation Annual l Ge eneral Me eeting Delegation n
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: AD DM0049 Nil
15 May 2012 2 Date: Kat thleen Hig hfield Reporting g Officer: Art thur Kyron Responsible Office er: Absolute Maj ority Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation The Cou uncil appo oints two (2) delega ates and a proxy de elegate to o represent t it on th he Wester rn Austra lian Loca al Government Ass sociation (WALGA) ) 2012 Ann nual General Meetin ng (AGM). The WALGA 2012 2 AGM M will be h held on Wednesday W y 1 Augus st 2012 at the Perth h Conv vention an nd Exhibitio on Centre. Councils are to o appoint two (2) vo oting delegates and a proxy de elegate to attend the e WAL LGA 2012 AGM. Council are to o consider appointing g Mayor Trevor Vaug ghan and Cr Bissett t as voting g delegates and in relation to nomina ating a prox xy to nominate Cr Vi laca.
TABLED ITEMS: Nil
BACKGR ROUND: Pursuant to the WA ALGA Cons stitution, a all Member r Councils are entitle ed to be re epresented d ) voting delegates. by two (2) s to o exercise their voting entitlem ments mu st ensure that their r Member Councils seeking voting del legates are e registere ed. In the event tha at a Voting Delegate is unable to attend, provision needs to be b made fo or a proxy d delegate to o be registered. will be pe r proxy re egistered delegates d ermitted to o exercise e Only registered delegates or ntitlements on beha alf Membe er Councils s. Voting g delegate es may be b Elected d voting en Members or serving g officers.
DETAILS: G Me eeting for W WA Local Governme G nt Associa ation will th his year be e The 2012 Annual General held prior r to the co ommencem ment of the e Local Go overnment Conventio on on Wed dnesday 1 August 20 012 at the Perth Con nvention an nd Exhibiti ion Centre e, 21 Moun nts Bay Ro oad, Perth, , following by the Tra ade Exhibit tion and C onvention Welcome Reception n that even ning. With h the Conve ention held d over the following f tw wo (2) day ys Thursday, 2 and Fr riday 3 August.
10.1
10.1
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil
12 June 2012
COMMENT: Given that the Councils delegates on the South East Metropolitan Zone (SEMZ) of WALGA are Cr Bissett and Cr Vilaca it would seem appropriate for Cr Bissett to be nominated as the second voting delegate and Cr Vilaca to be nominated as the proxy delegate to represent the Council at the 2012 AGM of WALGA.
CONCLUSION: The Town should maintain its full voting entitlements at meetings of WALGAs 2012 Annual General Meeting.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: At the Elected Members Briefing Session held on the 5 June 2012 a question was raised as to why there was a change in practice from recommending the Zone representatives to attend the Annual General meeting of WALGA.
10.1
10
10.1
12 June 2012
In terms of protocol, it was deemed appropriate to enquire whether the Mayor as the political leader of the Council was interested in attending WALGAs Annual General Meeting as a voting delegate to represent the Town. The Mayor advised that he was desirous of being one of the Councils voting delegates and therefore it was recommended that he be appointed.
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Hayes
The Council appoints Mayor Trevor Vaughan and Cr John Bissett its voting delegates and Cr Vilaca as the proxy delegate on the Western Australian Local Government Association 2012 Annual General Meeting. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
10.1
11
10.1
J 2012 2 12 June
11
FU UTURE LIFE AND D BUILT L LIFE PRO OGRAM REPORT TS
11.1 78 (Lot 304 4) Planet t Street, C Carlisle Single House

File Refer rence: Appendic ces: Landown ner: Applicant t: Application Date: DA/BA or r WAPC Ref: R MRS Zon ning: TPS Zoni ing: TPS Prec cinct: Use Class: Use Perm missibility: : PL LAN78 No o S. & D. Fels S. & D. Fels 30 0 May 2012 2 2/0196 12 Ur rban Re esidential R R30 Pr recinct P8 Carlisle Single House e P use
30 0 May 2012 2 Date: D. Rowley Reporting g Officer: R. Cruicksha ank Responsible Office er: Simple Majo ority Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation Refusal Appl lication fo or Single House in volving de emolition of an oriiginal wea atherboard d dwelling constr ructed in 1937; The site is loc cated outs side of the e Resident tial Charac cter Study Area and d does not t form m part of a Weatherbo W oard Street tscape; The developm ment does s not satiisfy the Acceptable A e Develop pment Standards of f Councils Loca al Plannin ng Policy Streetsc cape and is not co onsidered to be an n appr ropriate replacement t developm ment having regard to the exist ting built fo orm within n the s streetscape e; The applicant argues that the p proposal has been designed in accordance with h environmentall ly sustaina able desig n principle es and the erefore wa arrants a variation v to o Councils deve elopment standards.
TABLED ITEMS: Deve elopment application a n form date ed received d 26 March h 2012; Ame ended plan ns and elev vations dat ted receive ed 16 May 2012; Colo our and ma aterial sche edule dated d received 26 March 2012; Supe erseded pl lans and elevations d dated received 26 Ma arch 2012; ; Phot tographs of o existing dwelling d an nd adjacen nt propertie es along P lanet Stree et; Ema ail correspo ondence to o applicant t dated 18 April 2012; Appl licants written justific cation date ed received d 17 May 2012; 2 Cons sultation le etter to sur rrounding o owners/occ cupiers dat ted 26 Apr ril 2012; an nd Subm mission fro om owner of o 80 Plane et St dated d 11 May 2012. 2
11.1
12
11.1
12 June 2012
BACKGROUND: As the application involves the demolition of a structurally sound dwelling constructed prior to 1945 its determination at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council is required.
DETAILS: A development application has been received proposing demolition of the existing fibro and weatherboard dwelling at 78 Planet Street, Carlisle and its replacement with a new single-storey house. The subject property is located outside of the Residential Character Study Area and does not form part of a Weatherboard Streetscape, as defined in Councils Local Planning Policy Streetscape. The site is zoned Residential R30 and has potential to accommodate up to three Grouped Dwellings based on its lot area of 1052m2. Existing Streetscape The subject site is located on the eastern end of the Planet Street street-block located between Archer and Lion Streets in Carlisle. The site adjoins a Town of Victoria Park sump at No. 76 Planet Street, with the majority of existing development along both sides of this portion of Planet Street consisting of single storey duplex and triplex developments. A number of dwellings constructed prior to 1945 are located within the immediate vicinity of the site in close proximity to the Lion Street intersection. These form an isolated pocket of original housing stock that is otherwise surrounded by newer development constructed largely from the 1980s to the present day. Dwellings are typically provided with hipped roofs of red/orange tiles, or Colorbond roof sheeting in a range of colours. Predominant wall materials within this portion of Planet Street include red, cream and brown facebrick, and white/cream render. Existing Dwelling The existing dwelling was constructed in 1937 and features an L-shaped design with timber veranda and large gable ends facing the street. There have been no significant modifications made to the original dwelling structure aside from a minor carport addition to the side and rear of the dwelling in 2003. The dwelling includes a number of traditional design features typical of its era of construction, including a metal roof with exposed rafter ends, three-piece timber framed windows, weatherboard cladding, high ceilings, red brick chimney and a visible wall height of approximately 3.5 metres high. The front elevation includes half-height weatherboard cladding with fibro (possibly asbestos) sheeting above, with a timber and metal awning over one set of the dwellings three-piece windows. The side elevations are wholly clad in weatherboards. Whilst the existing dwelling is clearly in need of repainting and the possible replacement of several weatherboards, it otherwise appears to be structurally sound and in a good state of repair, being currently lived in by the applicant. Proposed Development The replacement development comprises a single-storey Single House with four bedrooms, two bathrooms and a double garage open on two sides. The dwelling is proposed to have a zincalume metal roof and its external walls clad in blue/grey Weathertex Primelock artificial weatherboard cladding.
11.1
13
11.1
12 June 2012
The proposed dwelling incorporates a mixture of roof elements, having a large gable element running parallel to and facing the street, with a connecting gable that splits to incorporate skylight window panels, an overlapping skillion veranda roof which forms a butterfly roof element with the main dwelling roof, and a rear off-centred gable roof element. These various roof elements arise from the applicants wish to maximise natural light and ventilation to the dwelling. The visible wall height of the front elevation of the dwelling is approximately 2.5 metres high due to the large unrelieved gable portion of roof at the front of the dwelling. The front elevation features windows of non-traditional design, comprising full-length glass louvres to the main bedroom and ensuite bathroom, and a french door with adjoining full-length side light panel to the front entry. Discussions were held with the applicant regarding the design of the proposed dwelling throughout the assessment process, in relation to roof form, window design and wall heights. These discussions resulted in the applicants submission of amended plans on 16 May 2012, as well as a written justification received on 17 May 2012, in support of the proposed demolition and several variations to Councils Local Planning Policy Streetscape, most of which hinges on the purported sustainability benefits of the dwelling design. These include the following as advised in the applicants justification: Stack ventilation in bedrooms 2, 3 and 4 (Windows that open at the top and bottom allow cooler air near the ground into the room on still nights and release hot air near the ceiling.) Sometimes known as thermosiphon. Deciduous vines over glazing to the north to provide shade in summer and good solar access to the northern living area in winter. Full length windows to the south and eastern sides to maximize natural light. These windows will be covered with pelmets and thick curtains to reduce loss of warmer air on winter nights and reduce heat gain during hot summer days. Deciduous trees planted to the western side to shade the house from intense summer sun in the afternoon. Thermal mass in the form of concrete floors throughout. Rugs laid in the southern rooms in winter to provide extra warmth. Local native species planted in a water wise garden. Other Solar hot water system, low use water devices, low VOC paint and cabinetry to reduce harmful off gassing. Legal Compliance: Relevant General Provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 In assessing and determining this application, Council is to have regards to the following general provisions of the Scheme: Clause 36 Determination of Application General Provisions Clause 39 Determination of Application for Demolition Statement of Intent contained in Precinct Plan P8 Carlisle Precinct. Compliance with Development Requirements TPS 1 Scheme Text, Policy Manual and Precinct Plan; Residential Design Codes (R Codes); Local Planning Policy Streetscape (LPPS); and
11.1
14
11.1
12 June 2012
The following is a summary of compliance with key development requirements: Item Primary Street Setback Setback of Garage Garage Design Relevant Provision Clause 3.2.1 of LPPS Clause 3.2.3 of LPPS Clause 3.2.3 of LPPS Requirement 3.0m min. 6.0m avg. 4.5m min. Proposed 4.55m min. 6.47m avg. 4.55m min. Complies Complies Compliance
Not project >1m forward of faade Max. width of 57% of frontage Varies from 1.0m to 1.5m
0.5m projection 31.9% of frontage
Complies
Boundary Setbacks
Clause 6.3.1 of R Codes
All walls meet or exceed applicable requirement with exception of shower wall, which is setback 1.0m in lieu of a 1.2m requirement. 73.5%
Non-compliant. Supported, as minor variation and no objection to setback has been raised by the affected neighbour. Complies
Open Space
Access and Parking Building Height
Clause 6.4.1 of R Codes Clause 6.5.1 of R Codes Clause 6.7.1 of R Codes
50% min.
2 bays 6.0m max. wall height to walls below pitched roof; 7.0m max. wall height to walls with a concealed/skillion roof; 9.0m max. ridge height to top of pitched roof
2 bays Max. wall height of 5.5m high to walls below pitched roof; Max. wall height of 7.0m to portions of dwelling with concealed/skillion roof; Max. ridge height of 7.0m
Complies Complies
11.1
15
11.1
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Visual Privacy Clause 6.8.1 of R Codes Major openings to bedrooms with a FFL of 0.5m or more above NGL to be setback from the boundary a min. distance of 4.5m within cone of vision Bedroom 4 windows/french doors setback 2.0m from No. 80 Planet Street, within cone of vision
12 June 2012 Non-Compliant Extent of variation considered unacceptable. Condition recommended to be applied to any forthcoming approval for the windows/french doors to be screened or the Bed 4 FFL reduced to less than 0.5m above NGL in order to comply. Non-compliant. Refer Comments section below.
Building Design
Clause 3.2.11 of LPPS
In keeping with scale and character of streetscape and designed in sympathy with existing built form particularly in terms of materials, colours, scale, form and roof pitch (hipped roof, red/cream facebrick, windows of traditional size and proportions, articulated front elevation)
Demolition of existing dwelling
Replacement development to contribute positively to streetscape and be an appropriate replacement for traditional character dwelling.
Dwelling incorporates full length windows of modern/ contemporary design. Front elevation is dominated by a large gable roof element that runs parallel to Planet Street which lacks articulation and is inconsistent with surrounding development. Visible wall height is approximately 2.5m high and of lesser height than the roof structure above. Refer above.
As above Refer Comments section below for criteria used to determine acceptability of demolition.
11.1
16
11.1
12 June 2012
Submissions: Community Consultation: Assessment of the original plans submitted as part of the application identified several non-compliant matters with regard to boundary setback and building height requirements, which required consultation to be undertaken with surrounding property owners for 14 days. One submission was received during the consultation period from the owner/occupant of 80 Planet Street on 11 May 2012, stating no objection to the proposal with the exception of the non-compliant building height to the top of a concealed roof portion of the dwelling. Subsequent discussion held between the applicant and this owner and the Towns Officers resulted in the submission of amended plans on 16 May 2012, amending the subject portion of the dwelling roof from a concealed (skillion) roof, to an off-centre gable element, effectively reducing the wall height of this portion of the dwelling to a compliant 5.0 metres. It should be noted that the variation proposed to the visual privacy requirements of the R Codes identified above in relation to the Bedroom 4 windows/french doors closest to the boundary with 80 Planet Street was not raised with the owner/occupier of 80 Planet Street during the consultation process. In view of this oversight and given the extent of the proposed variation which may result in undue loss of privacy and overlooking into the rear yard on this adjoining property, the Council may only contemplate approval of the application (without further consultation) if a condition is included requiring the subject windows/french doors being modified to comply with visual privacy requirements or the finished floor level of the dwelling being reduced to less than 0.5m above the natural ground level immediately below the windows/french doors. Policy Implications: No impact Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: No impact Cultural Issues: No impact Environmental Issues: The applicant contents that there will be sustainability benefits gained through the proposed design, internal finish, fittings, selection of building services and plants for the proposed dwelling. COMMENT: The application proposes the demolition of the original metal and weatherboard dwelling at 78 Planet Street and its replacement with a single-storey house. Councils Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and Local Planning Policy Streetscape has a presumption against the demolition of pre-1945 dwellings, unless there are compelling reasons to justify demolition. This and other relevant issues are considered further below.
11.1
17
11.1
12 June 2012
Demolition of Existing Dwelling Assessment of the subject application by Councils Urban Planning Unit has acknowledged the direction adopted by the Council as part of its current review of the Local Planning Policy Streetscape (LPPS) which is not to require the retention of dwellings in Carlisle and Lathlain, except where they are located within an identified Character Streetscape. The subject dwelling does not comprise part of a Character Streetscape identified as part of this review. Whilst the above is acknowledged, it does not diminish or reduce the requirements of the LPPS which seek to ensure that new development is in keeping with the scale and character of existing development and that it has been designed in a sympathetic matter having regard to its context within the streetscape. Replacement Development Councils LPPS require new development to respect existing development with regard to roof shapes, heights, pitches, materials and window design. It also requires new development to be sufficiently articulated/provide interest and to not overly dominate or adversely affect the streetscape by way of undue bulk or scale. These and other matters are considered as follows: Roof Form A mixture of roof forms is proposed inconsistent with the Acceptable Development Standards of the LPPS. The proposal also incorporates a large gable roof running parallel to the street which overly dominates and contributes to the perceived bulk and scale of the building. The large visible raking side of this roof element is not provided with any relief or articulation that may otherwise be possible through the incorporation of dormer windows, gablets or filial treatments. The relative blandness of this design and the orientation of the gable roof portion of the dwelling is inconsistent with the scale and character of housing predominating within the streetscape, that consists of predominantly hipped roof dwellings and relatively minor gable roofs, which are for the most part oriented with their gable end facing the street. Wall Height The replacement dwelling is proposed to have a visible wall height of approximately 2.5m high, which is out of keeping with existing surrounding development which ranges from 2.8 to 3.5 metres high. This low wall height emphasises the dominance of the large gable roof above which measures 3.2m in height, and is considered to give the building a squat and top-heavy appearance. Window Design The majority of dwellings found within the streetscape are provided with windows on their front elevations of traditional size and shape, being vertically oriented, with most openings occurring at waist height and having visible wall/brickwork above the opening. The proposed dwelling features full length windows consisting of glass louvres and a french door with adjoining sidelight panel. These windows are inconsistent with the Acceptable Development Standard of the LPPS and do not reflect the character or scale of windows that are found on the majority of front elevations of dwellings found elsewhere within the streetscape.
Sustainability Benefits of Proposed Dwelling Design In response to discussions held with Council Officers during assessment of the application the applicant submitted a statement outlining the proposed environmental benefits and sustainability measures incorporated into the dwelling design.
11.1
18
11.1
12 June 2012
Aside from the benefits gained through the rear split-gable and skillion portions of roof that maximise light penetration, the majority of measures identified in the applicants justification relate to non-design related matters or matters that could be reasonably incorporated into a conventionally designed home. These include measures such as concrete floors to improve thermal mass, windows that open at the top and bottom to allow the flow of hot and cool air, the planting of deciduous vines and trees, use of native vegetation and selection of renewable/ energy efficient air and water cooling/heating systems. Such measures have no bearing on the roof form, visible wall height or articulation provided to the front elevation of the dwelling. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed louvre windows, being full length and able to open to 90 degrees will maximise ventilation, it is considered questionable whether their inclusion in the ensuite bathroom will contribute significantly to cross-ventilation of the dwelling as a whole and the applicant has not responded favourably to requests to include traditionally proportioned windows in combination with the proposed louvre windows. The solid rear and side garage walls would also appear as prime locations for additional windows (including for cross-ventilation purposes given their alignment with the main living areas of the house) which would also relieve these blank walls and add further interest and articulation to the front elevation.
CONCLUSION: The proposed design of the dwelling is considered to lack sufficient articulation and is not considered to have been designed in sympathy with surrounding development within the streetscape, particularly with regard to its front elevation which is considered to have an adverse effect upon the streetscape by virtue of its large and unrelieved dominant roof form, low visible wall height and lack of any traditionally proportioned windows that would provide the dwelling with a more conventional appearance that would sit more comfortably within the existing streetscape. Whilst the proposal may have been designed having regard to several sustainable design principles, the majority of claims made by the applicant regarding its environmental benefits relate to non-design related matters that bear little relationship to the provisions outlined in the LPPS, and could reasonably be incorporated into the design of a new dwelling designed in accordance with Policy requirements. It is also noted that a house incorporating traditional design elements may also be capable of performing to a high environmental standard and the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated to the contrary. It should also be noted that one of the Objectives of the Towns Local Planning Policy Streetscape is sustainable designs and innovative designs are encouraged; however regard is still to be given to maintaining design compatibility with the existing and desired streetscape character. Planning staff are of the view that the proposed development does not meet this Objective of the Policy, in which case the application cannot be supported. In view of the above the demolition of the existing dwelling at 78 Planet Street and its replacement with a new single storey Single House is recommended for refusal.
11.1
19
11.1
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: 1.
12 June 2012
In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by S. & D. Fels on behalf of S. & D. Fels (BA/DA Ref: 12/0196) for Single House at No. 78 (Lot 304) Planet Street, Carlisle as indicated on the plans dated received 16 May 2012 be Refused for the following reasons: 1.1 Non-compliance with Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Clause 36(5) Determination of Application General Provisions, with particular reference to the following subclauses: (a) the provisions of this Scheme and of any other written law applying within the Scheme area including the Metropolitan Region Scheme; (b) any relevant planning policy; (c) any relevant precinct plan; (g) the orderly and proper planning of the locality; (h) the conservation of the amenities of the locality; and (i) the design, scale and relationship to existing buildings and surroundings of any proposed building or structure; 1.2 Non-compliance with Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Clause 39 Determination of Application for Demolition, having regard to the matters listed in Clause 36(5) of the Scheme; 1.3 The proposal is inconsistent with the Statement of Intent contained in Precinct Plan P8 Carlisle Precinct which encourages the retention and restoration of existing dwellings that contribute to the character of the precinct and promotes new development that complements the scale, materials and character of existing dwellings; 1.4 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.9 Retention of Dwelling A1 of the Local Planning Policy Streetscape, as the proposed dwelling has not been designed in sympathy with the existing built form and streetscape, having regard to the prevailing scale, form and roof pitch of existing development within the streetscape; 1.5 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.9 Retention of Dwelling A2.1 of the Local Planning Policy Streetscape, as the proposal does not meet any of the identified circumstances where demolition of an existing dwelling may be considered acceptable; 1.6 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.9 Retention of Dwelling A2.2 of the Local Planning Policy Streetscape, as the proposed dwelling is not considered to contribute positively to the streetscape in which the development is set and as it is not considered to be an appropriate replacement for the traditional character dwelling proposed for demolition;
11.1
20
11.1
12 June 2012
1.7 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.11 Building Design P1 of the Local Planning Policy Streetscape, as the applicant has not demonstrated that the design of the proposed dwelling achieves a high degree of sustainability through energy conscious design, building design or materials choices, compared to that of a dwelling designed in accordance with the Acceptable Development Criteria (Clause 3.2.11 A1.1) of the Local Planning Policy Streetscape; and 1.8 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.11 Building Design A1 of the Local Planning Policy Streetscape, with regard to the roof form and pitch, visible wall height, and design of windows facing the street of the proposed dwelling. Advice to Applicant: 1.9 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.
2.
Those persons who made a submission in respect to the application being advised of the Councils decision.
NEW MOTION: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Nairn
1. In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by S and D Fels (DA Ref: 12/0196) for a Single House at 78 (Lot 304) Planet Street, Carlisle as shown on plans dated received 16 May 2012 be Approved subject to the following conditions: 1.1 The roof of that portion of the dwelling indicated in red on the approved drawings, being modified to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning. The visible wall height of the front part of the dwelling being increased to a minimum of 2.8 metres above ground level. The north-east facing Bedroom 4 windows/doors being deleted or modified to comply with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes. Complete details of the proposed external colours, finishes and materials to be used in the construction of the buildings and fencing are to be provided to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning prior to submission of an application for building permit. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be thereafter maintained.
1.2
1.3
1.4
11.1
21
11.1
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 1.5
12 June 2012
In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all relevant Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit: Urban Planning; Street Life; Park Life; Environmental Health; Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note).
1.6
Not more than one brick pier (350mm X 350mm maximum size) is to be constructed within any 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre truncation area adjacent to the intersection of any driveway and the front property boundary. Fencing on side boundaries forward of the building line is not to exceed a height of 1.2 metres and may be constructed of either brick, limestone, pickets, wrought iron, colorbond or fibro cement sheeting. Such fencing shall be detailed on the working drawings to be submitted to the Council in accordance with Condition No. 5 of this approval. The use of sheet fencing, such as colorbond or fibro cement sheeting, in front of the building line is not permitted. All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level. The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as the required new fencing is to be erected. Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5 metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the front property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of: (i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); (ii) wrought iron or similar metal tubing style infill fencing; and/or (iii) pickets of a maximum width of 80mm, a maximum thickness of 20mm, and being spaced a minimum gap of 40mm and a maximum gap of 80% of the width of the pickets. Removal, lopping or pruning of any verge tree affected by the development on the subject site is subject to the written approval of the Manager Park Life Program at the applicants cost.
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
11.1
22
11.1
12 June 2012
The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation or strata titling of the building(s) whichever occurs first and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. (Refer related Advice Note) A minimum of 50% of the front setback area of the front unit is to be softly landscaped. Landscaping is to be installed prior to occupation of the building(s) or strata titling whichever occurs first and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Park Life Program. During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work. All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving, liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning. Existing crossovers that are not used as part of the development or redevelopment shall be removed and the verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. Proposed development complying with setbacks, fencing, driveways, landscaping and other details and amendments as shown in red on the approved site plan. External fixtures, including but not restricted to airconditioning units, satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the Primary Street, secondary street or right-of-way. External clothes drying facilities are to be screened from view from the street or any other public place. The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated to the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces. All building works to be carried out under this planning approval are required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot. Compliance with Councils Building, Environmental Health and Street Life and Park Life requirements.
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.23
Advice to applicant 1.24 A separate application for planning approval will be required to be submitted for demolition. 23
11.1
11.1
12 June 2012
1.25
In regards to Condition No. 4, where a Council Building Surveyor is issuing the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit separate applications (Form TVP2 and Form TVP3) for the approval of Council Business Units. These forms are available on the Towns website and at the front counter of Councils Offices. With regards to Condition No. 15 the following are minimum requirements of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone. Failure to maintain the verge by current or future owners or occupiers will render the offender liable to infringement under Section 2.9 of the Activities on Thoroughfares and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law Modified penalty $100. Any modifications to the approved drawings forming part of this planning approval may require the submission of an application for modification to planning approval and reassessment of the proposal. Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.
1.26
1.27
1.28
1.29
AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Nairn
That condition 1.1 be deleted. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
Reason: Energy efficient design.
11.1
24
11.1
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes NEW MOTION AS AMENDED:
12 June 2012
1. In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by S and D Fels (DA Ref: 12/0196) for a Single House at 78 (Lot 304) Planet Street, Carlisle as shown on plans dated received 16 May 2012 be Approved subject to the following conditions: 1.1 The visible wall height of the front part of the dwelling being increased to a minimum of 2.8 metres above ground level. The north-east facing Bedroom 4 windows/doors being deleted or modified to comply with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes. Complete details of the proposed external colours, finishes and materials to be used in the construction of the buildings and fencing are to be provided to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning prior to submission of an application for building permit. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be thereafter maintained. In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all relevant Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit: Urban Planning; Street Life; Park Life; Environmental Health; Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note). 1.5 Not more than one brick pier (350mm X 350mm maximum size) is to be constructed within any 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre truncation area adjacent to the intersection of any driveway and the front property boundary. Fencing on side boundaries forward of the building line is not to exceed a height of 1.2 metres and may be constructed of either brick, limestone, pickets, wrought iron, colorbond or fibro cement sheeting. Such fencing shall be detailed on the working drawings to be submitted to the Council in accordance with Condition No. 5 of this approval. The use of sheet fencing, such as colorbond or fibro cement sheeting, in front of the building line is not permitted.
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
11.1
25
11.1
12 June 2012
All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level. The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as the required new fencing is to be erected. Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5 metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the front property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of: (i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); (ii) wrought iron or similar metal tubing style infill fencing; and/or (iii) pickets of a maximum width of 80mm, a maximum thickness of 20mm, and being spaced a minimum gap of 40mm and a maximum gap of 80% of the width of the pickets. Removal, lopping or pruning of any verge tree affected by the development on the subject site is subject to the written approval of the Manager Park Life Program at the applicants cost. The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation or strata titling of the building(s) whichever occurs first and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. (Refer related Advice Note) A minimum of 50% of the front setback area of the front unit is to be softly landscaped. Landscaping is to be installed prior to occupation of the building(s) or strata titling whichever occurs first and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Park Life Program. During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work. All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving, liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning. Existing crossovers that are not used as part of the development or redevelopment shall be removed and the verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. Proposed development complying with setbacks, fencing, driveways, landscaping and other details and amendments as shown in red on the approved site plan. 26
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
11.1
11.1
12 June 2012
1.18
External fixtures, including but not restricted to airconditioning units, satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the Primary Street, secondary street or right-of-way. External clothes drying facilities are to be screened from view from the street or any other public place. The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated to the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces. All building works to be carried out under this planning approval are required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot. Compliance with Councils Building, Environmental Health and Street Life and Park Life requirements.
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
Advice to applicant 1.23 A separate application for planning approval will be required to be submitted for demolition. In regards to Condition No. 4, where a Council Building Surveyor is issuing the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit separate applications (Form TVP2 and Form TVP3) for the approval of Council Business Units. These forms are available on the Towns website and at the front counter of Councils Offices. With regards to Condition No. 15 the following are minimum requirements of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone. Failure to maintain the verge by current or future owners or occupiers will render the offender liable to infringement under Section 2.9 of the Activities on Thoroughfares and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law Modified penalty $100. Any modifications to the approved drawings forming part of this planning approval may require the submission of an application for modification to planning approval and reassessment of the proposal.
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.27
11.1
27
11.1
12 June 2012
Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision. CARRIED: (7-0)
The Motion was Put and
11.1
28
11.1
Ordinary M Meeting of f Council Minutes
12 June 2012 2
11.1
29
11.1
12 June J 2012 2
11.2 53 (Lot 1) Gallipoli G Street, L Lathlain Single House

File Refer rence: Appendic ces: Landown ner: Applicant t: Application Date: DA/BA or r WAPC Ref: R MRS Zon ning: TPS Zoni ing: TPS Prec cinct: Use Class: Use Perm missibility: : GA ALL53 No o T l Pola De evrite Cons structions Pty Ltd 26 6 March 20 012 2/0197 12 Ur rban Re esidential R R20 Pr recinct P7 Lathlain Single House e P use
6 June J 2012 2 Date: C. Buttle Reporting g Officer: ank R. Cruicksha Responsible Office er: Simple Majo ority Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation Approva al Appl lication for r a single storey Sing le House on o a vacan nt corner lo ot. Non-compliant t with provisions of L Local Plann ning Policy y Streets scape with respect to o prop posed seco ondary stre eet setback k. Cons sultation undertaken u n for 14 days in accordance a e with Co ouncil Policy GEN3 3 Com mmunity Co onsultation n with no s submission ns received d. Reco ommended d that varia ations to se econdary street s setback be sup pported in part.
TABLED ITEMS: Appl lication for r Planning Approval A F Form dated d 26 March h 2012. Plan ns date stamped rece eived 25 M May 2012. Appl licants sup pporting wr ritten statem d 22 March h 2012. ment dated Cons sultation le etters to ad djoining an d surround ding property owners s dated 1 May M 2012. Phot tographs of o subject site. s
DETAILS: The application proposes a single s store ey Single House with primary frontage to t Gallipoli i Street and d seconda ary street frontage f to o Cookham m Road. The T subjec ct property is located d outside of f the Resid dential Cha aracter Stu dy Area. h of the lo ot frontage e to Gallip poli Street is 13.42 metres an nd the length of the e The width frontage t to Cookham m Road (in ncluding tr runcation) is 50.29 metres. m Th e house is s designed d in a tradit tional manner with th he front en ntrance and d an assoc ciated vera anda facin ng Gallipoli i Street an nd Outdoo or Living Area A and Garage orientated o toward th he second dary street t (Cookham m Road) fro ontage of the t develop pment site.
11.2
30
11.2 2
12 June 2012
The proposed dwelling incorporates variations to the 3.0 metre minimum secondary street (Cookham Road) setback specified in Councils Local Planning Policy Streetscape as identified below: (a) (b) 15.37 metre long section of dwelling comprising veranda / retreat / bed 1 / robe / ensuite 3.0m minimum setback prescribed 2.32m setback proposed. 6.2 metre long section of dwelling to alfresco 3.0m minimum setback prescribed 2.32m setback proposed.
For each of the components of the building referred to above, the roof projects a further 500mm towards the secondary street lot boundary in the case of the veranda / retreat / bed 1 / robe / ensuite and a further 600mm towards the secondary street lot boundary in the case of the alfresco. Legal Compliance: Relevant General Provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 In assessing and determining this application, Council is to have regards to the following general provisions of the Scheme: Clause 36 of the Scheme Text - Determination of Application General Provisions; Statement of Intent contained in Precinct Plan P7 Lathlain; and Compliance with Development Requirements TPS 1 Scheme Text, Policy Manual and Precinct Plan; Residential Design Codes (R Codes); and Local Planning Policy Streetscape (LPPS). The following is a summary of compliance with key development requirements: Item Primary Street Setback (Gallipoli Street) Secondary Street Setback (Cookham Road) Boundary Setbacks (other than street) Relevant Provision Clause 3.2.1 of LPPS Clause 3.2.2 of LPPS Requirement 3.0m minimum 6.0m average 3.0m minimum Proposed 3.0m minimum 6.0m average 2.32m minimum Non-compliant (refer to Comment section below) Compliant Compliance Compliant
Clause 6.3.1 of R-Codes
1.0 & 1.5 metres
1.0 & 1.5 metres
11.2
31
11.2
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Item Boundary Walls Relevant Provision Clause A1 iii. of LPPBW Requirement 9.0m max. length 3.0m max. height 2.7m avg. height Proposed 8.9m length 2.8m max height 2.8m avg. height
12 June 2012 Compliance Satisfies Performance Criteria of Policy (no response received from neighbour to consultation and no adverse impact on adjoining property) Compliant
Open Space
Clause 6.4.1 of R-Codes Clause 6.6.1 of R-Codes
Site Works
50% minimum of site area. (334.5m2) Excavation or filling between the street alignment and building or within 3.0m from the street boundary not to exceed 500mm above the natural ground level. Filling behind street setback line and within 1.0m of a common property boundary not to exceed 500mm above the corresponding natural ground level. 6.0m maximum wall height (2 storeys) and 9.0m maximum for top of pitched roof
51% (339m2) Filling of 220mm maximum within street alignment (Gallipoli Street)
Compliant
Filling of 250mm maximum within 1.0m of the southern property boundary
Compliant
Building Height (measured from the natural ground level)
Clause 6.7.1 of R-Codes
Single storey wall height of up to 4.0 metres and ridge height of up to 6.0 metres.
Compliant
11.2
32
11.2
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Item Visual Privacy Relevant Provision Clause 6.8.1 of R-Codes Requirement Unscreened major openings & outdoor areas with floor level of 0.5m or more above NGL to be setback a minimum of: 4.5m for bedrooms; 6.0m for living areas; 7.5m for balconies. Fencing forward of the building line to be open style. Proposed
12 June 2012 Compliance
No overlooking Compliant proposed as floor levels not raised more than 500mm above natural ground level.
Street Fences (Primary Street Gallipoli Street)
Street Fences (Secondary Street Cookham Road)
Masonry fencing incorporating articulation to include vertical elements such as piers or similar.
Open style fencing to Gallipoli Street. Width and length dimensions of piers on either side of pedestrian gate noncompliant with 460mm maximum specified in LPPS. Solid unarticulated masonry fencing of 1.8 metres in height.
Compliant subject to recommended conditions of approval requiring width and length dimensions of piers to not exceed 460mm. Compliant subject to recommended conditions of approval requiring incorporation of articulation into design of fence.
Submissions: Community Consultation: In accordance with Councils GEN3 Community Consultation Policy, the proposal was the subject of consultation for a 14 day period, with letters being sent to the owners and occupiers of surrounding properties. No responses were received in response to this consultation. Policy Implications: The proposed development has implications with respect to Councils Local Planning Policy Streetscape, which are detailed further in the Comment section of the report, below.
11.2
33
11.2
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: No impact Cultural Issues: No impact Environmental Issues: No impact
12 June 2012
COMMENT: The design of the proposed dwelling satisfactorily addresses the majority of the requirements found within the R-Codes and Council Policy, with the exception of proposed setbacks to the secondary street frontage of the development site. Councils Local Planning Policy Streetscape specifies the requirement for a 3.0 metre minimum setback to a secondary street frontage where a property has frontage to more than one street. In this instance, significant portions of the dwelling have setbacks of less than 3.0 metres to Cookham Road, being: A setback of 2.32 metres to a 15.37 metre long section of wall comprising veranda / retreat / bed 1 / robe / ensuite; and A setback of 2.32 metres to a 6.2 metre long section of wall comprising an alfresco located under the main roof of the dwelling. A solid masonry wall of 1.8 metres in height is proposed to be constructed along the majority of the Cookham Road frontage of the development site. Notwithstanding the provision of this wall, the dwelling remains highly visible from Cookham Road, having regard to its raised floor to ceiling heights (2.914m) and finished floor level which is raised around 400 - 500mm above existing natural ground level. During the preparation of a design for this site, the designer made contact with the Towns Urban Planning Unit to discuss design parameters for the site, including requirements related to the secondary street setback of the dwelling. During these discussions, Town staff explained the requirements contained within Local Planning Policy Streetscape in relation to the provision of a 3.0 metre minimum secondary street setback. During these discussions, Town staff explained that minor variations to portions of the dwelling facing the secondary street may be favourably considered if it could be demonstrated that: the appearance of the dwelling would be improved through increased articulation (variation to the alignment of the walls on this side of the dwelling) as opposed to a design which incorporated long lengths of building on the same 3.0 metre setback alignment; and any proposed setback reductions proposed would not adversely impact on the amenities of adjoining properties or the locality generally.
11.2
34
11.2
12 June 2012
Following these discussions, draft concept plans were not provided to the Town for comment in advance of the submission of a formal application for planning approval. A subsequent assessment of the submitted formal application for planning approval showed that the preliminary advice provided had not been reflected in the design which had been prepared for the site. Rather than using a 3.0 metre setback as a starting point with the possibility of small portions of the building projecting to a lesser setback to add to the visual interest of the building, the design incorporates a 2.32 metre setback with (small) portions of the building then being provided with an increased setback of 3.0 metres. Having regard to the requirements contained within Council Policy, preliminary advice provided during the preparation of the design for this site, and the characteristics of the Lathlain locality (low density development with houses situated on lots with generous setbacks and landscaped surrounds), it is considered appropriate that an increased setback of 3.0 metres minimum be provided to a greater proportion of the secondary street frontage of the dwelling than that which is currently proposed. This position has been conveyed to the applicant who has been reluctant to change the design, and accordingly the matter has now been referred to Council for determination. Possible design options that have been considered include: (a) Reducing the finished floor level (which is currently somewhat elevated above natural ground level) to reduce the overall impact of the dwelling as viewed from Cookham Road; or (b) Increasing the setbacks to portions of the wall which runs between the veranda and the ensuite. For example, the setback of the portion of wall comprising the ensuite and the robe could be increased or the setback of the section of wall comprising bed 1 and the robe could be increased. The most preferable of these alternatives is for an increase in the setback of the section of wall from bed 1 to the robe from 2.32 metres to 3.0 metres as it provides the greatest benefit in terms of increasing the visual articulation and interest of the building as viewed from Cookham Road. Such a design change would result in the stepping in and out of the building as follows: Veranda and retreat (5.9 metres in length) setback of 2.32 metres; then Bed 1 and robe (6.3 metres in length) setback of 3.0 metres; then Ensuite (3.0 metres in length) setback of 2.32 metres; then Wine store and Dining Room (6.1 metres in length) setback of 3.0 metres; then Alfresco (6.1 metres in length) setback of 2.32 metres. The stepping would occur not only in the wall, but importantly also in the roof form. As shown above, significant portions of the dwelling would still maintain setbacks of less than the 3.0 metre minimum specified within Council Policy, even with the design change that has been advocated. Increasing the setback to bed 1 and the robe would not unduly comprise the functionality of the dwelling, as each of the affected spaces has been designed with very generous proportions.
11.2
35
11.2
12 June 2012
CONCLUSION: Having regard to the advice contained within this report, and in particular: Provisions of Councils Local Planning Policy Streetscape which specify a 3.0 metre minimum setback to a secondary street frontage; Advice which was provided by the Towns Officers during the design development phase of plans for a new dwelling at this site; Improved appearance which would result from a design which incorporated greater articulation to the secondary street frontage; and Overall compatibility with the surrounding Lathlain locality which is characterised by a low density of development with dwellings on larger lots situated within landscaped surrounds; It has been demonstrated that benefit would be achieved by the design being modified. Accordingly, a condition of planning approval has been formulated which requires the setback of the section of the dwelling comprising bed 1 and ensuite to be increased to a 3.0 metre minimum, in accordance with the provisions contained within Councils Local Planning Policy Streetscape. While this condition does require a modification to the proposed design, it is considered reasonable for the reasons described above and in view of the setback variations being supported by planning staff to other portions of the building fronting Cookham Road.
FURTHER COMMENTS: At the Elected Members Briefing Session on 5 June 2012, comments were made in respect to the lot width (13.42m) being a justification for the reduced setback to Cookham Road. This has been acknowledged by Urban Planning staff and forms the reasoning for support for the majority of the proposed setback variation to Cookham Road. However it is considered that the proposed 15.37m long wall containing veranda/retreat/bed 1/robe/ensuite is excessively long at the reduced setback, and the impact of the reduced setback would be minimised if a portion was to have an increased setback. Therefore notwithstanding condition 1.1, a significant setback variation to separate walls of a combined length of 21.1m, is still being supported by Urban Planning staff given the lot frontage. There was also discussion at the Elected Members Briefing Session in respect to the possibility of portions of the fence along Cookham Road being modified to open style fencing. While this would be preferable from a visual surveillance perspective and would provide greater visual interest than an entirely solid 1.8m high wall to the Cookham Road frontage, this would not resolve the impact of the proposed reduced setback. To the contrary, the modification of portions of the fence from a solid fence to open style fencing would result in the proposed walls at the reduced setback to Cookham Road being more visible and prominent. Even as currently proposed, the walls of the dwelling will project approximately 1.3m above the top of the proposed 1.8m high solid fence, plus the roof above. Therefore it is considered that the wall of the dwelling, even behind a solid 1.8m high fence, would be highly visible, and the impact would be further exacerbated at the reduced setback and excessive wall length proposed.
11.2
36
11.2
12 June 2012
It is again drawn to the attention of Elected Members that Urban Planning staff has suggested three different alternatives to the applicant in return for the setback variations being supported to Cookham Road. The applicant has not been prepared to make any compromises to the design of the dwelling, yet seeks support for the full extent of the proposed setback variations. The imposition of condition 1.1, while requiring design modifications, is a reasonable compromise position, and would result in more visual interest in the elevation. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Skinner
1. In accordance with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by Devrite Constructions Pty Ltd (DA Ref: 12/0197) for a Single House at No. 53 Gallipoli Street, Lathlain as shown on the plans dated 25 May 2012 be Approved subject to the following conditions: 1.1 Modified drawings shall be submitted in conjunction with the application for a Building Permit, with such drawings incorporating an increased setback to Cookham Road to the approximately 6.2 metre long section of the dwelling comprising Bed 1 and Ensuite from 2.32 metres as proposed to 3.0 metres minimum. The setback of the roof above this portion of the dwelling shall be set back correspondingly. 1.2 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all relevant Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit: Urban Planning; and Street Life. Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note). 1.3 The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. (Refer related Advice Note) 1.4 A minimum of 50% of the front setback area is to be softly landscaped. Landscaping is to be installed prior to occupation of the building and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Park Life Program. 1.5 All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level.
11.2
37
11.2
12 June 2012
1.6 The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as the required new fencing is to be erected. 1.7 Drawings submitted for a Building Permit to demonstrate compliance with the following fencing requirements: (i) Primary Street (a) solid portion of wall or fence to be a maximum height of 600mm above natural ground level; (b) piers to have maximum width and length dimensions of 460mm x 460mm; and (c) upper portion of wall / fence to be of open style. (ii) Secondary Street (a) Solid fencing to a height of 1.8 metres above natural ground level incorporating articulation to include vertical elements such as piers or similar; and (b) Fencing truncated adjacent to intersection of driveway and property boundary in accordance with condition 1.7, below. Full detail of infill panels and permeable fencing adjacent to the intersection of the driveway and the property boundary to be provided in conjunction with the application for a Building Permit. 1.8 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5 metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the Cookham Road property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of: (i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); (ii) wrought iron or similar metal tubing style infill fencing; and/or (iii) pickets or horizontal rails of a maximum width of 80mm, a maximum thickness of 20mm, and being spaced a minimum gap of 40mm and a maximum gap of 80% of the width of the picket or rail. 1.9 During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work. 1.10 All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving, liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning. 1.11 Existing crossovers that are not used as part of the development or redevelopment shall be removed and the verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. 1.12 External colours, finishes and materials to be used in the construction of the building are to be in accordance with the colour schedule date stamped approved 12 June 2012, attached with the approved plans.
11.2
38
11.2
12 June 2012
1.13 External fixtures, including but not restricted to airconditioning units, satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the Primary Street, secondary street or right-of-way. 1.14 A zero lot gutter to be provided for the boundary wall adjoining the common boundary with No. 51 Gallipoli Street. 1.15 The surface of the boundary walls on the common boundary with No. 51 Gallipoli Street to be the same finish as the approved external wall finish for the remainder of the dwelling, unless otherwise approved. 1.16 External clothes drying facilities are to be screened from view from the street or any other public place. 1.17 The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated to the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces. 1.18 All building works to be carried out under this planning approval are required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot. 1.19 Compliance with Councils Building, Environmental Health, Street Life and Park Life requirements. Advice to Applicant 1.20 With regards to Condition No 1.9, the following are minimum requirements of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone. 1.21 Any modifications to the approved drawings forming part of this planning approval may require the submission of an application for modification to planning approval and reassessment of the proposal. 1.22 Landscaping of the verge requires approval from Councils Renew Life Program (except lawn planting only). The applicant/owner should obtain a copy of Councils Sustainable Landscaping Guide 1 Your Street Verge. 1.23 In regards to Condition No. 1.2, where a Council Building Surveyor is issuing the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit a separate application (Form TVP2) for the approval of Council Business Units. This form is available on the Towns website and at the front counter of Councils Offices.
11.2
39
11.2
12 June 2012
1.24 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.
AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Potter
The officer's recommendation of approval with condition 1.1 of the officers recommendation be deleted, and replaced with a new condition 1.1 to read, The open style front fence facing Gallipoli Street to be extended, in part, along the Cookham Street frontage, to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
Reason: To encourage open style fencing and for safety factors along the Cookham Street frontage. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: 1. In accordance with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by Devrite Constructions Pty Ltd (DA Ref: 12/0197) for a Single House at No. 53 Gallipoli Street, Lathlain as shown on the plans dated 25 May 2012 be Approved subject to the following conditions: 1.1 The open style front fence facing Gallipoli Street to be extended, in part, along the Cookham Street frontage, to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning. 1.2 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all relevant Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit: Urban Planning; and Street Life. Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note). 1.3 The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. (Refer related Advice Note)
11.2
40
11.2
12 June 2012
1.4 A minimum of 50% of the front setback area is to be softly landscaped. Landscaping is to be installed prior to occupation of the building and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Park Life Program. 1.5 All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level. 1.6 The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as the required new fencing is to be erected. 1.7 Drawings submitted for a Building Permit to demonstrate compliance with the following fencing requirements: (i) Primary Street (a) solid portion of wall or fence to be a maximum height of 600mm above natural ground level; (b) piers to have maximum width and length dimensions of 460mm x 460mm; and (c) upper portion of wall / fence to be of open style. (ii) Secondary Street (c) Solid fencing to a height of 1.8 metres above natural ground level incorporating articulation to include vertical elements such as piers or similar; and (d) Fencing truncated adjacent to intersection of driveway and property boundary in accordance with condition 1.7, below. Full detail of infill panels and permeable fencing adjacent to the intersection of the driveway and the property boundary to be provided in conjunction with the application for a Building Permit. 1.8 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5 metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the Cookham Road property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of: (i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); (ii) wrought iron or similar metal tubing style infill fencing; and/or (iii) pickets or horizontal rails of a maximum width of 80mm, a maximum thickness of 20mm, and being spaced a minimum gap of 40mm and a maximum gap of 80% of the width of the picket or rail. 1.9 During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work.
11.2
41
11.2
12 June 2012
1.10 All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving, liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning. 1.11 Existing crossovers that are not used as part of the development or redevelopment shall be removed and the verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. 1.12 External colours, finishes and materials to be used in the construction of the building are to be in accordance with the colour schedule date stamped approved 12 June 2012, attached with the approved plans. 1.13 External fixtures, including but not restricted to airconditioning units, satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the Primary Street, Secondary Street or right-of-way. 1.14 A zero lot gutter to be provided for the boundary wall adjoining the common boundary with No. 51 Gallipoli Street. 1.15 The surface of the boundary walls on the common boundary with No. 51 Gallipoli Street to be the same finish as the approved external wall finish for the remainder of the dwelling, unless otherwise approved. 1.16 External clothes drying facilities are to be screened from view from the street or any other public place. 1.17 The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated to the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces. 1.18 All building works to be carried out under this planning approval are required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot. 1.19 Compliance with Councils Building, Environmental Health, Street Life and Park Life requirements. Advice to Applicant 1.20 With regards to Condition No 1.9, the following are minimum requirements of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone. 1.21 Any modifications to the approved drawings forming part of this planning approval may require the submission of an application for modification to planning approval and reassessment of the proposal.
11.2
42
11.2
12 June 2012
1.22 Landscaping of the verge requires approval from Councils Renew Life Program (except lawn planting only). The applicant/owner should obtain a copy of Councils Sustainable Landscaping Guide 1 Your Street Verge. 1.23 In regards to Condition No. 1.2, where a Council Building Surveyor is issuing the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit a separate application (Form TVP2) for the approval of Council Business Units. This form is available on the Towns website and at the front counter of Councils Offices. 1.24 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
11.2
43
11.2
12 June 2012 2
11.2
44
11.2 2
12 June J 2012 2
11.3 30-34 (Lot t 336) Canning C Highwa ay, Victo oria Park k 15 Multiple e Dw wellings
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: Landown ner: Applicant t: Application Date: DA/BA or r WAPC Ref: R MRS Zon ning: TPS Zoni ing: TPS Prec cinct: Use Class: Use Perm missibility: : CA ANN30-34 No o SK KS Cannin g Pty Ltd Ca ampion De esign Group 8 March M 201 2 2/0158 12 Ur rban Re esidential R R60 Pr recinct P5 Raphael Precinct P Mu ultiple Dwe ellings P use
25 5 May 2012 2 Date: I. Ahmad A Reporting g Officer: R. Cruicksha ank Responsible Office er: Ab bsolute Ma ajority Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation Approva al subject to conditions Appl lication for r 15 Multiple Dwelling gs; Non-compliant t with the provisions p of Town of o Victoria Park Tow wn Planning Scheme e No. 1, Residen ntial Design Codes a and Local Planning P Policy P Str reetscape in relation n to plot ratio, building b he eight, boun ndary setb back, secondary stre eet setback k, right-ofway setback, visual v priva acy and ve ehicle access. sultation with w surrou unding pro operty own ners and occupiers in accord dance with h Cons Council Policy y GEN3 Co ommunity Consultati ion for 14 days com mmenced on o 13 April l 2012 2 and clos sed on 30 April 2012 2. Over th he commen nt period, three (3) objections s were e received. . Cons sidered that the form m, quality and appearance of the propo osed devel lopment is s cons sistent with the des sired char racter of the t area outlined o in n Precinct t Plan P5 5 Rap phael Prec cinct and will w make a significan nt and high quality str reetscape outcome
TABLED ITEMS: Deve elopment application a n form date ed 8 March h 2012; Plan ns and elev vations dat ted receive ed 8 March h 2012; Cons sultation with w adjoining owners s & occupie ers dated 13 1 April 20 12; Subm missions from f surrounding ow wners and occupiers dated rec ceived 19 April A 2012 2 and 20 April 2012; 2 Corr respondence to Main n Roads W Western Aus stralia date ed 5 April 2 2012; Resp ponse from m Main Roa ads Weste ern Australia dated re eceived 18 8 April 2012 2; Minu utes of the e Design Review C Committee Meeting dated 7 D December 2011; 18 8 Janu uary 2012 and 13 February 201 12; Minu utes of the Formal De esign Revi ew Committee Meeting dated 2 24 April 20 012 and Aeria al photogra aph of the locality.
11.3
45
11.3 3
12 June 2012
BACKGROUND: On 12 December 2006, a development application for Seven (7) Multiple Dwellings on the subject property was approved at the Councils Ordinary Council Meeting. This approval has since expired. It should be noted that the previous approved development of Seven (7) Multiple Dwellings is identical to the current proposal in terms of built form and site planning. The previously approved Seven Multiple Dwellings were based on the previous Residential Design Codes where a residential density control was applied. However, as part of the review of the Residential Design Codes 2010, the density control requirements were removed for Multiple Dwellings, where located in areas coded R30 or greater (the subject site is zoned as R60). As such, an additional eight (8) Multiple Dwellings have been proposed, resulting in a total of 15 Multiple Dwellings on the subject site. The applicant submitted preliminary concept plans which were discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting held on 7 December 2011, 18 January 2012 and 13 February 2012 in order to obtain feedback from Council Officers and Councils Design Review Committee (DRC). The following points were raised by the DRC members and Councils officers: Overall, the proposal provides an excellent level of amenity for both prospective owners, occupiers and the surrounding properties. Notwithstanding that the plot ratio exceeds the 10% permitted variation, the plot ratio variation can be supported given the design merit of the proposal and that the plot ratio increment will not result in any additional building bulk compared to the previous approved building form. Notwithstanding that Councils Local Planning Policy Streetscape requires vehicular access to be taken from right-of-way; DRC and Councils officers may consider access via Washington Street given that the subject lot is located at the end of Washington Street where the street is terminated by a cul-de-sac. The Committee has no reservations on the proposed height of four (4) storeys and stepping down to three (3) storeys towards the adjoining properties at 36 Canning Highway as it provides a smooth transition of building height from the south-western to north-eastern adjoining properties. The Design Review Committee has considered the application, and at a formal meeting held on 24 April 2012 resolved to recommend support of the application subject to conditions.
DETAILS: Council has received a planning application for 15 Multiple Dwellings on the subject property. The subject site has a lot size of 1286m2 and is currently vacant. The subject lot is bounded by Canning Highway (north-west), Washington Street (north-east) and a 5.0m wide right-of-way at the rear of the property. In addition, the site is located at the northern end of Washington Street which is terminated by a cul-de-sac.
11.3
46
11.3
12 June 2012
It is particularly worth noting that the subject site is located between a three (3) storey building which is immediately abutting the subject property to the south-west (36 Canning Highway) and a site containing two (2), three (3) and five (5) storey buildings to the northeast (7-11 Heirisson Way), separated by Washington Street. The two storey building at 7-11 Heirisson Way (closest to Washington Street) has a semiundercroft carpark which is substantially raised above the natural ground level to create the impression of a three storey height whilst the presence of a 5 storey building on this adjoining property creates a streetscape with varying building heights along this portion of Canning Highway. To the south-east of the subject property (adjacent to the right-of-way), there are two storey Grouped Dwellings at 7, 9 & 11 Washington Street. The proposed development is summarised as follows: The proposed building is to accommodate 15 Multiple Dwellings which comprise nine (9) two bedroom units and six (6) Single Bedroom Dwellings; The proposed building is to have a maximum height of four (4) storeys which is confined to the eastern portion of the site and stepped down to three (3) storeys towards the south-western property boundary; In addition, a basement car park is proposed to accommodate 15 car bays for the residents with vehicular access to and from the basement car parking to be taken from Washington Street; Four (4) visitor car bays are proposed at the rear of the building with vehicular access to be taken from the right-of-way; Pedestrian access is provided via Canning Highway, Washington Street and right-ofway; The development also features a lift and staircase secured at ground level for the access of residents to all levels of the building. The proposed building is configured to maximise the street frontages (Canning Highway, Washington Street and right-of-way) through extensive use of balconies and glazing and orientation of living areas of individual units. In addition, double glazing has also been introduced to alleviate any impact of traffic noise from Canning Highway. The building faade is articulated by a series of projections and recesses and employing a range of different materials and finishes and varying building heights to create visual interest to the building form. The proposed building incorporates redeeming traditional architectural features to reflect the character of existing dwellings predominant within the Raphael Precinct such as Zincalume roof with steep roof pitch, open eaves with exposed rafter ends and red face brickwork. Legal Compliance: Relevant Provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 In assessing and determining this application, Council is to have regard to the following general provisions of the Scheme: Clause 38 of the Scheme Text; Statement of Intent contained in Precinct Plan P5 Raphael Precinct; and Policy 4.12 Design Guidelines for Developments with Buildings above 3 Storeys of the Policy Manual.
11.3
47
11.3
12 June 2012
Compliance with Development Requirements TPS 1 Scheme Text, Policy Manual and Precinct Plan; Residential Design Codes; Local Planning Policy Streetscape; and Local Planning Policy Boundary Walls. The following is a summary of compliance with key development requirements: Item Plot ratio Primary Street Setback (Canning Highway) Secondary Street Setback (Washington Street) Right-of-way Permitted 0.7 maximum (900.20m2) 6.0m average 3.0m minimum 3.0m minimum 5.0m from the centreline of the right-of-way Ground floor wall 1.7m minimum setback First floor wall 2.3m minimum setback Proposed 0.84 (1075.26 m2) 6.2m average 4.1m minimum 1.5m minimum 3.6m from the centreline of the right-of-way Ground floor wall 4.0m setback Compliance Non-compliant (refer to Comments section below) Compliant Non-compliant (refer to Comments section below) Non-compliant (refer to Comments section below) Compliant
Boundary Setback (to south-western boundary)
First floor wall 4.0m setback
Compliant
Open Space On-site car parking for Multiple Dwellings:
Second floor wall Second floor wall 4.3m minimum 4.0m setback setback 47.3% A minimum of 45% of site area (608m2) (578.70m2 ) Parking to be provided at the following rate for Category A:
Non-Compliant (refer to Comments section below) Compliant
Small (<75 m2 or 1 bedroom)
0.75 per dwelling @ 6 units = 5 bays
Medium (75-110 m2) 1 per dwelling @ 9 units = 9 bays
15 car bays provided Compliant for residents
11.3
48
11.3
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Visitors Bays Total required = 14 4 car bays provided bays required for for visitors residents 0.25 bays per unit @ 15 units = 4 bays 1 bicycle space to each 3 dwellings for residents; and 1 bicycle space to each 10 dwellings for visitors. 5 bays for residents 2 bays for visitors
12 June 2012 Compliant
Bicycle bays
Non-compliant This can be resolved as a condition of planning approval requiring a minimum of 5 and 2 on-site 6 bays provided; bicycle bays to be shortfall of 1 bay provided for the exclusive use of the residents and visitors respectively. Vehicle access to Non-compliant the basement car (refer to Comments park to be taken section below) from Washington Street whilst limited access is provided via right-of-way for the visitor car parking bays located at the rear of the building. Maximum building Non-compliant height of 4 storeys (refer to Comments section below) Unit 5 balcony (1st Non-compliant storey) 5.7m to (refer to Comments south-western section below) boundary Unit 9 balcony (2nd storey) 5.7m to south-western boundary
Vehicle Access
Vehicle access to be taken solely from the right-of-way where the lot has legal access to the subject right-of-way
Building Height (measured from the natural ground level)
Maximum building height of 3 storeys. Balconies 7.5m minimum setback from boundaries within the cone of vision
Visual Privacy
11.3
49
11.3
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes On adjoining properties coded R60 50% of the site area. 36 Canning Hwy. A maximum of 105m2 shadowing permitted. Outdoor Living Area A minimum of 8m2 to be unaffected. On adjoining properties coded R30 35% of the site area. 7 Washington St a maximum of 103.60m2 of overshadowing permitted. 33C Armagh St A maximum of 85.75m2 of overshadowing permitted. Outdoor Living Area A minimum of 12m2 to be unaffected.
12 June 2012
36 Canning Hwy 96.5m2 of shadowing on lot. 12m2 + 43m2 of outdoor living area unaffected
Compliant
Solar Access
7 Washington St 38.5m2 of shadowing on lot. Outdoor living area not affected. 33C Armagh St 82.42m2 of shadowing on lot Outdoor living area not affected
Compliant
Compliant
Community Consultation As there are several variations proposed to the requirements of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Residential Design Codes, the proposal was the subject of consultation for a 14 day period in accordance with Council Policy GEN3 Community Consultation. This included letters to the owners and occupiers of adjoining properties that may be affected by the development. The consultation period commenced on 13 April 2012 and closed on 30 April 2012. Over the comment period, three (3) objections were received as summarised and considered by Councils Urban Planning Business Unit in the below table. They are also included in full as Tabled Items to this report.
11.3
50
11.3
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Consultation Submissions Objection from owner of 44 Canning Highway, Victoria Park Comments Received Officers Comments Building Height The building height variation will cause significant amount of overshadowing onto the adjoining property.
12 June 2012
The proposed building will not result in any overshadowing of south-western adjoining properties or their appurtenant outdoor living areas. The proposal complies with the solar access provision of the Residential Design Codes. Any development, buildings and structures are to be contained within the property boundaries and are not permitted to encroach into Councils verge. In addition, the portion of the building that encroaches within the 3.0m setback area of Washington Street is located at least 4.0m away from the nearest power lines. This is consistent with existing two-storey dwellings located south-east of the subject property (7-11 Washington Street) which have building elements of similar reduced setbacks to Washington Street. The proposed development will not reduce the width of the existing rightof-way. All development, building and structures are setback at least 0.5m from the right-of-way for the length of the common boundary with the right-ofway to allow for the future widening of the right-of-way and to facilitate access. It should be noted that the primary access to the residential car parking at the basement level is taken from Washington Street instead of the right-of-way whilst limited access has been provided via the right-of-way for the visitor car bays. The proposal complies with the car parking provision of the Residential Design Codes.
Secondary Street Setback (Washington Street) The secondary street setback variation will pose a fire risk to the adjoining properties located along Washington Street given that there are existing power poles/lines on the street verge.
Right-of-way setback The variation to the right-of-way setback requirement will result in further reduction of the right-of-way width which in turn, may impinge on vehicular access along the subject right-of-way.
Residential Density 15 Multiple Dwellings are considered to be excessive and will result in traffic and parking issues.
11.3
51
11.3
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Objection from owners of 7 Washington Street, Victoria Park Comments Received Officers Comments Use of Building There is a potential for the units of the building to be used for specialized forms of accommodation (such as short term accommodation and Serviced Apartments) instead of Multiple Dwellings occupied on a permanent basis. Such alternative forms of accommodation may result in potential conflict between the short term residents and long term residents of the locality due to the transient nature of the accommodation. Vehicular access and parking The proposed development will result in traffic and car parking issues along the subject right-of-way. The proposed 15 residential car bays and four (4) visitor car bays are deemed to be inadequate.
12 June 2012
Noted A condition of planning approval will be imposed to restrict the use of the residential units as Multiple Dwellings only and does not include approval for use as serviced apartments. Any other use will require the submission of a new application for planning approval.
The primary vehicular access for the residential car parking is taken from Washington Street instead of the rightof-way. Given that there are only four (4) visitor car bays located at the rear of the building with vehicular access from the right-of-way, it is considered that the proposed development will not result in any significant increase to the traffic utilising this portion of the rightof-way. In relation to the number of car parking bays provided, the proposed development complies with the car parking requirement of the Residential Design Codes. The proposed four (4) storey high building component which is stepped down to three (3) storeys towards the south-western property boundary will provide an acceptable transition from the existing buildings located on the north-eastern adjoining property which contains a five (5) storey building and the south-western adjoining property which comprises three (3) storey buildings. In addition, the proposed variation will not result in any overshadowing or overlooking onto the adjoining properties.
Building height The overall height of the building is deemed to be excessive.
11.3
52
11.3
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Visual privacy Proposed balconies facing the right-ofway will result in overlooking onto the adjoining property. Plot ratio and street and boundary setbacks Variations to the plot ratio and street and boundary setback requirements signify that the proposal exceeds the building footprint limit.
12 June 2012 The balconies and other major openings facing the right-of-way will not overlook any portion of the southeastern adjoining property (7 Washington Street). The proposed development is to be of a bulk and scale that would reflect the existing or desired built form of the locality and that the intensity of the use on the site would not give rise to conditions that would be detrimental to the surrounding residents.
Objection from owners of 101/ 1-11 Heirisson Way, Victoria Park Comments Received Officers Comments All the proposed variations are deemed to be unacceptable as it will have adverse impacts on the amenity of the surrounding properties. The proposed plot ratio, setback and building height variations are deemed to satisfy the relevant Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes. The proposed variations will be discussed in greater detail in the Comment section of this Report.
In addition, the application was referred to Main Roads Western Australia for comment given that the development is on land that abuts Canning Highway, which is reserved as a Primary Regional Road under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and is classified as a Category 3 road on map SP693/3 Development Applications Roads in the MRS under Main Roads Control. On 18 April 2012, Council received a response from Main Roads indicating no objection to the proposed development subject to relevant conditions of approval being imposed. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: The development provides a mix of single and two bedroom units which are designed to cater for the increasing trend in smaller household sizes namely, for singles and couples who wish to live in close proximity to the city. In addition, the proposed development will result in the completion of development along the majority of this portion of Canning Highway, removing the current void in the streetscape. As such, this will provide increased surveillance of the streets. Cultural Issues: No impact
11.3
53
11.3
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Environmental Issues: No impact
12 June 2012
COMMENT: The proposal is broadly consistent with the requirements of Councils Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Residential Design Codes, and the Design Review Committee has indicated its general agreement regarding the design merit of the proposal. Notwithstanding this, the proposal seeks several variations to the Residential Design Codes and Councils Town Planning Scheme No. 1 as outlined above. The proposed variations will be considered as follows: Plot Ratio Under the provisions of the Residential Design Codes, a maximum plot ratio of 0.7 (900.2m2) is permitted. The development proposes a plot ratio of 0.84 (1075.26m2), which equates to 175.26m2 of excess floor area. It is acknowledged that in recent years, Councils Planning Services and the Design Review Committee have typically been supportive of a plot ratio variation up to 10% variation where an application demonstrates a high quality of design and provides an excellent level of amenity for both prospective occupants and surrounding properties. However, in this instance, a plot ratio variation of 19% is proposed. Whilst it is acknowledged that this is a significant concession and beyond the extent of variation that has been previously supported for other applications, it is considered that the plot ratio variation is acceptable for the following reasons: The excess plot ratio is partly due to energy efficiency compliance where 300mm wide external walls have been provided, resulting in an additional 80m2 of plot ratio floor area. Notwithstanding that this proposal has an additional eight (8) residential units compared to the previous approved development, the plot ratio increment will not result in any additional building bulk compared to the previous approved building form. The applicant has demonstrated via an overlay of the building footprint of the previous approved floor plans over the proposed floor plans that the building envelope is similar to each other. Given that the site is at a prominent location (in terms of its proximity to the gateway from north-east and being a corner lot), the proposed development achieves a high quality design which will raise the benchmark for future developments along Canning Highway. The proposed development incorporates several traditional design elements which are predominant within the Raphael Precinct, whilst still adopting a contemporary approach to the building design which would accord with the quality and form of development envisaged for the site, as outlined in the Precinct Plan P5 Raphael Precinct. Each residential unit within the development is of a sufficient size to cater the needs of the residents and have been designed to incorporate generous living areas and balcony space in order to provide an acceptable level of amenity for prospective residents. The development provides a mix of single and two bedroom units which are designed to cater for the increasing trend in smaller household sizes namely, for singles and couples who wish to live in close proximity to the city.
11.3
54
11.3
12 June 2012
The proposed development encourages an increase in the residential population of the part of Canning Highway and will add variety and vitality to the area, consistent with the Statement of Intent for the Raphael Precinct.
Building Height The proposed building has a maximum height of four storeys above a basement car park in lieu of the maximum permitted height of three storeys. The proposed four (4) storey high building component is confined to the eastern portion of the site and stepped down to three (3) storeys towards the south-western property boundary. It should be noted that the subject site is located between a three (3) storey building (south-west) and a site containing a five (5) storey building (north-east). As a result, a four (4) storey high building provides a transition from the three (3) to five (5) storey height recommended under the Councils Urban Design Study. Given that the existing buildings along this portion of Canning Highway have varying building heights, the proposed four (4) storey high building component is considered to be acceptable. Based upon urban design principles, taller building element at street corners is considered desirable, and therefore it would be appropriate to permit additional building height for sites leading towards a taller building element at the street corner. Furthermore, setting the taller building element away from the common boundaries provides a more appropriate scale, minimising the impact of the new development on the existing dwellings. In addition, a two-storey building element has been introduced adjacent to the right-of-way to provide a transition to the existing two storey properties at 7-11 Washington Street (south-east). In order to reduce the perceived impact of building bulk, building articulation devices such as indentation and projections, varying building heights and extensive use of balconies and glazing have been incorporated to the building faade. Blank walls are minimised on the elevations of the building so as to provide active street frontages. Furthermore, the increased building height will also reinforce the urban character of the locality by providing a defined edge to Canning Highway. It will also allow the development to take best advantage of the views that are available from the subject site, with views to the Perth Central Business District and Swan River to the north-west which will increase the level of amenity for prospective residents. In addition, the additional storey will not result in any additional overshadowing of adjoining properties or their appurtenant outdoor living areas. In its current form, the proposal complies with the solar access provisions of the Residential Design Codes. In view of the above, the proposed building height variation can be supported. Secondary Street Setback With the exception of the porch which is setback at 1.5 metres from Washington Street, the proposed development generally complies with the secondary street setback as the majority of the building achieves a setback of well in excess of 3.0 metres as required under the Councils Local Planning Policy Streetscape.
11.3
55
11.3
12 June 2012
The porch is proposed at a reduced setback to create a strong residential entry from Washington Street. Given that the porch is unenclosed on at least two sides and integrated into the design of the building in terms of detailing, it is considered that the entry porch will not be visually dominant at the reduced setback proposed. In addition, the existing two-storey dwellings located south-east of the subject property (711 Washington Street) have building elements of reduced setbacks to Washington Street and therefore, the proposed variation to the secondary street setback will not interrupt the rhythm of the street setback pattern of Washington Street. In light of this, the proposed secondary street setback variation can be supported. Right-of-Way Setback The building generally complies with the required setback from the centreline of the rightof-way of 5.0 metres minimum as specified under Councils Local Planning Policy Streetscape for corner lots with the exception of the bin enclosure which has a setback of 4.0 metres from the centreline of the right-of-way. Given that the bin enclosure has a length of approximately 5.3 metres only (compared to the overall length of the building being in excess of 37 metres) and the main building achieves a setback of well in excess of 5.0 metres, it is considered that the reduced setback will not have any adverse impact on the creation of a new streetscape along the portion of right-of-way. The intent of the relevant Local Planning Policy Streetscape provisions is to promote the creation of new streetscapes environments through the use of existing rights-of-way. In this instance, the right-of-way serves to provide limited vehicular access to the rear of the property with the building being orientated towards the right-of-way. Additionally, the upper floor units incorporate windows and balconies that front the right-of-way and hence providing excellent surveillance of the right-of-way which would accord with the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. On this basis, the proposed setbacks from the right-of-way are considered appropriate in the context of its surroundings. Boundary Setback The proposed development also seeks variation to the Residential Design Codes in relation to side setback. An assessment of the plans reveals that the reduced setback of the third storey southwestern wall (Unit 9) will not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property (36 Canning Highway) in terms of solar access, visual privacy and building bulk. Based on the submitted overshadowing plan, the non-compliance will not unduly restrict direct sun and ventilation into south-western adjoining property and still allow adequate daylight onto the outdoor living areas. In regards to visual privacy, given that the subject south-western wall features no major openings, the subject wall will not result in any direct overlooking into the south-western adjoining property.
11.3
56
11.3
12 June 2012
In regards to building bulk, the subject wall has been articulated through detailing and glazing (minor openings) which can positively benefit the amenity of the adjoining property as it will reduce the perceived impact of building bulk. In addition, given that the subject wall is located opposite an existing three-storey dwelling on the adjoining south-western property, the subject wall poses no additional impact on the building bulk. In light of this, the boundary setback variation satisfies the relevant Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes and thus, can be supported. Visual Privacy The proposed development has been designed to alleviate any potential overlooking onto adjoining properties by providing highlight windows and minor openings, in particular, on those walls facing south-western adjoining properties (36 Canning Highway). However, the proposed Unit 5 and 9 balconies which are orientated towards the right-of-way constitute a variation to the visual privacy requirement. Notwithstanding that the proponent has incorporated screening on the south-western side of the subject balconies; the subject balconies still overlook a portion of the south-western adjoining property. However, based on Councils records, it appears that the subject balconies will not overlook any habitable spaces or outdoor living areas of the south-western adjoining property. Instead, the subject balconies will only overlook a portion of the common property area of 36 Canning Highway located at the rear of the building. In this regard, the proposed visual privacy variation is considered to satisfy the relevant Performance Criteria and therefore, can be supported. Vehicle Access In relation to vehicle access, notwithstanding that Councils Local Planning Policy Streetscape requires vehicular access to be taken solely from right-of-way; the proposed development provides vehicle access to the basement car park for the residents via Washington Street whilst limited access is provided via right-of-way for the visitor car parking bays located at the rear of the building. However, DRC and Councils officers have no reservations on the proposed access via Washington Street given that the subject lot is located at the end of Washington Street where the street is terminated by a cul-de-sac. It is envisaged that there will be few vehicles utilising this portion of Washington Street other than the residents of the subject property. As such, the proposed access via Washington Street is deemed to be acceptable. Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Clause 38 As the proposed development is non-compliant with the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council must be satisfied that the proposal meets the requirements listed under Clause 38(3) of the Scheme if approval were to be granted.
11.3
57
11.3
12 June 2012
Based on the form, quality and appearance of the development, the proposed development will make a significant and high quality streetscape outcome which would accord with the orderly and proper planning of the locality, as outlined in the Precinct Plan P5 Raphael Precinct. The development is of a high standard which will serve as an example for the positive future redevelopment of sites elsewhere along Canning Highway and has been designed to take maximum advantage of the Central Business District and Swan River views whilst maintaining an appropriate and highly articulated frontage to Washington Street and right-of-way. While variations to the development standards are proposed, the variations are considered to be appropriate given its streetscape context and site planning. The items of noncompliance will not adversely effect on the occupants/users of the development, owners/occupiers of adjoining properties and the future development of the locality.
CONCLUSION: In regards to the matters raised above, the proposed building is considered to be of a high quality that would accord with the form, quality and appearance of development envisaged for the subject site, as outlined in the Raphael Precinct. The proposed building has been designed in such a way that it will provide a high level of amenity for prospective residents whilst creating an appropriate relationship with the surrounding buildings and streetscape. In view of the above, it is recommended that the application be Approved by Absolute Majority subject to conditions.
RESOLVED: Moved: 1. Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Bissett
In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme the application submitted by Campion Design Group on behalf of SKS Canning Pty Ltd (DA Ref: 12/0158) for 15 Multiple Dwellings at 30-34 (Lot 336) Canning Highway, Victoria Park as indicated on the plans dated received 8 March 2012 be Approved by Absolute Majority subject to the following conditions: 1.1 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all relevant Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit : Urban Planning; Street Life; Park Life; Environmental Health; Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note).
11.3
58
11.3
12 June 2012
1.3
All development is to be setback 0.5 metres from the right-of-way for the length of the common boundary with the right-of-way to allow for the future widening of the right-of-way. A minimum of 5 bicycle spaces for residents and 2 bicycle spaces for visitors are to be provided on-site for the exclusive use of residents and visitors. Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, final detail of external colours, finishes and materials to be used in the construction of the building are to be provided to the satisfaction of Manager Urban Planning prior to submission of a building licence. Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, full details of an external drying area for each residential unit shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Manager Urban Planning. The clothes drying facilities shall be fully installed and screened from view from surrounding streets in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the residential units hereby approved. Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, complete details of the fencing to Canning Highway, Washington Street and the right-of-way to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning. This shall include the colour, materials and dimensions of the fencing, which are to be of a high standard and appropriately articulated so as to produce an acceptable streetscape outcome, to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning. The approved fencing is to be installed prior to occupation of the building(s) or strata titling, whichever occurs first. Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, fencing to the right-of-way to be open style fencing. Details of fencing to the right-of-way to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning, prior to submission of an application for building licence. The approved fencing is to be installed prior to occupation of the building(s) or strata titling, whichever occurs first. Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, details being submitted of all proposed ventilation systems, including the location of plant equipment, vents and air conditioning units. All equipment must be adequately screened to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning. Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, a Drainage Management plan including details of the on-site stormwater disposal including soakwell sizes and locations to be submitted to the satisfaction of Executive Manager Street Life.
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
11.3
59
11.3
12 June 2012
Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, an acoustic report shall be prepared by a qualified consultant in accordance with the guidelines of the Western Australian Planning Commission State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning and submitted to and approved in writing by the Manager Urban Planning and Manager Building in consultation with the Design Review Committee. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained. An acid sulphate soils self-assessment form and, if required as a result of the self-assessment, an acid sulphate soils report and an acid sulphate soils management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Environment and Conservation before the development is commenced. Where an acid sulphate soils management plan is required to be submitted, all development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan. Prior to the submission of an application for building permit, a landscaping plan detailing size, location and type of planting to be provided to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Park Life. Landscaping is to be completed prior to the occupation or strata titling of the building(s), whichever occurs first, and thereafter maintained to satisfaction of Executive Manager Park Life. Removal, lopping or pruning of any verge tree affected by the development on the subject site is subject to the written approval of the Executive Manager Park Life at the applicants cost. The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation or strata titling of the building(s) whichever occurs first and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Park Life. (Refer related Advice Note) This approval is for the use of the residential units as Multiple Dwellings only and does not include approval for use as serviced apartments. Any other use will require the submission of a new application for planning approval. The gym facility is approved as residential amenities for the subject development only and cannot operate or be used as a separate commercial use(s) or be made available to the general public. A separate planning application is required for any fence forward of the building line. The use of sheet fencing, such as colorbond or fibro cement sheeting, in front of the building line is not permitted. 60
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
11.3
11.3
12 June 2012
1.20
The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as the required new fencing is to be erected. All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level. Existing crossovers that are not used as part of the development or redevelopment shall be removed and the verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Street Life. Before the subject development is first occupied, all car parking spaces together with their access aisles to be clearly paved, sealed, marked and drained and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Street Life. A minimum of 14 car parking bays to be provided on site for the exclusive use for residents. These bays shall be marked accordingly. A minimum of four (4) car parking bays to be provided on site for the exclusive use of visitors. These bays shall be marked for the exclusive use of visitors prior to the first occupation or commencement of the development. All car parking bays to be paved, drained and line-marked and designed in accordance with AS2890.1. Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5 metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the Washington Street property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of: (i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); and/or (ii) wrought iron infill fencing. Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.0 metre x 1.0 metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the right-of-way property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of: (i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); and/or (ii) wrought iron infill fencing. During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work.
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.27
1.28
1.29
11.3
61
11.3
12 June 2012
All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving, liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning. No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Canning Highway reserve. No vehicle access shall be permitted onto the Canning Highway reserve. Vehicle access is permitted from Washington Street and the right-of-way only. The ground levels on the Canning Highway boundary are to be maintained as existing. Proposed development complying with setbacks, fencing, driveways, landscaping and other details and amendments as shown in red on the approved site plan. External fixtures, including but not restricted to airconditioning units, satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the primary street, secondary street, right-of-way and surrounding properties. A zero lot gutter to be provided for the boundary walls adjoining the common boundary with 36 Canning Highway, Victoria Park. The surfaces of the boundary walls on the common boundary with 36 Canning Highway, Victoria Park to be the same finish as the approved external wall finish for the remainder of the dwelling, unless otherwise approved. Lighting to illuminate that portion of the right-of-way adjacent the subject land is to be provided at vehicle and pedestrian entry points. The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated to the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces. This approval does not include the approval of any signage. Any signage for the development to be the subject of a separate sign licence application. All building works to be carried out under this planning approval are required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot.
1.31
1.32
1.33
1.34
1.35
1.36
1.37
1.38
1.39
1.40
1.41
11.3
62
11.3
12 June 2012
1.42
During building operations, the right-of-way to be maintained clear of obstructions & building materials, and in a trafficable condition at all times. If the surface of the right-of-way is disturbed or damaged, it is the responsibility of the owner/builder to reinstate the right-of-way to its original condition. Compliance with Councils Building, Environmental Health, Street Life and Park Life requirements. This approval is valid for a period of twenty four months only. If development is not commenced within this period, a fresh approval must be obtained before commencing or continuing the development.
1.43
1.44
Advice to Applicant: 1.45 In regards to Condition No. 1.1, where a Council Building Surveyor is issuing the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit separate applications (Form TVP2 and Form TVP3) for the approval of Council Business Units. These forms are available on the Towns website and at the front counter of Councils Offices. With regards to Condition No. 1.30 the following are minimum requirements of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone. Failure to maintain the verge by current or future owners or occupiers will render the offender liable to infringement under Section 2.9 of the Activities on Thoroughfares and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law Modified penalty $100. Landscaping of the verge requires approval from Councils Renew Life Program (except lawn planting only). The applicant/owner should obtain a copy of Councils Sustainable Landscaping Guide 1 Your Street Verge. Any modifications to the approved drawings forming part of this planning approval may require the submission of an application for modification to planning approval and reassessment of the proposal. Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision. 63
1.46
1.47
1.48
1.49
1.50
11.3
11.3
12 June 2012
2.
Those persons who lodged the submission regarding the application be advised of Councils decision.
CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: (7-0)
11.3
64
11.3
12 June 2012 2
11.3
65
11.3 3
12 June J 2012 2
11.4 Am mendmen nt No. 54 to Town Plannin ng Sch eme No o. 1 Re eclassific cation of f 31 (Lo ots 62, 63, 6 64 an nd 100) Rushton n Street, , Vic ctoria Park P fro om Lo ocal Sch heme Reserve R Par rks and d Re ecreation n to Of ffice/Res idential zone Final Ap pproval
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: Landown ner: MRS Zon ning: TPS Zoni ing: TPS Prec cinct: PL LA0003/54 4 No o To own of Vict toria Park Ur rban & Prim mary Regio onal Roads s Pa arks and R Recreation & Primary Regional R Roads Pr recinct Plan n P6 Victo oria Park Precinct P
6 June J 2012 2 Date: H. Gleeson Reporting g Officer: ank R. Cruicksha Responsible Office er: ority Simple Majo Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation Counc cil resolv ve to ado opt Amen ndment N No. 54 wi ith minor r modificat tions and request th he Hon. M Minister for r Planning g to grant final appr roval. Ame endment proposed p to t reclassif fy the Vic ctoria Park k Croquet Club from m a Local l Rese erve to O Office/Resid dential zo one, realign nment of th he precinc ct plan bou undaries to o inclu ude the site e within the e Causewa ay Precinct t and Deve elopment S Standards. Publ licly adver rtised for a period of f 42 days with w 4 sub bmissions received in ncluding a petit tion. Publ lic Informa ation Sessio on held on n 31 May 2012. Reco ommended d that Council adopts s Amendm ment No. 54 4 subject t to modifyin ng some of f the p proposed Developme D ent Standa ards in resp ponse to th he public co comments received. r
TABLED ITEMS: dment No. 54 Plan and docume entation. Amend Conce eptual built form draw wings base d on Deve elopment Standards. S Letter inviting residents to Inform mation Se ession wi ith plan showing extent of f consul ltation. Submi issions (4 including i 1 petition). Email from Main Roads da ated 26 Ma arch 2012. Letter from Wate er Corporat tion dated 14 March 2012. Consu ultation letter with plan showing g extend of f consultation. Counc cil Report dated d 20 September 2011. Letter from EPA dated 22 November N r 2011. Letter from WAP PC dated 10 Novemb ber 2011.
11.4
66
11.4 4
12 June 2012
BACKGROUND: The Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 20 September 2011 resolved to initiate Amendment No. 54 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 as follows: 1.1 Reclassify 31 (Lots 62, 63, 64 and 100) Rushton Street, Victoria Park from Local Scheme Reserve Parks and Recreation to Office/Residential zone. Amend Precinct Plan P6 Victoria Park Precinct and Precinct Plan P3 Causeway Precinct to realign the boundary and include Lots 62, 63, 64 and 100 within Precinct Plan P3 Causeway Precinct. Amend Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Policy Manual Policy 4.14 Development Standards for Causeway Precinct
1.2
1.3
A letter dated 22 November 2011 was received from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) advising the Town that the proposed Scheme Amendment No. 54 should not be assessed under Part IV Division 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) and that is not necessary to provide any advice or recommendations. Following this advice, Amendment No. 54 was advertised for a period of 42 days commencing on 30 January 2012 and ending on 13 March 2012.
DETAILS: The proposed Amendment involves reclassification of the land from Local Scheme Reserve Parks and Recreation to Office/Residential zone, realigning the Precinct Plan boundaries to excise the site from the Victoria Park Precinct and include it within the Causeway Precinct and with specific development standards in order to respect the residential streetscape of Rushton Street and the neighbours amenities. Amendment No. 54 was advertised for a period of 42 days commencing on 30 January 2012 and ending on 13 March 2012 with letters being sent to surrounding owners and occupants, signs being installed on site and advertisements being place in the Southern Gazette newspaper. Three responses and one petition were received in addition to two responses from State Government agencies which are summarised and responded to as follows: Property Address/ Agency Petition Summary of Submission Officers Comment
Proposal changes the character of Properties along Shepperton Road the area; to the west of Harvey Street are commercial and a commercial use on the subject site adjacent to Shepperton Road would be appropriate. However after further consideration it is now proposed that Offices not be permitted to 67
11.4
11.4
12 June 2012 occur on Lots 64 and 100, and that these lots be permitted for residential use only.
Additional towers inappropriate; 4 Maximum 4 storey limit proposed to corner lots with three storey limit storeys to Shepperton Road and 6 (within recession plane) on storeys to Rushton Street Rushton Street and a maximum of inappropriate; Visual barrier; 2 storeys adjacent to No. 33; Similar to Monadelphous; Staggered bulk would minimise Causeway Precinct Review states visual impact; Development would buildings adjacent to residential not be of the scale of the properties be no higher than 2 Monadelphous building. storeys;
Loss of privacy;
Standards include privacy provisions so development on Lot 100 would have to comply with RCode standards. space around Any future development of the site will be assessed for compliance with the relevant open space/landscaping requirements of the R-Codes or Scheme. There are no other rezonings currently proposed for this locality. Future development will have to comply with the on-site parking provisions of the Scheme and incorporate adequate sightline truncations. Existing parking pressures in the street are to be considered as part of the Towns Parking Hotspots Study. Whilst not a material planning consideration there are design provisions in place to protect the residential amenities of surrounding occupants.
Lack of building;
open
Residents wary of future rezoning proposal if this is approved; Traffic increase; Increase risk of accidents at corner; Already parking problems due to commuters, customers and residents; Devalue property; and
Croquet Club is locally listed and The site is currently only used by members of the Croquet Club future rezoning should be which total approximately 25 in recreational. number and the site cannot be freely used by the general public.
11.4
68
11.4
12 June 2012 There are other Regional and Local Parks and Recreation reserves in the locality which provide for the passive and active recreation needs of residents.
44B Rushton Street
Poor communication proposal; and
regarding Consultation was conducted in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967 including signs on site and mail notices.
Most residents unaware Development Standards. Address not given
of Development Standards were included in the advertisements as also being part of the Amendment. Vehemently protest any moves by Objection noted. Council to make this change; Object to 6 storeys; Building height discussed above.
Long family history with Rushton Family history noted. Street; Vibrant and mixed community; This Amendment will allow for an increased variety of dwelling types on Rushton Street which may increase the diversity of the local community.
Street will be clouded by shadow of Building bulk discussed above; a building; there would be no adverse overshadowing impact to surrounding properties. Will not fit local character; and Character discussed above.
Do not replace Croquet Club with Objection noted. something that will upset the community life on our street. 39 Rushton Traffic concerns; and Traffic impact discussed above; Street and Amendment Recommend a public meeting to Consultation process has been conducted in discuss with residents. accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and the residents were invited to attend an Information Session held on 31 May 2012;
11.4
69
11.4
12 June 2012
Current MRS road reserve provides Comments noted. for 3m verge width; A modification to the Development Standards is proposed to provide WAPC-ICC recently endorsed a design requiring a 5.1m verge for a 2m setback from Shepperton width to Shepperton Road; and Road unless it can be demonstrated that all future public utilities and pedestrian Support Amendment subject to infrastructure can be setback requirement of 2m from accommodated within the existing Shepperton Road. Road Reserve. Water Future development may require These matters will be dealt with as Corporation part of any future Subdivision developer to upgrade Application, Development infrastructure; and Application or Building Permit Application for the site. Piped drain along Shepperton Rd frontage may require pile foundations. Main Roads In addition to the consultation conducted in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967, Councils Urban Planning Business Unit also held a Public Information Session inviting all those who were previously consulted or who submitted comments. Following consideration of public submissions received during both the statutory advertising period and at the Public Information Session, modifications are proposed to the development standards contained within this Amendment.
Legal Compliance: Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Clause 47 (1) of the Town Planning Scheme Text states that: Council may only amend or revoke a Scheme Document with the exception of a Council Register in accordance with the procedures applying to a Town Planning Scheme Amendment set out in Section 7 of the Act. Town Planning Regulations 1967 Under regulations 17(1) & (2) and 25(fb) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, the Council must consider all submissions received on the amendment and resolve whether the amendment will be adopted with or without modifications or whether it does not wish to proceed with the amendment within 42 days of the end of the advertising period or such longer period as the Minister may approve. Under regulation 18(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, the Council must forward the amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission for a decision on final approval within 28 days of passing a resolution under regulation 17(2).
11.4
70
11.4
12 June 2012
The Western Australian Planning Commission will consider the Amendment and any submissions received and make a recommendation to the Hon Minister for Planning concerning determination. Upon receipt of the Western Australian Planning Commissions recommendation the Hon Minister will consider the matter then make a determination on the outcome of the Amendment, which may include finalisation of the Amendment, modifications to the Amendment that may or may not require readvertising or refusal to finalise the Amendment. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: No impact Cultural Issues: No impact Environmental Issues: No impact COMMENT: The Amendment as advertised for public comments, proposes to rezone the site to Office/Residential. Whilst an Office/Residential zoning would permit the use of any of the lots forming part of the site for office or residential purposes, specific development standards were proposed to not permit retail uses (Shops, Restaurants etc) on any part of the site, and to only enable office uses on Lots 64 and 100 on the ground floor only, and only in conjunction with a residential use where the residential use is the predominant use. Public comments received express concern that the encroachment of commercial uses into Rushton Street may affect the character of this residential street. In view of the concerns received, it is now proposed to modify the proposed development standards to restrict the use of both Lots 64 and 100 to purposes only permitted under a Residential zoning. The as-advertised provisions for Lots 62 and 63 are not proposed to be altered in respect to the issue of land uses. The effect of these modifications is that Lots 62 and 63, being the lots closest to Shepperton Road could be used for offices and/or residential purposes; however offices would not be permitted on Lots 64 and 100. A number of objections received expressed concern regarding the proposed building height limit, on the misunderstanding that a 6 storey height limit was proposed. However this is not the case and the maximum proposed height limit as advertised was 4 storeys adjacent to Shepperton Road, 4 storeys within a recession plane facing Rushton Street on Lots 62, 63 and 64, and 2 storeys on Lot 100. These building height limits were proposed on the basis that the adjacent sites to the west could accommodate building heights between 4 to 6 storeys and in this future context it was considered that a maximum 4 storey limit on the subject site would not appear unduly obtrusive or overbearing.
11.4
71
11.4
12 June 2012
However, following consideration of public submissions it is proposed to retain the asadvertised building height limits with the exception of reducing the maximum building height to Rushton Street on Lot 64 from 4 storeys within a recession plane to 3 storeys within a recession plane. This would result in development of these lots being of a more compatible scale to better reflect the permissible building heights of the residential properties in Rushton Street (being 2 storeys). Therefore modifications are proposed to the Amendment documents to reflect this. In addition, the Amendment as-advertised proposes prescribed front setbacks from street boundaries as follows : a front setback of 6m is proposed along Rushton Street adjacent to Nos. 33 & 33A Rushton Street (Lot 100) stepping down to 4m (Lot 64) and then 3m closer to Shepperton Road in order to respect the established building line of the streetscape. In view of the use of Lot 64 now being proposed to be restricted to purposes permitted under a Residential zoning, it is appropriate that a standard residential setback (being 6m) also apply to this lot rather than the 4m setback as-advertised. Previously a nil setback to the Shepperton Road Reserve was proposed, however, this has been modified to include a 2m setback at the request of Main Roads given that the current road design for Shepperton Road will require an additional 2m width of land to be reserved for widening. At the Public Information Session, a comment was raised by a resident regarding possible vehicle access to the site via the right-of-way that runs between the Teddington Road and Rushton Street properties. While the right-of-way frontage to Lot 100 is only 3.0m, there may be a possibility of vehicle access between the site and right-of-way, in which case the Amendment is to be modified to note that any development of the site may have an opportunity for vehicle access via the right-of-way.
CONCLUSION: In view of the above it is recommended that Council resolve to adopt Amendment No. 54 to the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 for Final Approval, with modifications from that advertised, being: Prohibiting Offices on Lots 64 and 100; Reducing the applicable density coding on Lot 100 from R80 to R60. Reducing the maximum building height limit on Lot 64 from 4 storeys within a recession plane to 3 storeys within a recession plane. Increasing the minimum setback to development on Lot 64 from a minimum of 4m to minimum of 6m. Noting that alternative vehicle access may be available from the right-of-way to the north; Increasing the setback to Shepperton Road from nil to a minimum of 2m.
11.4
72
11.4
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes RESOLVED: Moved: 1. Councillor Hayes Seconded:
12 June 2012
Councillor Skinner
Council resolve pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to adopt Amendment No. 54 to amend the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 for final approval with modifications as follows: 1.1 Reclassify 31 (Lots 62, 63, 64 and 100) Rushton Street, Victoria Park from Local Scheme Reserve Parks and Recreation to Office/Residential zone. Amend Precinct Plan P6 Victoria Park Precinct and Precinct Plan P3 Causeway Precinct to realign the boundary and include Lots 62, 63, 64 and 100 within Precinct Plan P3 Causeway Precinct. Amend Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Policy Manual Policy 4.14 Development Standards for Causeway Precinct as follows: At Clause 4.14.2 Development Provisions for Designated Areas add the words Area 6B. Croquet Club Site after Area 6. Low Rise Mixed Use At Figure A2.1 Designated Areas modify the Figure to include the subject sites within the Precinct, to include the area 6B Croquet Club Site in the legend, and to identify the subject sites as being part of Area 6B. To insert the following provisions after Figure A2.8: Development Provisions for Area 6 and before the provisions for g) Area 7 Commercial Core: g) AREA 6B CROQUET CLUB SITE (i) Desired future character: The area is to act as an interface between the Commercial Core and medium density residential area of the Victoria Precinct whilst providing an attractive entry statement to the Causeway Precinct. (ii) Land use: Residential and/or commercial uses, but not retail uses such as Shops, Restaurants etc. On Lots 64 and 100 only uses that would otherwise be permitted within a Residential zone. R80 for Lots 62, 63 and 64; R60 for Lot 100. Maximum 1.0 for Lots 62 and 63; As per RCodes for Lots 64 and 100.
1.2
1.3
(iii): Density: (iv) Plot Ratio:
11.4
73
11.4
Ordinary M Meeting of f Council Minutes M (v) Building height t and form m:
12 June J 2012 2 For developme ent on Lot ts 62 and d 63, maximu um 4 storeys s (maximum 15 5m) adja acent to o Shepp perton Ro oad, with building g adjace ent to Ru ushton Str reet to be e maxim mum of 2 storeys (7.5m) at t requir red front t setback k, with a maxim mum of 4 storeys (m maximum m 15m) within a r recession plane as s follow ws :
For developm ment on Lot 64, , maxim mum of 2 storey ys (7.5m m maxim mum) at t require ed front t setback to Rus shton Stre eet, with a mum 3 s storeys (m maximum m maxim 11.25m m) within a recession plane e as follows :
11.4
74
11.4 4
12 June 2012 For development on Lot 100, maximum 2 storeys (max 7.5m). Development to vertical stepping. incorporate
Building form to enable cross ventilation and natural light while maintaining appropriate street frontages. (vi) Setbacks: Buildings to be setback in accordance with the side setback standards of the R-Codes from the northern boundary shared with Nos. 33 & 33A Rushton Street. Development on Lots 64 and 100 to be setback a minimum of 6m from Rushton Street. Development on Lots 62 & 63 to be setback 3m from Rushton Street. Development to be setback minimum 2m from the Shepperton Road Reserve. Nil setback permitted to western boundary. (vii) Access and parking: No vehicle access off Shepperton Road. Vehicle access to retain existing street trees where possible. All car parking screened from street view. Possible vehicle access available from right-of-way to the north. (viii) Other: Development on Lot 100 to comply with privacy standards of the R-Codes in relation to Nos. 33 & 33A Rushton Street. Provide separate clearly identifiable entries for residential and commercial uses with adequate pedestrian weather protection at entries.
11.4
75
11.4
12 June 2012 Development must present an articulated frontage to both the Shepperton Road and Rushton Street frontages and also provide a high standard of landscaping to both frontages, particularly the Rushton Street frontage.
At i) AREA 9 SHEPPERTON ROAD STREETSCAPE OVERLAY, (ii) Lot size and development controls insert the words , Area 6B Croquet Club Site after either Area 2 Asquith St Mixed Use in the first sentence only. Amend g) AREA 7 COMMERCIAL CORE to h) AREA 7 COMMERICAL CORE Amend h) AREA 8 RETAIL HUB OVERLAY to i) AREA 8 RETAIL HUB OVERLAY Amend i) AREA 9 SHEPPERTON STREETSCAPE OVERLAY to j) AREA 9 SHEPPERTON STREETSCAPE OVERLAY Amend the contents page and page numbers of the following pages as required.
2.
The Chief Executive Officer and Mayor be authorised to execute the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Amendment No. 54 documents and to have the Common Seal affixed. Amendment No. 54 be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission for final approval. Those persons who lodged a submission regarding the proposal be advised of Councils decision.
4.
CARRIED: (7-0)
11.4
76
11.4
12 June 2012 2
11.4
77
11.4 4
12 June J 2012 2
11.5 Re eview of Council s Local Planning g Policy - Streets scape

File Refer rence: Appendic ces: PL LA0001 Ye es
6 June J 2012 2 Date: R. Cruicksha ank Reporting g Officer: R. Cruicksha ank Responsible Office er: ority Simple Majo Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation The draft d revis sed Local l Planning Policy Streets scape be e advertise ed for public comme ents. The Local Pla anning Policy Stre etscape was w adopte ed in May 2005, wit th a minor r dification made m in Jun ne 2008. mod nning Polic cy Street tscape app plies to all residentia l developm ment in the e The Local Plan wn and replaces the Streetscap pe provisions contained in the e Resident tial Design n Tow es. Code In r response to concerns raised d by som me Elected Membe ers, applic cants and d landowners in relation to the provis sions of the e Policy, a review has s been und dertaken. The draft revis sed Policy proposes g greater design flexibility for dev velopment outside of f the Towns ch haracter areas. In respect to o developm ment in th he Towns character r area as, the dra aft revised Policy is to largely reflect the e proposalls containe ed in draft t Loca al Planning g Scheme No. 2. The draft revis sed Policy is recomm mended to o be advertised for p public comment, and d then n be prese ented to Council for considera ation of submissions prior to adopting a a final revised Po olicy.
TABLED ITEMS: cal Plannin ng Policy Streetsca ape 2008. Loc Fee edback rec ceived in 2011 2 from a applicants on Local Planning P P Policy Str reetscape. Co opy of Powe erpoint Pre esentation to Elected d Members s Workshop p.
BACKGR ROUND: The Loca al Planning g Policy Streetscap pe (LPPS) ) was adopted by C ouncil in May M 2005, and was last modifi ied in June e 2008. T The LPPS applies to all residen ntial devel lopment in n the Town and replac ces the St treetscape e provision ns in the Residential Design Co odes. The e LPPS is a consolida ation of 12 Council po olicies that t existed pr rior to May y 2005. In respons se to conc cerns expre essed by s some Elect ted Membe ers, applica ants and la andowners s regarding some of the provisions cont tained in the LPPS, a review w of the LPPS L was s commenc ced by the Urban Pla anning Un nit. Part of this proc cess involv ved seeing g feedback k from thos se persons s who lod dged a pl anning ap pplication with the T Town in 2010. 2 25 5 submissio ons were re eceived, with w genera al comment ts being: Mo ore design flexibility needed, n pa articularly in n non-char racter area as. Bro oader rang ge of colours and mat terials should be ava ailable. Mo ore variety in streetsc capes is de esirable.
11.5
78
11.5 5
12 June 2012
Full details of the submissions received were forwarded to Elected Members in a memorandum dated 8 March 2011. The review has also involved: Identifying recurring issues for applications that have been assessed by Councils Urban Planning Unit. A good, the bad, and the ugly tour of completed developments in the Town, City of Belmont and the City of South Perth. Considering the provisions contained in draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2. Staff meetings. An Elected Members Workshop. DETAILS: The LPPS currently comprises: Explanatory Section; General Provisions that apply throughout the Town; Standards for Outside Specified Areas; Standards for Development within Weatherboard Precincts and Weatherboard Streetscapes; Standards for Development within the Residential Character Study Area but not within Weatherboard Precincts, Streetscapes or the Raphael Residential Precinct; Standards for Development in the Raphael Residential Precinct; Standards for Development Abutting Rights-of-Way; Definitions. The draft revised LPPS is proposed to restructured as follows: Explanatory Section; Standards for Development Outside Specified Areas; Standards for Development within the Residential Character Study Area, Weatherboard Precincts, Weatherboard Streetscapes and the Raphael Residential precinct; Standards for Development Abutting Rights-of-Way; Definitions. Some key principles have been identified as part of the review: Greater flexibility in design standards to apply to development outside character areas; Only development in the streetscape zone affects the streetscape the streetscape zone to be 6m or more behind the front faade of the dwelling development in the streetscape zone is to match the existing dwelling. Remove St James from Character Study Area and add relevant houses on western side of Berwick Street and southern side of Oats Street; For development abutting right-of-way, exercise greater design flexibility as these dwellings are forming part of a new streetscape with a distinguishable character from the dwellings facing the primary street. Roof form is the most important element in ensuring compatibility between the dwellings facing the street and the dwellings facing the right-of-way and some greater flexibility can be exercised in relation to other design standards for the right-of-way facing dwellings i.e. window shapes, wall heights, eaves style etc.
11.5
79
11.5
12 June 2012
Sustainable design and streetscape are of equal importance sustainable design should still respect the street applicants to provide justification as to why variations to design standards are required to achieve sustainable design; demonstrate how the variations contribute to the sustainability outcome; also demonstrate how other alternatives wouldnt achieve the same sustainability outcome;
The review has focussed primarily on the LPPS provisions that apply for development outside of the character areas (i.e. Outside of the Residential Character Study Area, Weatherboard Precincts, Weatherboard Streetscapes and Raphael Precinct). For development in the character areas, new provisions have previously been discussed and workshopped with Elected Members as part of the preparation of draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2, and therefore it was determined that rather than further reviewing the provisions for these areas as part of the LPPS review, it would be more appropriate to largely (with some minor modifications) incorporate the provisions contained in draft LPS 2 into the draft revised LPPS. Legal Compliance: The following extract from the Residential Design Codes 2010, refers to local planning policies: The Codes aim to obviate the need for the use of Local Planning Policies which generate generic provisions, such as those designed to protect privacy and to design for streetscape, by incorporating of these aspects within the Codes. However the Codes recognise that local differences of character must be accommodated. The Codes enable local councils to vary certain code provisions by the adoption of local planning policies properly advertised and adopted as set out in the Model Scheme Text or by similar provisions where local councils have not yet incorporated the provisions of the Model Scheme Text. Only policies made in accordance with these provisions will have effect as a local planning policy. The requirements for advertising a Local Planning Policy under the Model Scheme Text are as follows: 1. Publish a notice of the proposed Policy once a week for 2 consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulated in the Scheme area giving details of: (i) where the draft policy may be inspected; (ii) the subject and nature of the draft policy; and (iii) in what form and during what period (being not less than 21 days from the day the notice is published) submission may be made. May publish a Notice of the proposed Policy in such other manner and carry out such other consultation as the local government considers appropriate. After the expiry of the advertising period the local government is required to review the policy in light of the submission made and resolve to adopt the Policy with or without modification, or not to proceed with the Policy.
2.
3.
11.5
80
11.5
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 4.
12 June 2012
If the local government resolves to adopt the Policy, the following must be undertaken: (i) publish notice of the policy once in a newspaper circulated in the Scheme area; and (ii) if, in the opinion of the local government, the Policy affects the interests of the Commission, forward a copy of the Policy to the Commission.
The Policy has effect on publication of a notice under 3(i) above. Given the wording of the clause under the Model Scheme Text, it is considered that a revised LPPS will not affect the interest of the Commission and therefore would not need to be forwarded to the Commission. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: No impact Cultural Issues: No impact Environmental Issues: No impact
COMMENT: A copy of the draft revised LPPS is contained in the Appendices. The following table summarises some of the proposed changes for development outside the character areas (referred to as Development Outside Specified Areas): Item Front setback Secondary street setback Garage projection forward of dwelling Current provision Minimum 6m front setback average (includes verandas) Minimum 3m setback Summary of proposed change Exclude verandas from front setback average to encourage this traditional building feature Discretion to permit a reduced setback for a porch, architectural feature or limited portions of wall which provide some visual relief to the elevation. Minor variations can sometimes be acceptable depending upon design and factors such as lot and dwelling frontage; location of upper floor; location of adjoining dwellings; variations in roof height and form; Variations to be considered based upon these 81
Garages not to project more than 1m forward of facade
11.5
11.5
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Item Current provision Summary of proposed change factors; Width of garage Garage width to not exceed 57% of lot frontage Open style fencing generally; Solid front fence to 1.8m high permitted for higher order roads. Existing dwellings to be retained. Demolition of existing dwellings will be considered where : Dwelling is structurally unsound; Dwelling is wholly clad in fibro sheeting; Dwelling constructed after 1945 and is outside RCSA or WB Streetscape. Dwelling is in RCSA, but is not an original dwelling. Approval has been issued for the subsequent development of the site in the case of pre-1945 dwellings or an original dwelling in the RCSA.
12 June 2012
Minor variations to the requirement will be considered based upon acceptable design solutions which minimise dominance of garages. No solid fences permitted contrary to CPTED, security principles. Front fencing on higher order roads to be at least 25% visually permeable above 1.2m height. Will still allow some of the fence to be solid. Non-character areas (Carlisle, Lathlain, St James, part of East Victoria Park) are ideally placed to accommodate new, more modern development. Draft LPS 2, which has been endorsed by Council, does not seek the retention of pre-1945 dwelling outside character areas, other than some character streetscapes. It is recommended that this position be reflected in the LPPS. Note relevance of pre 1945 was that after 1945 the architectural style was post-war austerity due to lack of materials after WWII construction was more modest and of a lesser quality.
Front fences
Demolition of dwellings
Standards for St James and part of East Victoria Park
St James and part of East Victoria Park contain predominantly post-war modest homes significant redevelopment likely. Accordingly, reasonable for much design flexibility including alternative roof forms i.e. skillion roofs, curved roofs; window shapes, colours and materials.
11.5
82
11.5
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Item Current provision Summary of proposed change
12 June 2012
Lathlain contains more substantial homes, meaning some of the existing character will remain, therefore still a case for compatible design.
Roof form and mass
Roof shape matching housing in street; minimum 25 degree pitch, or match the existing dwelling.
St James and part of East Victoria Park no restrictions on roof form and pitch. Lathlain and Carlisle Alternative roof forms and pitches where not visible from the street; Roof forms visible from street, of same dwelling, to be consistent pitch. Roof forms visible from street, to be consistent with roof pitches predominant in street, with minimum 25 degrees. Prescribe a maximum roof pitch 35 degrees or more is inconsistent. Permit porches with non-pitched roof. Permit minor feature elements without pitched roof, where pitched roof is the dominant character of the dwelling. Other design solutions will be considered which may provide visual relief such as cantilevered elements, canopies/awnings. Sections of blank wall will be considered where they are minor relative to the dwelling frontage Emerging building trend incorporating modern design elements, including different window shapes. This can often add some greater visual interest to elevations, provided they are not too busy. Recommended provisions that : Windows visible from street to have primarily vertical emphasis. Windows facing street not be obscure glass. Grouping of small or highlight windows OK as minor element in total faade. No floor-to-ceiling windows. Overall elevation to read as one with primarily vertical orientated windows. Considered that colorbond sheeting when combined with other materials, adds visual interest to elevations. Recommended that colorbond sheeting (not zincalume) be 83
Scale and bulk of 2 storey dwellings Blank walls Window shape and size
Address building bulk through stepping of facade, balconies and variation of materials No blank walls facing the street Windows facing the street to be of traditional size and shape (meaning having a vertical emphasis)
Colours and materials (walls)
Walls no restriction on colours; no restriction on materials other than colorbond
11.5
11.5
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Item Current provision sheeting or imitation weatherboard can only be used as a minor feature where visible from the street. Colour and materials (Roof) Roof in Lathlain and Carlisle, generally only brown, red, orange and grey colours, and zincalume, are permitted. No restrictions in St James and East Vic Park (outside RCSA). Garages to be integrated into design of dwelling in terms of roof and materials. Summary of proposed change
12 June 2012
permitted that is different to the roof colour, and where visible from the street is no more than 50% of the faade. Also suggested to permit flat profile sheeting only where it is a minor feature or has a rendered finish. Lathlain and Carlisle - This requirement has been restrictive and the subject of disputes from applicants desiring modern design. Recommended that the range of acceptable colours be expanded to again create some more interesting and varied streetscapes. Roof colours of light cream, green, black and dark grey not permitted. St James and part of East Victoria Park no changes. Flat/parapet roof form will be considered where there is a portion of upper floor above (occupying at least 2/3 of the width of the garage), and the flat/parapet roof form does not read as a dominant structure.
Design of garages and carports
In respect to development within the Residential Character Study Area, Weatherboard Precinct, Weatherboard Streetscapes, or Raphael Precinct, the provisions contained in the draft revised LPPS largely reflect the provisions contained in draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2, as these provisions have been previously supported by Elected Members. Only minor modifications have been made including: The addition of Performance Criteria for consideration where variations are proposed; Assessing some additional matters which were not covered; Including a Performance Criteria allowing for variations based upon sustainable design. Providing scope for portions of dwellings not visible from a street to be of an alternative form and design
CONCLUSION: A review of the LPPS has now been completed, and it is recommended that the draft revised LPPS be advertised for public comments. Following the public consultation period, Council will be required to consider the submissions received prior to adopting a final revised LPPS.
11.5
84
11.5
12 June 2012
Further Comments: At the Elected Members Briefing Session on 5 May 2012, a query was raised in regard to the possible use of colorbond roof sheeting in addition to the permitted use of zincalume roof sheeting within the Towns character areas. It was suggested that this item could be the subject of a Workshop prior to the Policy being advertised. Should Elected Members believe that there is merit in modifying the draft Policy in this manner, it would be appropriate that this modification be incorporated into the revised Policy that is to be the subject of community consultation, and that the submissions received in relation to the entire Policy be the subject of a Workshop prior to any final adoption of the Policy.
RESOLVED: Moved: 1. Councillor Ashton Seconded: Councillor Potter
The draft revised Local Planning Policy Streetscape dated May 2012, contained in Appendix 11.5, be advertised in accordance with the procedures set out in the Model Scheme Text including a 28 day advertising period. The advertising and consultation process, for the draft revised Local Planning Policy Streetscape dated May 2012, be as follows: 2.1 A formal notice be published in newspaper circulated in the district for two consecutive weeks at the commencement of the advertising period, and placed on Councils Website at the commencement of the advertising period. A full copy of the draft revised Policy being placed on the Councils website for the duration of the advertising period.
2.
2.2
CARRIED: (7-0)
11.5
85
11.5
12 June J 2012 2
12
RE ENEW LIFE PROG GRAM R REPORTS S
12.1 Ca anning Highway Road R Re eservatio on Review w

File Refer rence: Appendic ces: AD DM0164 No
27 April 2012 2 Date: M. Chou Reporting g Officer: A. Vuleta V Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recom mmendatio on Endorse in prin nciple the proposed d Canning g Highway reservatio on require ements pr resented by b the Dep partment o of Transpo ort. artment of f Transport t (DoT) ha s undertak ken the Ca anning High hway Road Reserve e Depa Revi iew Fina al Planning Report no ow release ed seeking endorsem ment in prin nciple from m the r relevant sta akeholders s. The study concluded th hat four g general tra affic lanes and pub lic transpo ort priority y mea asures wou uld generally cater for r the future e transport demand in n the study y area. The Canning Highway H Road R Reser rve Review w study rep port and p lans were presented d to th he Elected Members on 17 Apriil 2012 by the t DoT.
TABLED ITEMS: Canning Highw way Road Reserve R Review Fina al Planning g Report 10 January 2012.
BACKGR ROUND: The Dep partment of o Transp port (DoT) ) commissioned WorleyParso W ons to produce p a comprehe ensive plan n for road requireme ents for a 5.5km 5 section of Ca anning High hway. The e study exa amined the e section of Canning Highway between b Albany A Hig hway (Vict toria Park) ) and Kwina ana Freew way (South Perth). Highway was w reserved in the P Perth Metr ropolitan Region R Sch heme (MRS S) in 1963 3 Canning H as an Ot ther Regio onal Highw way. The e existing MR RS reservation is ab bout 40 me etres wide e and was incorporate ed in the MRS M in 198 80. The ma ajority of th he reservat tion is loca ated on the e southern side of the highway y with a w width of ab bout 18 metres, whic ch has a significant t n adjoining g properties. A signif ficant amo ount of priv vate land o on either side s of the e impact on highway, extending g well bey yond the approxima ate 20 me etre wide dedicated d road, is s ssed within n the reser rvation. A significant t portion of this is Cro own land. encompas The study y area of th his project relevant t o the Town of Victor ria is Cann ning Highw way and its s intersectin ng streets between Ellam E Stree et and Albany Highw way. The in ntersection of Albany y Highway a and Canning Highwa ay is exclud ded within the scope of this stu udy.
12.1
86
12.1
12 June 2012
DETAILS: The purpose of the study is to produce a single comprehensive plan for road requirements for Canning Highway. The study comprises several inter-related outcomes, namely; Preparation of a road design concept with accompanying land reservation plans that considers how adjacent land uses interact with the future Canning Highway and accommodates the requirements of an urban corridor; Ensuring that the future needs of the transport users are adequately catered for in the widened road corridor, including pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Preparation of an access strategy which minimises frontage access onto Canning Highway and reviews connectivity of local roads to the highway; and Preparation of a road design concept with accompanying land reservation plans that accommodate the requirements of an urban corridor. The findings of the Canning Highway Planning Study indicate that future traffic volumes of Canning Highway are expected to increase over the next 20 years. However, sections of the highway will continue to experience safety problems, traffic congestion at some intersections during peak periods and reduced public transport efficiency. The findings of the study support the need to plan for the future provision for a central median, intersection improvements, improved pedestrian/cyclist facilities and public transport priority measures. A small increase in the reservation area is proposed as some enlarged truncations are considered necessary to improve vehicle turning movements. The study concluded that four general traffic lanes and public transport (bus) priority measures would generally cater for the future transport demand on this section of the highway. Cycling will be permitted within bus lanes. The findings and recommendations of the study have been accepted in principle by the study Project Working Group and are generally supported by the community. The proposed Canning Highway reservation plans contained in the Final Report are now submitted for formal consideration by Council and endorsement in principle. Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Plan for the Future - Renew Life Program Objective 3 being to manage, maintain and renew the Towns assets. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil
12.1
87
12.1
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil
12 June 2012
Social Issues: Noise from traffic will continue to be an issue on major roadways but the improvements proposed will include Public Transport, safety and aesthetics. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil
COMMENT: The Canning Highway Road Reserve Review study report and plans were presented to the Elected Members on 17 April 2012. No objections were received from Elected Members and officers regarding the outcomes of this study. No further issues were raised after the presentation.
CONCLUSION: Subject to endorsement in principle by the Town of Victoria Park, City of South Perth, Main Roads WA, Department of Planning and Public Transport Authority the reservation plans will be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for approval to initiate an amendment to the MRS to reflect the proposed minor reservation requirements along Canning Highway.
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Nairn
That Council: 1. Endorses in requirements. 2.
principle
the
proposed
Canning
Highway
reservation
Advises the Department of Transport of its decision. CARRIED: (7-0)
12.1
88
12.1
12 June J 2012 2
12.2 Te ender No. 12/04 ToVP T S upply an nd laying g of Asph halt Serv vices.
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: ToV VP12/04 No
24 May 2012 2 Date: E Setzinger S Reporting g Officer: A Vuleta V Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summa ary: Reco ommendat tion Re ecommend accept tance of the offer r submitted d by Asph haltech for r the items s specified in the te ender doc cument TV VP/12/04. Tend der evalua ation for th he provisio n of Supp ply and laying of Asp phalt Services in the e Tow wn of Victor ria Park for r a period o of two (2) years from m 2nd July 2 2012 to 1st July 2014 4 with an option of two (2) x 12 mont h extensio ons. TABLED ITEMS: Nil BACKGR ROUND: The Town n of Victori ia Park contracts out t the supply and laying of asph halt works which are e specialise ed operatio ons for wh hich the T own does not have the appro opriate res sources to o effectively y undertake e. The Town n had a pan nel contrac ct 06/09 wh hich is due e to expire 30th June 2012.
The Town n has adve ertised for tenders f for the sup pply and la aying of A Asphalt in The West t
Australian n on 28th April A 2012 and a closed at 2pm on n the 15th May M 2012. Tenders w were invited from pro ofessional o organisatio ons accred dited to pro ovide servic ces for the e supply and laying of f Asphalt within w the T Town of Vic ctoria Park k. DETAILS: Five (5) s submission ns were rec ceived for tender TV VP/12/04 Supply an nd Laying of Asphalt t Services, as per the e Schedule es of Rates s provided herewith. All submis ssions are exclusive of GST. Evaluation n has been n undertak ken accord ding to the tender eva aluation cr riteria inclu uded in the e tender documents by b a panel of three st taff membe ers, Engine eering Sup pervisor, En ngineering g Coordinat tor and Exe ecutive Ma anager Ren new Life. Attributes or Assess sment Criteria (P) we ere determ mined and given a po oint score within the e range of 0 0-5. This score s was then multip plied by the previous sly determiined weigh hting factor r (W% or E Evaluation Criteria) and a divide ed by 100 to obtain the Value e Score (V V) for each h tenderer. The tende erer having g the highe w be the t preferr red contrac ctor on the e est score would panel for each of th he item of service as ssessed. However, H the t Town r reserves the right to o engage ot ther contra actors on th he panel a as it so wish h.
12.2
89
12.2 2

Description of Selection Criteria Weighting
12 June 2012
Unit Asphalt Asphaltech Surfaces Boral Fulton Hogan Roads 2000
Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required Qualifications, skills and experience of key personnel Plant, equipment and staff 20% resources available Percentage of operational capacity represented by this work Quality systems Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects Relevant industry experience (including public sector), including details of similar work undertaken The Tenderers involvement in these projects, including details of 20% outcomes produced Past record of performance and achievement References from past and present clients Occupational safety and health track record Understanding of Requirement Level of understanding of Tender documents Level of understanding of work required Ability to meet delivery dates in regard to overall work commitments. 20% Warranties offered Added value items offered Special conditions included in Tender Tendered Price/s The price to supply the goods or services in accordance with the 40% Request Rates or prices for variations
TOTAL
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
30.63
40.00
29.24
27.23
39.96
100%
75.63
85.00
74.24
72.23
84.96
12.2
90
12.2

TABLE 1 of 2 - Supply, Lay & Consolidate Hotmix Asphalt as Specified
1 2 3
12 June 2012
Item
Description
Unit
Asphalt Surfaces
Asphaltech
Boral
Fulton Hogan
Roads 2000
14mm nominal size granite a) 50 blow Marshall mix b) 75 blow Marshall mix (MRWA intersection mix) 10mm nominal size granite a) 35 blow Marshall mix b) 50 blow Marshall mix c) 75 blow Marshall mix (MRWA mix) 7mm nominal size granite a) 35 blow Marshall mix b) 50 blow Marshall mix 10mm nominal size laterite hotmix asphalt a) 35 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) b) 50 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) c) 75 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) (MRWA mix) 10mm nominal size laterite/granite asphalt a) 75 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) 7mm nominal size laterite hotmix asphalt a) 35 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) b) 50 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) Stone Mastic Asphalt a) 7 SMA b) 10 SMA Penalties for weekend and after hours work Sat Sun Pub Holiday Night TABLE 2 of 2 Traffic Control Item 1 Description
tonne $190.00 tonne $190.00 tonne $192.00 tonne $191.00 tonne $191.00 tonne $193.00 tonne $192.00
$137.70 $141.90 $140.50 $139.70 $142.90 $144.00 $143.00
$189.25 $195.35 $196.81 $193.63 $198.22 $196.82 $195.82
$200.00 $200.00 $203.00 $200.00 $200.00 $204.00 $202.00
$137.08 $136.86 $144.60 $138.42 $137.74 $142.96 $139.88
tonne $223.00 tonne $223.00 tonne $221.00
$196.00 $195.00 $199.00
$212.96 $212.96 $217.39
$244.00 $240.00 $240.00
$177.78 $174.70 $174.02
tonne $223.00
$195.00
$201.71
$240.00
$174.02
tonne $223.00 tonne $223.00 tonne $231.00 tonne $233.00 item $2,400.00
$196.00 $195.00 $169.00 $167.00
$215.89 $215.89 $230.00 $220.99
$248.00 $244.00 $244.00 $240.00
$177.78 $174.70 $173.30 $170.12
$8,500.00 $5,000.00 $2,250.00 $1,590.00 $2,490.00 $2,940.00 $2,790.00
Unit
Asphalt Surfaces $148.50
Asphaltech $126.50
Boral $135.00
Fulton Hogan $220.00
Roads 2000 $107.80
4 5 6 7 8
Two traffic controllers, vehicle, signs and radios (normal hours, Monday to Friday, hr 6am to 6pm) Two traffic controllers, vehicle, signs and radios (after hours, 6pm to 6am, weekends hr and public holidays) One traffic controller, vehicle, signs (normal hours, Monday to Friday, 6am to hr 6pm) One traffic controller, vehicle, signs (after hours, 6pm to 6am, weekends and public hr holidays) Additional traffic controller hr Additional vehicle (Ute) day Trailer mounted Arrow Board day Variable Message Board day Total Rate
$181.50
$141.90
$175.00
$330.00
$147.95
$80.30
$74.80
$75.00
$132.00
$67.65
$121.00 $66.00 $66.00 $112.00 $467.00
$86.90 $58.30 $93.50 $104.50 $429.00
$105.00 $55.00 $250.00 $150.00 $275.00
$196.00 $77.00 $275.00 $275.00 $275.00
$87.45 $50.05 $220.00 $80.85 $330.00
12.2
91
12.2
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Legal Compliance: The Town has complied with section 3.57 of the Local Government Act.
12 June 2012
Policy Implications: The public tendering process undertaken for this contract complied with the Towns purchasing policy FIN4 in the category of services over $100,000. Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Services will be funded within the constraints of the operational and capital works approved budgets. Total Asset Management: This tender complies and addresses a programmed and systematic approach to maintain the Towns assets. Sustainability Assessment: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil
COMMENT: The Town will most benefit from accepting the offer from Asphaltech, who have submitted the best value for money conforming tender. Asphaltech is the current Asphalt supplier for the Town of Victoria Park and have provided a very good service during the term of the 06/09 Tender. Asphaltech have submitted the lowest tender prices for the asphalt mixes predominantly used by the Town of Victoria Park.
CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the tender, comprising the required price schedule, as submitted by Asphaltech for the period 2nd July 2012 to 1st July 2014 with an option of 2x 12 month incremental extensions be accepted by the Town.
12.2
92
12.2
12 June 2012
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Potter
Council to endorse the acceptance of the offer submitted by Asphaltech for the supply and laying of asphalt in accordance with the contract document TVP/12/04 for the period 2 July 2012 to 1 July 2014 subject to satisfactory performance be accepted by the Town. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
12.2
93
12.2
12 June J 2012 2
12.3 Ac cceptanc ce of Pert th Bicyc le Netwo ork Grant Funds 2012-201 13

File Refer rence: Appendic ces: AD DM0170 YE ES
25 May 2012 2 Date: Fra ank Squad rito Reporting g Officer: Ant thony Vule eta Responsible Office er: Absolute Maj ority Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation the Town accep pts fundin ng provide ed under the Perth Bicycle e Network Local Gov vernment Grants Fu unding Pro ogram 201 12/13 Cons struction of o Jarrah Road Bicyclle Lanes Cons struction of o Great Ea astern High hway Shared Path Craig Stre eet to Caus seway Plea ase note the total amount writte en on the cover c letter r from Depa artment of f Transport t (DoT T) in the ap ppendix sh hould read $201,943.
TABLED ITEMS: Cons struction of o Jarrah Road Bicyclle Lanes; lo odged 9 December 2 2011. Cons struction of o Great Ea astern High hway Shared Path; lo odged 9 De ecember 2011. 2
BACKGR ROUND: The Pert th Bicyle Network (PBN) Lo ocal Government Grants G Pr rogram is s a State e Governme ent progra am administered th hrough the e Departm ment of Tr ransport (DoT) that t provides f funding as ssistance, typically o on a dollar for dollar basis, to o Local Go overnment t Authorities (LGAs) for f approve ed cycling projects. al government auth hority was s asked to o consider its work ks program m for the e Each loca subseque ent financia al year an nd determi ne whethe er there are cycling projects within w that t works pro ogram that could be eligible e for grant assis stance thro ough the P PBN grant scheme. s Projects that the Do oT identified d as poten ntial grant recipients r include the e following: : Ou utstanding projects id dentified in n PBN loc cal bicycle routes (m missing sha ared links, pat ths along recreationa r al routes, u upgrading of o existing paths); On n/off road bicycle b lane es (particullarly busier ones); End of trip fac cilities e.g. . bike park king at publ lic places; Bik ke plans; and Sig gnage The Town n submitted d a grant application a to DoT for r 3 projects s to be con nstructed in n 2012/13. . The Town n has been n advised that it has s secured grant fund ding totallin ng $201,94 43. Only 2 projects w were appro oved for construction in the 2012/13 financ cial year.
12.3
94
12.3 3
12 June 2012
DETAILS: Construction of Bicycle Lanes along Jarrah Road, Bentley The construction of the project was estimated to cost approximately $217,940 (exc. GST). The Town stands to receive $108,970 (50%) of the total project cost through the PBN Program. This figure is shown in the attached appendix. The bicycle lanes along Jarrah Road will be constructed from Kent Street to Hill View Terrace. The length of the bicycle lane will be 1,840m, 1.2m wide and will be constructed on both sides. The bicycle lane will be constructed with red asphalt as per the current standard. As part of the scope, a full feature survey will be commissioned that will encompass Jarrah Road from Kent Street to Hill View Terrace. Construction of Shared Path on Great Eastern Highway, Victoria Park The construction of the project was estimated to cost approximately $281,000 (exc. GST). The Town stands to receive $92,973 of the total project cost from DoT as shown in the appendix. The Town initially requested $140,973 through the PBN program which includes path construction and lighting component. The DoT has only approved $92,973 which excludes the lighting component. The Town will fund the lighting works as the project is considered of high importance to link the causeway precinct. The dual use path will provide continuity from the existing dual path in Craig Street to Shepperton Road. The length of the dual use path is 509m and 2.5m wide. The dual use path will be constructed with red asphalt as per current standards. As part of the scope, a full feature survey will be commissioned that will encompass Charles Paterson Park. Legal Compliance: All works undertaken will comply with Austroads Guidelines and relevant Australian Standard relating to Bicycle infrastructure Policy Implications: Delegation 560 (Grants) of the Towns Delegations Register states that the administration can; Make and accept submissions for grants from Lotteries Commission, State and Commonwealth Governments, with a condition that acceptance of successful submissions over $22,000 (incl. GST) to be subjected to Council approval. Strategic Plan Implications: The Strategic Plan includes many statements about sustainability. Improved cycling infrastructure in order to encourage greater uptake of cycling to compliment the Community Wellbeing and Quality Physical Environment are key result areas of the Strategic Plan as well as the sustainability aims of the Plan.
12.3
95
12.3
12 June 2012
Financial Implications: Internal Budget: The Town will need to fund at least 50% of the nominated project costs to receive the grant funding from DoT which have now been endorsed by DoT. The funding arrangement would be: Project Funding source Total ToVP DoT Jarrah Road Bicycle Lanes $108,970 $108,970 $217,940 excluding overheads GEH Shepperton Dual $188,973 $92,973 $281,946 excluding Path overheads $297,943 $201,943 $499,886 Total Asset Management: The works once completed will be maintained by the Town Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Improved cycling infrastructure is likely to yield results in terms of positive outcomes for cyclists and a corresponding increased use of bikes for transport. It is hoped this will have a positive effect on the businesses and services within the Town as more people view the Town of Victoria Park as a Local Government Authority committed to infrastructure supporting alternative modes of transport. Social Issues: An increase in cycling within the Town will improve the health and wellbeing of community members and assist in developing more people-friendly neighbourhoods. With fewer cars and more people on the streets, a greater sense of community is developed. People on bikes tend to engage with other cyclists and pedestrians in a different way to those in cars. Cycling also provides a cost efficient and sustainable form of transport. Cultural Issues: The close proximity of the Town to the Perth Central Business District and good connectivity to public transport mean that a mode shift is possible from single car occupants to cyclists for many trips. Improved cycling infrastructure is critical to this mode shift. Travel Behaviour change to increase cycling within the Town relies on good cycling infrastructure. Environmental Issues: Continuing to provide safe and efficient cycling facilities will encourage and facilitate more use of bicycles, rather than vehicles, for commuting, transport or recreational journeys. Reducing vehicle dependency will help reduce vehicle emissions and vehicle noise.
COMMENT: The aforementioned projects are high use bike routes. Acceptance of the funding totalling $201,943 and return of the contract agreements to the DoT need to be finalised by close of business, Friday 8 June 2012. All works associated with the grants are to be completed by Friday, 10 May 2013. In the event that the project completion date exceeds the deadline, DoT shall be notified 30 days prior to that date.
12.3
96
12.3
12 June 2012
CONCLUSION: The Town has been successful in securing external funding of $201,943 from DoT to assist the Town to install bike lanes on the two critical bike routes on Jarrah Road and Craig Street.
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Ashton
The Council accepts grant funding totalling $201,943 from the Perth Bicycle Network Grant program though the Department of Transport and endorses the implementation of these projects which will be allocated in the 2012/2013 financial year budget. The Motion was Put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: (7-0)
12.3
97
12.3
J 2012 2 12 June
12.4 Co ommunity Environmen ntal Wo orking Mo odificatio ons to Te erms of R Referenc ce

File Refer rence: Appendic ces: AD DM0058 Nil
Group
Proposed d
28 May 2012 2 Date: W. Bow Reporting g Officer: A. Vuleta V Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommended th hat the Term of R Reference for the Commun nity Envir ronmental l Working Group (CE EWG) be amended. a CEW WG have meet m and re eviewed th he Terms of o Referenc ce. CEW WG have re ecommend ded modific cations to the t Terms of Referen nce
TABLED ITEMS: Nil
BACKGR ROUND: At the Tow wns Ordin nary Counc cil Meeting g on 8 November 201 11, Counciil resolved to abolish h the Com mmunity Environmen ntal Advis sory Comm mittee (CEAC) and d to esta ablish the e Community Environ nmental Working W G Group (CEW WG). At the t Towns Ordinar ry Council l Meeting o on 13 Dec cember 2011 Counciil resolved to endors se the term ms of reference and d aims and objectives s of the CEWG. At the Tow wns Ordin nary Counc cil Meeting g on 14 Fe ebruary 201 12 Councill resolved to appoint t members of the CEW WG, with an a expiry d date of 19 October O 20 013. The inaug gural meeti ing of the CEWG C wa s held on 15 1 March 2012. 2
DETAILS: At the CE EWG mee eting of 15 5 March 2 2012, the Working Group rev viewed its Terms of f Reference e and reso olved the fo ollowing That the C CEWG Ter rms of Refe erence be amended to read as s per the fo ollowing he eadings: 1. Aims and Objec ctives bu ullet point 3 Prov viding inpu ut to Counc cil on envi ironmental l educa ation within n the comm munity as it t relates to o the Work Plan. 2. Meetings 3.1 At least t 5 meeting gs are held d per year. 3. Mana agement 6.2 Members s be requ uested to sign the Code of f Conduct t docum ment. Legal Compliance: : Nil
12.4
98
12.4 4
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Policy Implications: Nil
12 June 2012
Strategic Plan Implications: The strategic focus for the CEWG is aligned to the Plan for the Future and was endorsed by Council at its Ordinary meeting on 13 December 2011. The purpose of the Community Environmental Working Group is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by: Identifying and raising environmental issues of concern to the community as they relate to the Work Plan. Provide input, from a community perspective, into key environmental policies, documents, plans, reports and programs developed by the Town as it relates to the Work Plan. Provide leadership in the role of environmental education within the community. Actively participate in actions resulting from the Work Plan. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The proposed amendments to the CEWG Terms of Reference are reflected below 1. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The strategic focus for the Community Environmental Working Group (CEWG) is aligned to the Plan for the Future. The purpose of the CEWG is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by: Identifying and raising environmental issues of concern to the community as they relate to the Work Plan. Providing input, from a community perspective, into key environmental policies, documents, plans, reports and programs developed by the Town as it relates to the Work Plan.
12.4
99
12.4
12 June 2012
Providing input to Council on environmental education within the community as it relates to the Work Plan Actively participating in actions resulting from the Work Plan.
2. MEMBERSHIP 2.1 Community Members shall comprise five. 2.2 Places will be available for suitably qualified professionals who can provide expert advice/information as necessary. 2.3 The term of membership will be for two years commencing on appointment made by the Council and concluding in October in line with the ordinary Council election cycle. 2.4 Staff will attend meetings to present reports and provide technical advice and secretarial support where required and are not members. 3. MEETINGS 3.1 At least five meetings are held per year. 3.2 A quorum for a meeting shall be no less than three members one of whom shall be an Elected Member of the Town of Victoria Park. 3.3 All members shall have one vote. The Presiding Member shall also have the right to a casting vote; simple majority will prevail. 3.4 The Presiding Member will preside at all meetings and is responsible for the proper conduct of the meetings. In his/her absence the role of Presiding Member will be assumed by any other Elected Member who has been appointed as a member by the Council. 4. AGENDAS 4.1 The Administration will determine the Agenda for each meeting in accordance with the Annual Work Plan endorsed by the Council. 4.2 All meetings shall be confined to the items listed on the Annual Work Plan unless the Council determines that additional matters be considered. 4.3 There will be no General Business additional items are to be submitted to the Administration further consideration for (a) action administratively or (b) for consideration by the Town/Council in development of the next financial periods Work Plan. 4.4 Reports outside of the Annual Work Plan or Terms of Reference cannot be called for. 4.5 Work Plans will be developed annually by the Administration and endorsed by the Council taking account of the Towns Plan for the Future, strategic planning objectives, annual priorities or any other of the Towns plans or initiatives. 5. NOTES 5.1 The Administration will maintain Action Notes of the items discussed at each meeting and the outcomes from discussions. The notes may be used as the basis for further action by the Town on an item. (Verbatim minutes of discussion will not be taken).
12.4
100
12.4
12 June 2012
5.2 Matters requiring action by Council shall be moved and seconded as recommendations to the Council and shall be the subject of specific reports by the Administration to the Council as an agenda item. 6. MANAGEMENT 6.1 The CEWG has no delegated powers or authority to: 6.1.1 Represent the Town of Victoria Park; 6.1.2 Implement recommendations without approval of the Council; and 6.1.3 Commit Council to the expenditure of funds. 6.2 Members are requested to sign the Code of Conduct document Additional Comment At the Elected Members Briefing Session on 5 June 2012 Elected members suggested that clause 4.3 of the terms of reference be amended to allow general business, but it is felt that the Councils at decision on 8 May 2012 relating to changes to the working groups agenda format which enables matters not included on working group agendas to be discussed has resolved this issue and therefore the recommendation does not require amendment. CONCLUSION: The CEWG chose to re-word the reference to environmental education contained in the Aims and Objectives. The CEWG members felt that the restriction to four meetings per year was not appropriate. The CEWG members felt that signing the Code of Conduct was preferable to the reference to compliance therewith. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Bissett
That the Community Environmental Working Group Terms of Reference be amended to read as per the following headings: 1. Aims and Objectives bullet point 3 Providing input to Council on environmental education within the community as it relates to the Work Plan. 2. Meetings 3.1 At least 5 meetings are held per year. 3. Management 6.2 Members be requested to sign the Code of Conduct document.
12.4
101
12.4
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded:
12 June 2012
Councillor Skinner
That a recommendation 4 be added in relation to the Terms of Reference relating to Item 4 Agendas, clause 4.3 be deleted. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
Reason: To be in accordance with standard Order of Business endorsed for all Working Group Agendas, resolved on the 8 May 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting
ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: That the Community Environmental Working Group Terms of Reference be amended to read as per the following headings: 1. Aims and Objectives bullet point 3 Providing input to Council on environmental education within the community as it relates to the Work Plan. 2. Meetings 3.1 At least 5 meetings are held per year. 3. Management 6.2 Members be requested to sign the Code of Conduct document. 4. Terms of Reference relating to Item 4 Agendas, clause 4.3 is deleted. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
12.4
102
12.4
12 June J 2012 2
12.5 Te ender TV VP/12/03 Provis sion of Consulta C ncy Serv vices to Prepare e an n Integrat ted Move ement Ne etwork Strategy S (IMNS)
TES0549 File Refer rence: No. Appendic ces: 31 May 2012 2 Date: J.W Wong Reporting g Officer: A.V Vuleta Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Recommendation: To award d Tender TVP/12/03 T to Worley yParsons Services S Pty P Ltd Executive e Summar ry: 8 te enders rec ceived in response to reques st for tend der to pre epare an Integrated d Mov vement Net twork Strat tegy for the e Town. The tender evaluation e process has been complete ed and a preferred d tenderer r identified.
TABLED ITEMS: Request for Te ender Te ender No. TVP/12/03 3 - Provision of Cons sultancy Services S to o Prep pare an Integrated Movement N Network St trategy (IMNS).
BACKGR ROUND: The Towns Plan for f the Fu uture 201 1-2026 (P PfF) includ des a projject under r the Sub b program, Street Lif fe being Complete C the Integr rated Tran nsport Man nagement Plan and d Parking S Strategy. This project t has since e been renamed the Integrated d Movemen nt Network k Strategy. The PfF states. s We W will be developing g a compr rehensive plan to ad ddress the e traffic and d parking needs n for both b the p present and d the futur re. The tra ansport pla an will also o deliver a m multi-moda al approac ch to shift f from motor r vehicle to o other mo odes of tran nsport use e in the Tow wn. A project brief for the project was w prepar red which involved i se eeking com mments fro om the key y State Go overnment transport agencies. . The pro oject brief was refer rred to th he Elected d Members and Coun ncils Integr rated Move ement Netw work Work king Group p for review w prior to a request fo or tender being adver rtised. The outco omes soug ght from the e IMNS are e outlined in the Project Brief a s follows: The key o outcome from fr the IM MNS will b be an agre eed plan fo or the plan nning, provision and d funding of f an integra ated movement netw work infrast tructure ov ver the nex xt 20 years. It is to be e based on an objecti ive assessm ment of pro rojects usin ng triple bo ottom line m methodolog gy and will l be linked to the To owns Strat tegic Plan: : Plan for the Future e 2011 2 2026 as well w as the e State Gov vernments s directions s for Public c Transpor rt network in i Perth by y 2031.
12.5
103
12.5 5
12 June 2012
The IMNS needs to: Define the regional movement framework as it relates to the Town including defining what are givens and what can and/or should be changed; Develop a local framework that responds to the regional framework and provides for local needs and aspirations; Focus the Town and the community towards the key issues and strategies to be addressed over the next 20 years; and Provide a basis for the Council and the community to prioritise and guide the investment of Council resources and lobby/ partner with other agencies for delivery of other components identified in the Strategy. The IMNS requires the preparation of an Implementation Action Plan which will identify the drivers and triggers for projects, programs, and works together with a series of short, medium and long-term infrastructure and projects with indicative costs, jurisdiction, partnership, and funding options and responsibilities.
DETAILS: A request for tender for the IMNS project was advertised in the West Australian on 14 April 2012 with a closing date of 15 May 2012. The selection criteria and weighting of the criteria for the tender were as follows:
Description of Selection Criteria Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required Qualifications, skills and experience of key personnel Plant, equipment and staff resources available Percentage of operational capacity represented by this work Quality systems Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects Relevant industry experience (including public sector), including details of similar work undertaken The Tenderers involvement in these projects, including details of outcomes produced Past record of performance and achievement References from past and present clients Occupational safety and health track record Understanding of Requirement Level of understanding of Tender documents Level of understanding of work required Ability to meet delivery dates in regard to overall work commitments. Warranties offered Added value items offered Special conditions included in Tender Tendered Price/s The price to supply the goods or services in accordance with the Request Rates or prices for variations TOTAL Weighting 25%
25%
35%
15%
100%
12.5
104
12.5
12 June 2012
8 tender submissions were received in response and each tender was assessed by a three person tender evaluation panel in accordance with the criteria set out in the tender. The tenders were first assessed against the compliance criteria to ensure that they satisfied the requirements of the request for tender. Some tenders did not provide all of the detailed information requested. It was considered that the non-conformances were nonmaterial to the solution or price tendered and that the additional information could be requested from the short-listed tenderer/s after the evaluation process. In the case of one tender, additional copies of the tender document were requested and received after the tender closing, but this was also considered non-material to the solution or the price tendered. All submissions were processed through to the qualitative/price evaluation on this basis. In addition a number of the tenders sought variations to the standard Conditions of Contract which formed part of the request for tender document. Each of the 8 tenders was scored a value from 0-5 for each of the qualitative criteria: Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects Understanding of Requirement A table of the total scores of the three evaluation panel members for the criteria for each tender is outlined below. Total Score Capability /competence 9 9 9 9 9 10 9 10 Total Score Experience 9 8 6 9 7 10 8 11 Total Score Understanding 6 4 9 6 6 11 7 12
Tenderer Aurecon Australia Pty. Ltd Cardno WA Donald Veal Consultants Pty. Ltd. GHD Pty. Ltd. Hyder Consulting Pty. Ltd Parsons Brinkerhoff Sinclair Knight Merz WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd.
The total scores for each qualitative criteria were then averaged and applied the relevant weighting to generate a weighted score for each criteria. The weighted score for each criteria were then added to provide a final weighted score for each tender, which is outlined in the table below.
12.5
105
12.5
12 June 2012
Qualitative Criteria Total Weighted Score 2.20 1.88 2.30 2.20 2.03 2.94 2.47 3.15
The tender price for each tender was weighted and then added to the weighted score for the qualitative criteria to provide a total score for each of the tenders, as shown in the table below. Qualitative Criteria Total Weighted Score 2.20 1.88 2.30 2.20 2.03 2.94 2.47 3.15
Weighted Price Score 0.30 0.75 0.33 0.36 0.43 0.26 0.46 0.35
Total Score 2.50 2.63 2.63 2.56 2.46 3.20 2.93 3.50
The tenderer with the highest total score is the preferred tenderer. The Evaluation Report for the tender has been signed off by the three evaluation panel members and the Chief Executive Officer. An email to the Mayor and Councillors dated 31 May 2012 advises that the Evaluation Report, copies of the 8 tender documents. Can be viewed by the Elected Members by contacting the Executive Manager Street Life. Legal Compliance: Local Government Act 1995 Section 3.57. Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 Division 2 Part 4. Policy Implications: Council Policy FIN4 Purchase of Goods and Services has been complied with as an open tender process was used for this project.
12.5
106
12.5
12 June 2012
Strategic Plan Implications: The Towns Plan for the Future 2011-2026 (PfF) includes a project under the Sub program, Street Life being Complete the Integrated Transport Management Plan and Parking Strategy. This project is now known as the Integrated Movement Network Strategy. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: The shortlisted tenderer submitted a lump sum tender price of $180,937.80 plus GST. There is sufficient funds in the current budget to fund this contract. Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: The following assessment is based on the report relating to the administrative process of awarding a tender rather that the sustainability assessment of the actual project, which will have economic, social and environmental implications. External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The evaluation process established that the highest qualitative scores for each of the three criteria were achieved by the tender submitted by WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. The price evaluation determined that this tender was within the average price range of the tenders received. When the price was weighted and added to the total qualitative score, the tender submitted by WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. still achieved the highest overall total score of all tenders. As the tender from WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. was the short-listed tender selected by the evaluation panel, some additional but not critical information was sought which was not included in the original tender submission and this is anticipated to be received in writing during the week of the June 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting. As this was one of the tenders that proposed minor variations to the Conditions of Contract which form part of the request for tender document, legal advice has been sought from Councils Solicitors to consider these matters.
12.5
107
12.5
12 June 2012
ADDITIONAL OFFICERS COMMENTS The tender from Worley Parsons Pty Ltd was one of the tenders that proposed minor variations to the Conditions of Contract which form part of the request for tender document. Consequently, legal advice has been sought from Councils Solicitors to consider these matters. The two main clauses that staff are seeking to retain in the General Conditions of Contract that form the basis of the agreement between the Town and the successful tenderer are: 11.1 The Contractor shall indemnify and keep indemnified the Principal and the Principals Personnel from and against all Loss and other liabilities of any kind arising directly or indirectly from: (a) any breach of any warranty or any of the other terms and conditions of this Contract by the Contractor or the Contractors Personnel; any Wilful Misconduct or a negligent act or omission of the Contractor or the Contractors Personnel; and any claim made by a third party against the Principal or the Principals Personnel, to the extent that the claim arose out of the act or omission of the Contractor or the Contractors Personnel, except to the extent of liability which is caused by the Wilful Misconduct or a negligent act or omission of the Principal or the Principals Personnel.
(b)
(c)
11.2 The Principal need not incur any cost or make any payment before enforcing any right of indemnity under this Clause 10. Schedule 1 Contract Specifics, contained in Tender TVP/12/03 contains the following information regarding the level of indemnity and professional liability Minimum level of Public Liability Insurance Cover required: AUD$10,000,000 for one claim; and AUD$10,000,000 in the aggregate. Minimum level of Professional Indemnity Cover Required: AUD$5,000,000 for one claim; and AUD$5,000,000 in the aggregate. WorleyParsons Pty Ltd has sought to limit the extent of liability afforded by the above mentioned insurances. Legal advice has confirmed the Towns position on this matter. However, officers will negotiate in good faith to secure a suitable outcome.
CONCLUSION: The tender submitted by Worley Parsons Services Pty Ltd is considered to provide the best value for money given that it achieved the highest qualitative weighted score of all eight tenders and is within the average price range of the tenders received.
12.5
108
12.5
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes RESOLVED: Moved: 1. Councillor Potter Seconded:
12 June 2012
Councillor Bissett
That Tender TVP/12/03 for the Provision of Consultancy Services to Prepare an Integrated Movement Network Strategy submitted by Worley Parsons Services Pty. Ltd. dated 14 May 2012 at a cost of $199,031.58 (Including GST) be accepted, subject to Director of Renew Life approving the indemnification clauses in the General Conditions of Contract to the satisfaction of the Town. Approval be given to the Director of Renew Life to negotiate with the tenderer Worley Parsons Services Pty. Ltd. mentioned in clause 1. above, amendments proposed to modify the General Conditions of Contract in relation to clauses 11.1 and 11.2 dealing with Indemnity. Subject to the negotiations to the clauses in the General Conditions of Contract mentioned in clause 2. above not being to the satisfaction of the Town, approval be given to the Director of Renew Life to accept the tender submitted by the second preferred tenderer being Parsons Brinkerhoff Australia Pty. Ltd for the Provision of Consultancy Services to Prepare an Integrated Movement Network Strategy (TVP/12/03) at a cost of $271,818.94 (including GST) . CARRIED: (7-0)
2.
3.
12.5
109
12.5
12 June J 2012 2
12.6 Mo ovies by y Bursw wood Request t for Ex xtension n of Licence to o Oc ccupy Agreemen A nt for rmer La athlain Pre-Prim P mary Sch hool 6-8 8 Pla anet Stre eet, Lathlain
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: PR RO1054 No
25 May 2012 2 Date: W. Bow Reporting g Officer: A. Vuleta Responsible Office er: Sim mple Major rity Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recom mmendati on Council endor rse the co ontinued use u of the e former La athlain Pre e-Primary y School s ite by Mov vies by Bu urswood. Mov vies by Bur rswood has s requeste ed an exten nsion to its s existing a agreement to occupy y the s site. Shor rt term, inte erim appro oval is reco ommended d.
TABLED ITEMS: Nil
BACKGR ROUND: At the Ord dinary Cou uncil meeting of 20 S September 2011, Co ouncil reso olved to en ndorse the e use of the former r Lathlain Pre-Prim mary Scho ool site by the Mo ovies by Burswood d ion, via a licence to occupy ag greement, for the pe eriod 30 Se eptember 2011 2 30 0 organisati April 2012 2 at $1.00 rental. s been rec A request t from Mov vies by Bur rswood has ceived seeking an ex xtension of f the terms s to enable continued occupatio on of the sit te, effectiv vely for stor rage purpo oses prior to t the next t f their cinema activitie es. season of hold prope erty is owned in fee s simple by the Town. . As indic cated in the e previous s This freeh zoned Ci report on n this mat tter, the la and was z ivic Use Public P Purpose under the e provisions s of the To own Planni ing Schem me, howeve er a rezoning of the land was completed d on 27 Jan nuary 2012 2, rezoning it to Resiidential R-3 30.
DETAILS: Movies by y Burswoo od operate ed from 8 Decembe er 2011 to 14 April 2012 and used the e former La athlain Pre-Primary School site for office, training an nd storage purposes. : Legal Compliance: on with Built Life staff f indicate t that the pro oposed continued us se of the property for r Discussio storage purposes is s afforded non-confo rming use rights und der the pro ovisions of f the Town n Scheme, and a as suc ch can be a approved by b Council. Planning S
12.6
110
12.6 6
12 June 2012
Notwithstanding that the licence to occupy the site comprises a disposal of land under the Local Government Act 1995, such disposal is exempt under the provisions of clause 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 because the land is to be disposed to a body, whether incorporated or not, the objects of which are of a charitable nature. Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The Plan for the Future identifies the management, maintenance and renewal of the Towns assets as a key objective of the Renew Life Program. Furthermore, the Plan for the Future identifies the development of asset management plans to ultimately maximise return on the Towns assets. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Councils resolution of September 2011 provided an in kind contribution and increased the Towns sponsorship level with Movies by Burswood allowing for additional cross promotional opportunities, in lieu of applying a commercial or subsidised rental for the proposed seven month occupancy. Over the term of the occupancy September 2011 to April 2012, the Town has continued to allocate resources for both grounds and minor building maintenance and operations at the site. Total Asset Management: The completion of the rezoning of the property to Residential R-30 has substantially increased the development and/or disposal value of the four separately titled properties which comprise the site. It is estimated that the undeveloped value of the four titles would be a minimum $3,000,000. The property has been identified as a possible interim accommodation facility for community and other purposes during the Town Centre development. A market appraisal of the site to determine potential commercial rental value of the building was undertaken which indicated that an annual rental of $16,000 could be obtained. This is based on the floor area of the building being 160m2, with such attracting a rate of $100/m2/year. The unit rate would likely be higher in the event of a long (20-30 year) term lease agreement, possibly in the vicinity of $30,000 per annum. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil
12.6
111
12.6
12 June 2012
Environmental Issues: Nil
COMMENT: With respect to the proposed Town Centre project, staff considers the retention of the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School site as critical. The site affords the Town the ability to relocate and accommodate community groups and/or commercial organisations from the Town Centre area within the building. Further, the grounds may accommodate any necessary temporary accommodation buildings and the like. The feasibility of the Town Centre project is currently under review and yet to be finalised. Linked to the Town Centre project is the construction of the Multi-Purpose Sports Facility (MPSF) identified on the site of the former Carlisle Lathlain Bowling Club, located across Planet Street immediately adjacent to the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School. It has been suggested that should neither the Town Centre project or the MPSF proceed, then a development incorporating both the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School and the former Carlisle Lathlain Bowling Club would potentially afford the best return to the Town.
CONCLUSION: Staff have concluded that permitting the Movies by Burswood organisation to continue to occupy the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School site as a short term interim arrangement is appropriate as it provides the greatest flexibility to the Town whilst fulfilling a community purpose.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: That Council: 1. Endorses the continued use of the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School by the Movies by Burswood organisation, via a licence to occupy agreement, for an indefinite period, at a $1.00 per annum with all outgoings to be covered by Movies by Burswood in accordance with the pre-existing licence agreement, but subject to the inclusion of a 30 day termination clause in favour of the Town of Victoria Park. Delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant documentation.
2.
12.6
112
12.6
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes NEW MOTION: Moved: 1. Councillor Hayes Seconded:
12 June 2012
Councillor Skinner
That the application by Movies by Burswood to extend the lease of the former Lathlain Pre Primary School not be approved. Council Administration be advised to give priority to preparing the site for sale. That the revenue from the land sale be used to support the Lathlain Park redevelopment. LOST: (3-4)
2. 3.

In favour of the Motion: Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Bissett Against the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Ashton; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
AMENDED ORIGINAL MOTION: Moved: Mayor Vaughan Seconded: Councillor Nairn
That Council: 1. That in recommendation No. 1 the words for an indefinite period be removed and replaced with the words until the 31 October 2012. 2. A new recommendation No. 3 be added to read That Council Administration be advised to give priority to preparing the site for sale by the 31 October 2012 and to have a business case prepared to present to Council. A new recommendation No. 4 be added to read That Movies by Burswood and administration be advised that there will be no extensions given.
3.
Reason: Give Council a chance to progress with another use of the site.
ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: That Council: 1. Endorses the continued use of the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School by the Movies by Burswood organisation, via a licence to occupy agreement, until the 31 October 2012, at a $1.00 per annum with all outgoings to be covered by Movies by Burswood in accordance with the pre-existing licence agreement, but subject to the inclusion of a 30 day termination clause in favour of the Town of Victoria Park. 2. Delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant documentation.
12.6
113
12.6
12 June 2012
3. That Council Administration be advised to give priority to preparing the site for sale by the 31 October 2012 and to have a business case prepared to present to Council. 4. That Movies by Burswood and administration be advised that there will be no extensions given. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
12.6
114
12.6
12 June J 2012 2
12.7 Te ender No o. TVP 12/05 Panel l Contra act for the Su upply of f En ngineerin ng Mainte enance S Services s
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: ToV VP12/05 No
24 May 2012 2 Date: J Wong W /ES Setzinger Reporting g Officer: A Vuleta V Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summary: Reco ommend acceptanc ce of all offers o rece eived for the items s specified d in the ten nder document to fo orm a Pan nel of Cont tractors. Ten nder evalu uation for the provis sion of En ngineering Maintenan ces in the e nce Servic Tow wn for a period of tw wo years fr rom 2 July 2012 to 30 3 June 20 014 plus 2x x12 month h ext tensions.
TABLED ITEMS: Nil
BACKGR ROUND: The Town of Victo oria Park currently utilises co ontractors for Engine eering Ma aintenance e Services for which the Town does no ot have th he approp priate reso ources to effectively y e these tas sks. The pr rovision of f Engineeri ing Mainte enance Ser rvices is re equired for r undertake road cons struction, general g ma aintenance e and asso ociated op perational w works on roads that t the Town n carries out o to com mplete ann ual mainte enance an nd capital works pro ogrammes. . Tenders w were adver rtised in th he West Au ustralian on Saturday y 28th Aprill 2012 and d closed at t 2.00pm on n Monday 2nd July 20 012. were invite ed from pr rofessiona al organisa ations accr redited to provide se ervices for r Tenders w road cons struction, general maintenanc m ce and ass sociated works w on roads and d reserves s within the Town of Victoria V Park.
DETAILS: ssions we ere receiv ved for t tender TV VP/12/05 Provisi on of En ngineering g 7 submis Maintenan nce Servic ces, as per the Sched dules of Ra ates detaile ed. All submis ssions are exclusive of GST. Evaluation n has been n undertak ken accord ding to the tender eva aluation cr riteria inclu uded in the e tender documents by b a panel of three st taff membe ers, Engine eering Sup pervisor, En ngineering g Coordinat tor and Exe ecutive Ma anager Ren new Life. Attributes, or Asses ssment Crit teria (P) w were determ mined and given a p point score within the e range of 0 0-5. This score s was then multip plied by the previous sly determiined weigh hting factor r (W% or E Evaluation Criteria) and a divide ed by 100 to obtain the Value e Score (V V) for each h
12.7
115
12.7 7
12 June 2012
tenderer. The tenderer having the highest score would be the preferred tenderer for each of the item of service assessed. Tender Evaluation Outcome ToVP 12/05 (non price criteria) Provision of Engineering Maintenance Services
Downer EDI Works Frazzcon Jackson Paving Kerb-Fix MMM (WA) WA Profiling Western Road Systems
Weighted FACTOR
Weighted Score
Weighted Score
Weighted Score
Weighted Score
Weighted Score
Weighted Score
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required and quoted on
20%
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects References from past and present clients
Tender Bid Price
20%
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
20% 40%
5.0
1.0 0.00 3.0
5.0
1.0 0.00 3.0
5.0
1.0 0.00
5.0
1.0 0.00 3.0
5.0
1.0 0.00 3.0
5.0
1.0 0.00 3.0
5.0
1.0 0.00 3.0
Total Score
3.0
Description of criteria: Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required Organisation profile Qualifications, skills and experience of key personnel Plant, equipment and staff resources available Insurance coverage Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects Relevant industry experience (including public sector), including details of similar work undertaken Ability to meet delivery dates References from past and present clients Referee names and contact numbers Tendered Price/s The price to supply the goods or services in accordance with the Request
12.7
116
12.7
Weighted Score
Out of 5
Out of 5
Out of 5
Out of 5
Out of 5
Out of 5
Out of 5
12 June 2012
* The evaluation on Price was not applicable for this tender because all contractors are recommended to be appointed to form the panel contract. The Town will have the discretion to appoint a contractor from the panel for each job task required based on case by case analysis of each contractors overall job costs, service quality and associated benefits. For example, quality of road profiling works required, contractors response to urgent work requests, durability of work done, etc. Traffic Management Services to support the following services:
$ Traffic Management complying with AS1742 and MRWA traffic Code of Practice when required by the Town: 1 accredited traffic controller with traffic mgt devices 2 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices 3 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices 4 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices Minimum charge for 1 accredited traffic controller with traffic mgt devices Minimum charge for 2 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices Minimum charge for 3 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices Minimum charge for 4 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices UNIT Hr Hr Hr Hr day day day day MMM $67.00 $104.00 $150.00 $208.00 $269.00 $416.00 $599.00 $833.00 Downsing Con $80.00 $128.00 $198.00 $256.00 $320.00 $512.00 $594.00 $1,024.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Concrete Path Services Contractor 1- MMM

Item no
DESCRIPTION MMM
UNIT
1.2m wide
1.5m wide
1.8m wide
2m wide
2.4m wide
1 2 3
Pathways (25MPA) less than a total of 20m long within Pathways on verges m Pathways in open areas e.g. reserves m Public Access Ways between fences m
a project: $60.00 $62.00 $60.00 $62.00 $60.00 $62.00
$66.00 $66.00 $66.00
$70.00 $70.00 $70.00
$72.00 $72.00 $72.00
4 5 6
Pathways (25MPA) of a total length greater than 20m within a project : Pathways on verges m $58.00 $60.00 Pathways in open areas e.g. reserves m $58.00 $60.00 Public Access Ways between fences m $58.00 $60.00
$64.00 $64.00 $64.00
$68.00 $68.00 $68.00
$70.00 $70.00 $70.00
Contractor 2 Dowsing Concrete

Item no
DESCRIPTION Dowsing Concrete
UNIT
1.2m wide
1.5m wide
1.8m wide
2m wide
2.4m wide
1 2 3
Pathways (25MPA) less than a total of 20m long within Pathways on verges m Pathways in open areas e.g. reserves m Public Access Ways between fences m
a project: $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 $85.00
$80.00 $80.00 $80.00
$80.00 $80.00 $80.00
$75.00 $75.00 $75.00
4 5 6
Pathways (25MPA) of a total length greater than 20m within a project : Pathways on verges m $55.00 $55.00 Pathways in open areas e.g. reserves m $55.00 $55.00 Public Access Ways between fences m $55.00 $55.00
$45.00 $45.00 $45.00
$43.00 $43.00 $43.00
$43.00 $43.00 $43.00
12.7
117
12.7
12 June 2012
Contractor 2 MMM and Dowsing Concrete continued.

UNIT 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Extra Over for 150mm thick concrete path Extra over for 100mm thick concrete path (stencilled) Extra over for one layer F62 mesh Extra over for concrete colour (oxide) Extra over Rapid Hardener per m2 of concrete Extra over for Limecrete (25MPA) Supply and install PVC ducting pipes perpendicular to the alignment of and under the pathway before pouring of concrete. (actual length laid) Verge shaping and blending for areas at 500mm beyond the edge of pathway. This includes hand and machinery works. This operation shall be done before pouring of concrete. Supply and install lock joints (actual length laid) PVC Key Joint Supply and install approved handrails/grab rails. (900mm x 900mm) Supply and install approved handrails/grab rails. (900mm x 1200mm) CONCRETE RAMPS (25MPA) complying with AS 1428 Standard Ramps: 1500mm wide + wings + transitions 1800mm wide+ wings+ transitions 2100mm wide+ wings+ transitions 2400mm wide+ wings+ transitions 3000mm wide+ wings+ transitions Removal works Cut, remove and dispose of existing concrete path Cut, remove and dispose of existing bitumen path Remove 600 x 600 footpath slabs and stack on pallets- 7 pieces high Remove 600 x 600 footpath slabs, stack on pallets and deliver to the Towns depot- 7 pieces high Remove and dispose of broken slabs m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m m2 m each each
MMM
$ $11.00 $15.00 $12.00 $9.00 $5.00 $8.00 $15.00 $4.00 $15.00 $250.00 $290.00
Dowsing Concrete
$ $16.00 $36.00 $8.50 $25.00 $1.80 $35.00 $8.00 $65.00 $10.00 $320.00 $350.00
18 19 20 21 22
UNIT each each each each each UNIT m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 UNIT m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2
$ $998.00 $1,048.00 $1,098.00 $1,148.00 $1,198.00 $ $20.00 $20.00 $5.00 $12.00 $15.00
$ $350.00 $380.00 $400.00 $420.00 $450.00 $ $15.50 $15.50 $12.00 $12.00 $15.00
23 24 25 26 27
CONCRETE VEHICLE CROSSOVER (25MPA): 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Cut, remove and dispose of existing bitumen crossover Cut, remove and dispose of existing insitu concrete crossover Construct Residential vehicle crossover 100mm thick Construct Commercial vehicle crossover 150mm thick Extra over for one layer F62 mesh Extra over for concrete colour (oxide) Extra over Rapid Hardener per m2 of concrete Extra over for Limecrete (25MPA)
$ $20.00 $20.00 $60.00 $70.00 $12.00 $9.00 $5.00 $8.00
$ $17.50 $20.00 $60.00 $80.00 $8.50 $18.00 $1.80 $35.00
Brick Paving Services - one contractor only - MMM

Item 1 2 3 4 5 Description Unit Prepare site (box out), supply bedding sand, prepare bedding sand and lay brick pavers in accordance with the specification, dispose of spoil/surplus m material Supply bedding sand, prepare bedding sand and lay brick pavers in m accordance with the specification, dispose of surplus material Prepare bedding sand and lay brick pavers in accordance with the m specification, dispose of surplus material Remove existing brick paving and stack on pallets supplied by the Principal m Minimum charge per order Rate $ per m 8 26 35 4 500
2
12.7
118
12.7
12 June 2012
Kerbing works one contractor only- Kerb-Fix

Kerb Type Unit Kerb laying 0 - 50m 51 - 100m 101 - 200m Over 200m
Mountable-Type "A" Kerb a) A-1 (MRWA Profile) m m b) A-2x (MRWA Profile) Nominal 125mm face 60mm c) A-2x (MRWA Profile) Nominal 125mm face with 2 R16 mild stee m Semi Mountable-Type "SM" Kerb a) SM-1 (MRWA Profile) b) SM-2x (MRWA Profile) Nominal 175mm face 75mm c) SM-5 (MRWA Profile) Nomimal 260mm face Barrier-Type "BX" Kerb a) BX-1 (MRWA Profile) b) BX-3 (MRWA Profile) Nominal 175mm face Flush Kerbing 300mm x 150mm ( with reinforcing R12's @ 140 CRA full length of 300mm x 150mm (with no reinforcing) 150mm x 150mm ( with reinforcing R12's @ full length of beam)
$37.40 $37.40 -
$37.40 $37.40 -
$37.40 $37.40 -
$40.00 $40.00 -
m m m m m m m m
$37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $45.00 $16.50
$37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $45.00 -
$37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $45.00 -
$40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $45.00 -
m Keying in 200mm x75mm key supply & lay - over and above for new Hand Make Ups/Transitions m
Road Profiling - 2 Contractors- MMM and Westcoast Profilers

Contractor Westcoast profiling MMM Depth of cut :20mm Area (m2) Min. 0-100 Charge 1.77
$4.15 MIN 4 HOURS
$5,600.00
Contractor Westcoast profiling MMM
Depth of cut :25mm Area (m2) Min. 0-100 Charge 1.88

MIN 4 HOURS
$5,600.00 $4.30 Depth of cut :30mm Area (m2) Min. 0-100 Charge 2.15
$4.50 MIN 4 HOURS
$5,600.00 Depth of cut :40mm Area (m2) Min. 0-100 Charge 2.26
MIN 4 HOURS
$5,600.00 $4.85 Depth of cut :60mm Area (m2) Min. 0-100 Charge 2.38
$5.20 MIN 4 HOURS
$5,600.00 Depth of cut :80mm Area (m2) Min. 0-100 Charge 2.62
$5.20 MIN 4 HOURS
$5,600.00
12.7
119
12.7
12 June 2012
Asphalt Pavement Reinstatements one contractor only- MMM

7mm Nominal Mix Granite at Depths of 1 2 3 4 20mm 25mm 30mm Minimum charge per order Rate $ per m 2 $68.05 $69.85 $71.60 $1,500.00
5 6 7 8
10mm Nominal Mix Granite at Depths of Rate $ per m 2 20mm $70.05 25mm $71.85 30mm $73.60 Minimum charge per order $1,500.00
Pavement Marking - 2 Contractors- Western Road Systems and MMM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Road pavement marking Longitudinal Lines (as per MRWA Drawing 9931-0198) Transverse Lines (as per MRWA Drawing 9931-0198) Medians and chevrons (as per MRWA Drawing 9931-0198) Sprayed-on stencilling on concrete surface including preparation of the substrate Sprayed-on stencilling on asphalt surface including preparation of the substrate Other marking (please specify) Minimum charge per order Car park pavement marking Standard parking bays Acrod parking bays Other marking (please specify) eg - bus bays Minimum charge per order WESTERN RD SYS Rate $ per m2 $3.50 $3.50 $4.00 $3.00 $3.00 $250.00 Rate $ per bay $12.00 $65.00 $4.00 $250.00 MMM $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $30.00 $30.00 $250.00
1 2 3 4
$10.00 $75.00 $3.00 $250.00
Sign Installation/Removal including 300mm / dia x 600mm deep concrete footing one contractor only - MMM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Type of Sign Price per item $ Street name plate (installation on existing post) $40.00 Street name / parking plate & post installation (in brick paving) $95.00 Street name / parking plate & post installation (in concrete paving) $125.00 Street name / parking plate & post installation (in other) asphalt/soil $95.00 Reinstatement of post surrounds $60.00 ards (1.5m exposed above ground) with sleeves in soil (soil that can be dug by $125.00 Supply and install approved adhesive tactile ground indicators $80.00 Minimum charger per order $500.00
12.7
120
12.7
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Concrete Grinding- one contractor only - MMM
Concrete Footpath Grinding 10mm to 15mm 15mm to 20mm 20mm to 25mm 25mm to 30mm Over 30mm (please specify) Minimum charge per order Price per m2 ($) $8.20 $9.10 $9.85 $10.70 $13.85 $300.00
12 June 2012
1 2 3 4 5 6
Dry hiring of traffic management devices including Ute or truck and/or trailers- one contractor only- MMM
Item 1 Dry Hiring of traffic management devices with $ per day $855.00
vehicle with or without trailer

One ute with all traffic management devices sufficient to close one traffic lane for a work site of 20m long in accordance with AS1742 and the MRWA traffic Code of Practice One vehicle with or without trailer with all traffic management devices sufficient to close one traffic lane for a work site of 50m long in accordance with AS1742 and the MRWA traffic Code of Practice One vehicle with or without trailer with all traffic management devices sufficient to close one traffic lane for a work site of 100m long in accordance with AS1742 and the MRWA traffic Code of Practice One vehicle with or without trailer with all traffic management devices sufficient to close one traffic lane for a work site of 200m long in accordance with AS1742 and the MRWA traffic Code of Practice
$890.00
$928.00
$995.00
Legal Compliance: The Town has complied with section 3.57 of the Local Government Act. Policy Implications: The public tendering process undertaken for this contract complied with the Towns purchasing policy FIN4 in the category of services over $100,000. Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Services will be funded within the constraints of the operational and capital works approved budgets. Total Asset Management: This tender will facilitate the systematic approach to management of Council assets over their entire life from creation to disposal that results in the provision of an asset at a specified standard for the lowest possible cost.
12.7
121
12.7
12 June 2012
Sustainability Assessment: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil
COMMENT: The Town will benefit from accepting all offers submitted by all of the above mentioned tenderers to form a panel contract to provide the required engineering services.
CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the tenders, comprising the required price schedule, as submitted by all of the above mentioned tenderers for the period 2nd July 2012 to 1st July 2014 with an option of 2x 12 month incremental extensions be accepted by the Town.
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Nairn
Council to endorse the acceptance of all offers submitted by MMM, Westcoast Profilers, Dowsing Concrete, Kerb-Fix and Western Road Systems for the engineering construction and maintenance services as detailed in this report and the tender document TVP/12/05 for the period 2 July 2012 to 1 July 2014 with an option of 2x 12 month incremental extension, subject to satisfactory performance, be accepted by the Town.
CARRIED: (7-0)
12.7
122
12.7
12 June J 2012 2
13
CO OMMUNIT TY LIFE PROGRA AM REPORTS
13.1 Re ecommen ndations s from the Memorial Gard dens Proj oject Team
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: RE ES0024 No
29 May 2012 2 Date: T. Ackerman A Reporting g Officer: A T. Ackerman Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation The Mem morial Ga rdens Pro oject Team m recomm mends that t funds be e included in the 2012/13 bud dget for ca apital wor rks within Memoria l Gardens s and that t ministration n liaise with w the c communit ty, local high h scho ools and the East t the Adm Victoria P Park Sub Branch of f the RSL to progre ess projec cts comme emorating g conflicts s that Aust tralia has served in n, includin ng progre essing pla ans for th he centena ary of the e ANZAC la anding at Gallipoli on o 25 Apri il 2015. Optio ons for the e potential redevelop pment of Memorial M Gardens G ha ave been considered c d by the Memor rial Gardens Project t Team; tw wo of which are co onsidered within w this s repo ort. The centenary y of the AN NZAC land ing at Gall lipoli be co ommemora ated by the e Town on n April 2015. 25 A
TABLED ITEMS: act from 19 1 July 20 011 Ordina ary Counc cil Meeting Memor rial Gardens Project t Extra Team m Mem morial Gard dens Concept Design n Brief Conc cept Desig gn A Eco otect Archit tects Conc cept Desig gn B Hist toric Victor ria Park Inc corporated Ursu ula Frayne Catholic College C C Concept De esign Prep pared by St tudents
BACKGR ROUND: At the 19 July 20 011 Ordinary Coun cil Meetin ng, the Elected Me embers en ndorsed a ndation to establish the Memo orial Gard dens Project Team ( (the Project Team), recommen comprising Elected Members s, Commun nity Repre esentatives s and Staf ff. Followin ng are the e Project Te eams Term ms of Refe erence whic ch were en ndorsed at the same meeting: To consider options fo or further d developing g Memorial l Gardens so that all a conflicts s tha at Australia a has bee en involved d in, and where loc cal commu unity members have e bee en killed, be b commem morated. ptions, incl luding fina ncial implic cations, to Council fo or consider ration. To present op
13.1
123
13.1
12 June 2012
DETAILS: The Project Team first met in August 2011 and has since then taken the time to meet with local community members, the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL and the Principals at the two local high schools. The meetings and the consultation resulted in the development of a Concept Design Brief (tabled) which was distributed to architects, artists and landscapers. The Concept Design Brief asked interested parties to submit a rough concept for the potential redevelopment of Memorial Gardens, as well as indicative construction costs. Five Concept Designs were received and were considered by the Project Team at a meeting on 22 March 2012. The Project Team selected two designs which were presented at an Elected Members Workshop on 17 April 2012. The presentation at the Elected Members Workshop included feedback from the Towns Park Life team on the Concept Designs which included concerns regarding the placement of water features and a reduction of available parkland which would impact future ANZAC Day ceremonies. The team also advised that some capital works improvements are planned for the garden, pending approval of the 2012/13 Budget. These works are intended to improve the amenity of the garden and could incorporate some design features (e.g. plaques, public art) which would commemorate the conflicts that Australians have served in. Furthermore, it was noted that both designs included structures that listed the names of the local soldiers killed in all conflicts, rather than commemorating the conflicts that they served in, which was an element of the Terms of Reference. Information regarding the costs of the two designs was also presented at the Workshop: Design A Ecotect Architects (tabled) $9,900 to further develop the Concept Design and prepare a budget; and $300,000 - $700,000 indicative cost of the project. TOTAL - $309,900 - $709,900 Design B Historic Victoria Park Incorporated (tabled) $24,200 to further develop the Concept Design and prepare a budget; and $250,000 indicative cost of the project. TOTAL - $274,200. In addition to an overview of the two Concept Designs, the Workshop presentation included a brief outline of discussions with the Principals at the local high schools, where Kent Street High School expressed interest in exploring the opportunity to develop a program which would lead up to the centenary of the ANZACs landing at Gallipoli 25 April 2015. Further details of the program are currently being considered by the school. At the time Ursula Frayne Catholic College was not sure how it might like to be involved in the project beyond its regular participation at the Towns ANZAC Day ceremony. Subsequently (following the March meeting of the Project Team) the school has submitted a Concept Design to the Town (tabled; no costs included).
13.1
124
13.1
12 June 2012
Information regarding the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSLs intentions to develop a memorial wall commemorating all servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, highlighting those who gave their life in service was also presented at the Workshop. While the design has yet to be finalised, research that will result in a complete list of servicemen and women with links to the Town is well underway. The Towns Local History Coordinator is liaising with the RSL as the research progresses. In light of the RSLs intentions to develop a memorial wall less than 5km away from Memorial Gardens, the Towns Park Life teams concerns regarding the suitability of the Concept Designs and their intentions to undertake some works in the garden, it is the Project Teams recommendation that a significant redevelopment of Memorial Gardens not be progressed. Rather, there are opportunities:
for the Towns Park Life team to undertake work to improve the amenity of the gardens; to apply for funding through applicable grants to have plaques made commemorating each conflict. These would be included in the garden improvements planned by the Parks team; to continue to liaise with the RSL to develop a comprehensive list of servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, noting those that were killed in action. The Town could then further develop the list to create an electronic honour roll which would be made available at the Towns website; to work with the Kent Street High School, staff, members of the Memorial Gardens Team and the community to develop an ANZAC Day 2015 program; and to apply for funding through alternative sources to commemorate the centenary of the landing at Gallipoli on ANZAC Day 2015.
Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Community Life Objective 5 We will celebrate the rich history and heritage of the Town. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: The Draft 2012/13 Budget includes $15,000 for capital works improvements in Memorial Gardens. There are currently no funds allocated for:
the creation of a plaque(s) commemorating each conflict; however grant funding has been identified; for major capital works improvements in Memorial Gardens. The indicative costs for the two Concept Designs submitted ranged from approximately $275,000 to $710,000. In light of the RSLs intentions to develop a memorial wall less than 5km from Memorial Gardens it is the Officers recommendation that a major redevelopment of Memorial Gardens not be progressed.
Total Asset Management: There will be a minor increase in operating costs as a result of the planned capital works improvements. Additional works e.g. plaques would also result in a slight increase in operating costs.
13.1
125
13.1
12 June 2012
Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil
Social Issues: Commemorating all conflicts that local residents have served in has the potential to increase the number of visitors to Memorial Gardens. Any development of the garden must be mindful of not reducing the available parkland in order that the Towns annual ANZAC Day service can be accommodated. Approximately 700 people attended on 25 April 2012. Consideration is already being given to determine how more can be accommodated for the centenary of the ANZAC landing in 2015, as it is anticipated that the number of people attending the Towns service will increase significantly. Cultural Issues: Conflicts where local community members have fallen while serving their country are not all commemorated in one location within the Town. By commemorating all conflicts in one location there would be the opportunity to acknowledge and reflect upon the sacrifices made by those local community members that served their country. Environmental Issues: Nil
COMMENT: Currently Memorial Gardens has a single plaque acknowledging those that have served their country. The plaque refers to those who served and gave their lives in World War I and World War II only. Commemorating all conflicts that local community members have served in is important in that it provides the opportunity for people today and in to the future to acknowledge and reflect upon the generous actions of those local community members that served their country. In addition, as the centenary of the landing at Gallipoli ANZAC Day 25 April 2015 is not far away the Project Team deems it appropriate to establish a cross-functional team, including interested members of the Memorial Gardens Project Team to plan an appropriate service.
CONCLUSION: In light of the RSL East Victoria Park Sub Branchs intentions to develop a memorial wall commemorating all servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town less than 5km away from Memorial Gardens, the Towns Park Life teams concerns regarding the suitability of the Concept Designs and their intentions to undertake some works in the garden in 2012/13, it is the Project Teams recommendation that a significant redevelopment of Memorial Gardens not be progressed. Rather, there are opportunities:
for the Towns Park Life team to undertake work to improve the amenity of the gardens; to apply for funding through applicable grants to have plaques made commemorating each conflict. These would be included in the garden improvements planned by the Parks team;
13.1
126
13.1
12 June 2012
to continue to liaise with the RSL to develop a comprehensive list of servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, noting those that were killed in action. The Town could then further develop the list to create an electronic honour roll which would be made available at the Towns website; to work with the Kent Street High School, staff, members of the Memorial Gardens Team and the community to develop an ANZAC Day 2015 program; and to apply for funding through alternative sources to commemorate the centenary of the landing at Gallipoli on ANZAC Day 2015.
PROJECT TEAMS RECOMMENDATION/S: 1. Liaise with the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL to develop a list of servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, indicating those who fell in service, which will be added to the Local History Collection at the Towns Library. 2. Liaise with the Principal at the Kent Street Senior High School to develop an ANZAC Day 2015 program for students to progress. Write to everyone who submitted Concept Designs for the potential redevelopment of Memorial Gardens thanking them for their interest and advising them of Councils decision. $15,000 to be included in the 2012/13 Budget for capital works in Memorial Gardens. Funding to be sought for the creation of plaques commemorating all conflicts that Australia has been involved in to be placed in Memorial Gardens. Funding to be sought for the Towns 2015 ANZAC Day Service. Review the Towns current set up of the ANZAC Day Service and align more closely with Government protocols for ANZAC Day Services. A cross-functional team, including interested members of the existing Memorial Gardens Project Team, to be established to develop a project scope and management plan for the centenary ANZAC Day service in 2015.
3.
4.
5.
6. 7.
8.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS COMMENT In addition to the recommendations from the Project Team (listed as 1-8 below) the Responsible Officer recommends that as the Project Team has fulfilled its obligations as set in the Terms of Reference the Team be disbanded and participants thanked for their valuable input (9-10 below). ADDITIONAL COMMENT At the EMBS on Tuesday the 5 June 2012 questions were raised in relation to the recommendation to disband the Memorial Gardens Project Team. The rationale to disband the Project Team is due to the fact that it has fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the terms of reference.
13.1
127
13.1
12 June 2012
The recommendation to establish a new Project Team closer to the date of the Towns 2015 Anzac Day Service will enable the development of a project scope and management plan for the centenary ANZAC Day service in 2015, well in advance of this event.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: Moved: 1. Councillor Bissett Seconded: Councillor Potter
The Director of Community Life Program be requested to : 1.1 Liaise with the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL to develop a list of servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, indicating those who fell in service, which will be added to the Local History Collection at the Towns Library. 1.2 Liaise with the Principals at High Schools in the Town, to develop an ANZAC Day 2015 program for students to progress. 1.3 Write to everyone who submitted Concept Designs for the potential redevelopment of Memorial Gardens thanking them for their interest and advising them of Councils decision. 1.4 Seek funding for the creation of plaques commemorating all conflicts that Australia has been involved in to be placed in Memorial Gardens. 1.5 Seek funding for the Towns 2015 ANZAC Day Service. 1.6 Review the Towns current set up of the ANZAC Day Service and align more closely with Government protocols for ANZAC Day Services. 1.7 Establish a cross-functional team, including interested members of the existing Memorial Gardens Project Team; be established to develop a project scope and management plan for the centenary ANZAC Day service in 2015.
2.
The Council consider allocating in the draft 2012/13 Budget for capital works at Memorial Gardens. The Memorial Gardens Project Team be disbanded. Letters to be sent to Memorial Gardens Project Team community and organisation representatives thanking them for their valuable contribution.
3. 4.
13.1
128
13.1
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded:
12 June 2012
Councillor Skinner
That clause 1.7 of the Motion be deleted and replaced with a new clause, that the ANZAC Day 2015 Service be referred to the Culture & Local History Working Group. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
Reason: Sits within the Cultural History Working Group.
ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: 1. The Director of Community Life Program be requested to : 1.1 Liaise with the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL to develop a list of servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, indicating those who fell in service, which will be added to the Local History Collection at the Towns Library. 1.2 Liaise with the Principals at High Schools in the Town, to develop an ANZAC Day 2015 program for students to progress. 1.3 Write to everyone who submitted Concept Designs for the potential redevelopment of Memorial Gardens thanking them for their interest and advising them of Councils decision. 1.4 Seek funding for the creation of plaques commemorating all conflicts that Australia has been involved in to be placed in Memorial Gardens. 1.5 Seek funding for the Towns 2015 ANZAC Day Service. 1.6 Review the Towns current set up of the ANZAC Day Service and align more closely with Government protocols for ANZAC Day Services. 1.7 The ANZAC Day 2015 Service be referred to the Culture & Local History Working Group. 2. 3. 4. The Council consider allocating in the draft 2012/13 Budget for capital works at Memorial Gardens. The Memorial Gardens Project Team be disbanded. Letters to be sent to Memorial Gardens Project Team community and organisation representatives thanking them for their valuable contribution. CARRIED: (5-2)
13.1
129
13.1
J 2012 2 12 June
13.2 Re ecommen ndation from th e Comm munity Safety S W Working Group G Ap ppointme ent of Co ommunity y Membe er
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: CM MS0195 No
29 May 2012 2 Date: M. Owens Reporting g Officer: A T. Ackerman Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation - Appoint t Ms Mary y Comstiv ve to the Commun ity Safety y Working g Group as s a Comm munity Rep presentati ive. To ens sure the co ommunity plays a lar ty safety a and crime prevention p n rge role in communit it was s recomme ended at the t 16 Ma ay 2012 meeting m of f the Work king Group that Ms s Comst tive be ap ppointed to o the Wor rking Grou up. The recommenda ation was endorsed d unanim mously.
TABLED ITEMS 16 Ma ay 2012 Co ommunity Safety Wo orking Grou up Report: : 9.1 Expre ession of Interest for r the Co ommunity Safety S Wor rking Grou up
ROUND: BACKGR At the 13 3 December 2011 Ordinary O C Council Me eeting, Co ouncil endo orsed the Terms of f Reference e for the Working W Gro oups. The Terms of Reference R state that: : 2 Comm munity Mem mbers shalll comprise e five (5) inc clusive of e experts. 3.2 At the 14 February 2011 Ordinary Coun ncil Meetin ng, Counci il endorsed d the applications of f ty members to the Communit ty Safety Working W G Group; with a fourth h three (3) communit communit ty member r endorsed at the 10 A April 2012 Ordinary Council C Me eeting. April 2012 the Town n received d correspo ondence fr rom Ms C Comstive expressing e g On 11 A interest in n joining th he Commu unity Safety y Working Group as a commu unity memb ber. At the e 16 May 20 012 Comm munity Safe ety Workin g Group meeting m a recommend r dation to appoint a Ms s Comstive to the Working Grou up was end dorsed una animously.
DETAILS: In order fo or the Com mmunity Safety S Wor rking Group to accurately portr ray the inte erests and d concerns of the residents of th he Town of f Victoria Park P there should be an approp priate level l of commu unity repre esentation on the Wo orking Gro oup. The Terms T of R Reference that were e endorsed at the 13 3 December 2011 O Ordinary Council C me eeting inclu ude that community c y prise of five e (5) mem bers. representation comp With the a appointment of Ms Comstive C th he Commu unity Safety y Working Group will have five e (5) community repre esentatives s.
13.2
130
13.2 2
12 June 2012
Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Representation from the community will increase the diversity of representation on the Community Safety Working Group. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil
COMMENT: Ms Mary Comstive has been a volunteer for many years and has served on many local Committees in various capacities. Ms Comstives background is in Business and Office Management, as well as Admissions Officer and Emergency on Call at Bentley Park. Ms Comstive will represent the Seniors of the Town with her knowledge of the community and the issues of safety and wellbeing. This knowledge will serve the Community Safety Working Group well. The recommendation that she be appointed to the Working Group was endorsed unanimously.
CONCLUSION: To ensure balanced community representation at the Community Safety Working Group, a maximum of five (5) community members are supported by the Terms of Reference. At present there are four (4) community members in the Working Group. Ms Comstive will make five (5).
13.2
131
13.2
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Nairn Seconded:
12 June 2012
Councillor Potter
Ms Mary Comstive be appointed as a Community Member on the Community Safety Working Group. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
13.2
132
13.2
J 2012 2 12 June
13.3 Re ecommen ndation from th e Comm munity Safety S W Working Group G Es stablishm ment of the Com mmunity Safety Working g Group Annual l Wo ork Plan
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: CM MS1059 No
29 May 2012 2 Date: M. Owens Reporting g Officer: A T. Ackerman Responsible Office er: Absolute Maj ority Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation The Co ommunity Safety Working W Group G Ann nual Work k Plan be e endorsed d. In acc cordance with w the Community Safety Working W Gro oups Term ms of Reference an n Annua al Work Pla an must be e presented d to Counc cil for consideration. The C Community Safety Wo orking Gro oup has recommende ed projects s for inclus sion in the e Annua al Work Pla an. TABLED ITEMS: Nil BACKGR ROUND: At the Tow wns 13 December 2011 2 Ordin nary Counc cil Meeting g, Council resolved to t endorse e the Terms s of Refere ence of the Commun nity Safety y Working Group (CS SWG) which include e the requir rement to develop d an n Annual W Work Plan. DETAILS: At the 16 May 2012 2 meeting of o the Com mmunity Sa afety Work king Group p the devel lopment of f al Work Pla an was dis scussed. I n reviewin ng the Tow wns Plan f for the Fut ture 2011an Annua 2026 (PFF F the Working Group p determin ned that the following g projects linked dire ectly to the e objectives s in the PFF and ther refore shou uld be inclu uded in the e Annual W Work Plan: In review wing the past p activities of th he now disbanded d Commun ity Safety y Advisory y Committe ee the Com mmunity Safety Work king Group determin ned that th he followin ng projects s be in inclu uded in the e Annual Work W Plan: Review of the e current Community C y Safety and Crime Prevention n Plan (wh hich is due e to e expire at th he end of 2012); 2 Development t of a Safe er Neighbo ourhoods Plan (to replace r the e Commun nity Safety y and d Crime Pr revention Plan P which h is due to expire e at th he end of 2 2012); Ide entify priority initiative es aligning with the South S East t Metropoliitan Police District to o be carried ov ver to the new Safer N Neighbourhoods Pla an; Development t of a com mmunity c consultation and res search pro ocess for the Safer r Neighbourhoods Plan; Imp plementation of co ommunity consultation and/o or researc ch to ide entify key y com mmunity sa afety issue es to be ad ddressed; and a Alig gnment of f community safety initiatives with Loc cal, State and Fede eral safety y initiatives and d funding sources. s
13.3
133
13.3 3
12 June 2012
As per the Terms of Reference for the Community Safety Working Group, Council is to endorse an annual work plan for the Working Group. The process of establishing this work plan will begin with the approval of the strategic framework. Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The strategic focus for the Community Safety Working Group is aligned to the Plan for the Future. The purpose of the Community Safety Working Group is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by: 2.1 Providing advice to the Council on matters relating to the development and implementation of the Towns Community Safety Plan. 2.2 Assisting the Council to connect people to services, resources, information, facilities and experiences that enhance their physical and social well-being. 2.3 Assisting the Council in developing and implementing a Community Safety Annual Work Plan. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: The establishment of the Community Safety Working Group Annual Work Plan will have an impact on the social issues relating to community safety of the Town. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil
COMMENT: The Community Safety Work Plan will align to the Towns Plan for the Future 2011-2026 project:
13.3
134
13.3
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Continue to implement and review the Community Safety Plan Initiatives
12 June 2012
The Community Safety Working Group will be instrumental to support the research and community consultation processes to develop a new Safer Neighbourhoods Plan that progresses priority initiatives that align to suitable funding sources to be identified which may include and not be limited to: Graffiti and Vandalism; Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design; Reduction in residential anti-social and criminal behaviour; and Community education and engagement. Potential funding options to progress initiatives in a timely manner will be aligned to opportunities such as the: Office of Crime Prevention: State Graffiti Fund; Office of Crime Prevention: Community Crime Prevention Fund; Department of the Attorney General: Safer Suburbs; Department of the Attorney General: Criminal Property Confiscation Grant; and Australian Institute of Criminology - Criminology Research Grant.
CONCLUSION: The framework will allow for the development of the Work Plan to go ahead with the approval of both the Working Group and Council. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: commence Councillor Ashton the process for the
The Community Safety Working Group establishment of the annual work plan by: 1 2 3 4 5
6
Reviewing the current Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan; Identifying priority initiatives aligning with the Kensington Police district to be carried over to the new Safer Neighbourhoods Plan; Developing a community consultation and research process for the Safer Neighbourhoods Plan; Implementing a community consultation and/or research to identify key community safety issues to be addressed; Developing the new Safer Neighbourhoods Plan; and
Aligning the community safety initiatives with Local, State and Federal funding sources.
CARRIED: (7-0)
13.3
135
13.3
12 June J 2012 2
13.4 Te ender TVP/12/02 Provisio on of Gy ymnasium m Equipm ment

File Refer rence: Appendic ces: TVP/12/02 Nil
29 May 2012 2 Date: K. Winterbou W rn Reporting g Officer: T. Ackerman A Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation - Fleet Commercia al Gymnas sium be awarded a t the Tende er for the e supply of f gym equ uipment at t the Aqua alife Centr re. Tenders has been requ uested for r the prov vision of Gymnasium G m Equipme ent to the e Aqualife Centr re. Evaluation of Tender T sub bmissions against pr rescribed criteria c has s been com mpleted.
TABLED ITEMS: Tend der Numbe er TVP/12/ /02 - Reque est for Ten nder (RFT) ) for Gymn nasium Equ uipment Tend ders subm mitted by Orbit Fitn ness, Avanti Fitness, Gym C Care, Blue e Fitness, , Tech hnogym, Nordic Fitness, F leet Com mmercial Gymnasium G ms, Tiger r Fitness, Body ytastic. Asse essment Panels P Individual Sele ection Crite eria Score Sheets
ROUND: BACKGR The Aqua alife Centre e is a six and a half y year old he ealth and fitness f faci lity which provides a valuable h health and wellness service s to the local community c . In accord dance with h the asset t managem ment sched dule, gym equipmen t is due to o be replaced in line e with man nufactures s specificati ions. Replacement of o the equ uipment wi ill ensure that t the fa acility rema ains up to o date, in line with ot ther servic ce provider rs, and tha at it continues to pro ovide a hig gh level of f quality services. um equipm ment will r replace some of the e aging eq quipment. Additional l The new gymnasiu equipmen nt which has been requeste ed will reduce the waiting t time for equipment e t experienc ced by mem mbers during peak pe eriods. With W the new w gymnasiu um equipm ment in the e health club it will rem main a very y attractive e and modern gymna asium for th he community. n has invit ted tender rs for a co ontractor to o provide gymnasium e The Town m equipment at the Aqualife C Centre. Tenders were e advertise ed in The West W Aust tralian new wspaper on n Saturday y 11 March 2012, with h a closing date of Tu uesday 27 March 201 12.
13.4
136
13.4 4
12 June 2012
DETAILS: The following table provides a list of new gymnasium equipment considered necessary to accommodate members needs at the Aqualife Centre: Gymnasium Equipment Treadmills Elliptical Spin Cycles Quantity 10 2 2
Tenderers were asked to complete and submit a schedule of rates for components of the equipment specification. All Tenders were assessed against the selection criteria detailed below, which were included within the ender documentation. Description of Selection Criteria Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required Qualifications, skills and experience of key personnel Plant, equipment and staff resources available Percentage of operational capacity represented by this work Quality systems Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects Relevant industry experience (including public sector), including details of similar work undertaken The Tenderers involvement in these projects, including details of outcomes produced Past record of performance and achievement References from past and present clients Occupational safety and health track record Servicing / Maintenance Terms of warranty Cost of servicing Frequency of maintenance Response time to servicing / maintenance requests Added value items offered Tendered Price/s The price to supply the goods or services in accordance with the Request Rates or prices for variations TOTAL Weighting
5%
20%
40%
35% 100%
Nine submissions were received in response to the Request for Tender (RFT) TVP/12/02 Gymnasium Equipment. The submissions came from Orbit Fitness, Avanti Fitness, Gym Care, Blue Fitness, Technogym, Nordic Fitness, Fleet Commercial Gymnasiums, Tiger Fitness, Bodytastic. Three of the suppliers submitted multiple Tenders, providing different types of equipment. As a result, the assessment panel reviewed twelve Tenders.
13.4
137
13.4
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Following is a table indicating the cost of each Tender submitted: Supplier Cost $ (inc GST) Supplier Orbit Fitness 74,668 Nordic Fitness 1 Avanti Fitness 119,020 Nordic Fitness 2 Fleet Commercial Gym Care 1 132,044 Gymnasiums Gym Care 2 103,224 Tiger Fitness 1 Blue Fitness 101,519 Tiger Fitness 2 Technogym 135,428 Bodytastic
12 June 2012
Cost $ (inc GST) 103,530 70,024 122,837 118,283 103,758 95,942
Assessment of each Tender was undertaken using the selection criteria included in the Tender documentation. Members of the assessment panel included two Senior Health and Fitness Officers and the Manager Aqualife. The following two tables show the scores (out of a total value of 10) for each Tender submitted.
Orbit Fitness Capability of Supplier Experience of Supplier in Supplying Similar Servicing / Maintenance Tendered Price 3.5 Avanti Fitness 7 Gym Care 1 10 Gym Care 2 10 Blue Fitness 8 Technogym 10
4.5
6.5
10
10
10
7 9
7 9
10 9
10 9
5.5 9
9.5 7.5
Nordic Fitness 1 Capability of Supplier Experience of Supplier in Supplying Similar Servicing / Maintenance Tendered Price 3.5
Nordic Fitness 2 3.5
Fleet Commercial Gymnasium 10
Tiger Fitness 1 9.5
Tiger Fitness 2 9.5
Bodytastic 2.5
4.5
4.5
10
9.5
9.5
7.5 9
7.5 8.5
10 9.9
9.5 9.5
9.5 9.5
6.5 9
The average weighted value of each Tender assessed against the Selection Criteria is indicated in the following tables (the individual score sheets of each member of the assessment panel are tabled):
13.4
138
13.4

Orbit Fitness Value Score .18 Avanti Fitness Value Score .23 Gym Care 1 Value Score .50 Gym Care 2 Value Score .50 Blue Fitness Value Score .39
12 June 2012
Technogym Value Score .50
Weight Capability of 0.05 Supplier Experience of Supplier in 0.20 Supplying Similar Servicing / 0.40 Maintenance 0.30 Tendered Price Total Score Value
.86
.86
1.99
2.0
1.43
1.99
2.79 3.14 6.97 Nordic Fitness 1
1.85 3.14 6.08 Nordic Fitness 2 Value Score .18
3.99 3.08 9.56 Fleet Commercial Gymnasium Value Score .50
4.0 3.14 9.62 Tiger Fitness 1 Value Score .47
2.12 3.14 7.08 Tiger Fitness 2 Value Score .47
3.72 2.56 8.76
Bodytastic Value Score .12
Weight Capability of 0.05 Supplier Experience of Supplier in 0.20 Supplying Similar Servicing / 0.40 Maintenance Tendered 0.30 Price Total Score Value
Value Score .18
.86
.86
1.99
1.89
1.89
.96
2.92 3.09 7.05
2.92 3.02 6.98
3.99 3.45 9.93
3.84 3.31 9.52
3.84 3.31 9.52
2.51 3.14 6.73
The Tenderer with the highest total score value is the preferred supplier; in this case Fleet Commercial Gymnasium. Legal Compliance: Local Government Act 1995 Section 3.57 Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 Division 2 Part 4 Policy Implications: Tender document complies with Council Policy FIN4 Purchase of Goods and Services. Strategic Plan Implications: The delivery of a quality health and fitness service links directly to the Towns Plan for the Future 2011-2026, Community Life Program Objective 1: We will connect people to services, resources, information, facilities and experiences that enhance their physical and social wellbeing. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Funding of $130,000 has been allocated in the 2011/12 Budget for the purchase of gymnasium equipment for the Aqualife Centre. The Tenderer with the highest overall weighted score, Fleet Commercial Gymnasiums, costs came in under budget at $122,837 (incl GST).
13.4
139
13.4
12 June 2012
Total Asset Management: The health and fitness equipment will be maintained in accordance with manufacturers specifications and all associated costs budgeted for each financial year. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Opportunities to increase participation and enhancing health and wellness of the community. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil
COMMENT: As a result of the Assessment Panels scoring against Selection Criteria it is recommended that the Tender be awarded to Fleet Commercial Gymnasiums. Following is a table summarising the average weighted score for each of the Tenders submitted: Tenderer Fleet Commercial Gymnasium Gym Care 2 Gym Care 1 Tiger Fitness 1 Tiger Fitness 2 Technogym Blue Fitness Nordic Fitness 1 Nordic Fitness 2 Orbit Fitness Bodytastic Avanti Average Weighted Score 9.93 9.62 9.56 9.52 9.52 8.76 7.08 7.05 6.98 6.97 6.73 6.08
Fleet Commercial Gymnasium has submitted relevant and more than satisfactory industry references verifying their suitability as a contractor to Local Government, which is complimented by past experience in dealing with this company at the Aqualife Centre.
CONCLUSION: The Tender submitted by Fleet Commercial Gymnasium presents the best value for money and achieves an average weighted point score of 9.93 out of ten (99%) when assessed against the qualitative criteria contained in Tender TVP/12/02.
13.4
140
13.4
12 June 2012
Fleet Commercial Gymnasium is the preferred contractor to undertake the supply of Gymnasium Equipment at the Aqualife Centre the subject of Tender TVP/12/02.
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Skinner
Fleet Commercial Gymnasium be accepted as the preferred contractor to undertake the supply of Gymnasium Equipment at a cost of $122,837 (inc GST) to the Aqualife Centre the subject of Tender TVP/12/02.
CARRIED: (7-0)
13.4
141
13.4
12 June J 2012 2
13.5 Re ecommen ndation from f the e Arts Wo orking Group G -E Establish hment of f the e Arts Working W Group G An nnual Wo ork Plan
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: CM MS0153 Nil
29 May 2012 2 Date: A. Longford Reporting g Officer: A T. Ackerman Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation The Arts s Working g Group Annual Work Plan be e endorsed. ccordance e with the Arts A Work king Groups Terms of o Referen nce an Annual Work k In ac to Council for consid Plan n must be presented p deration. The Arts Work king Group has recom mmended projects fo or inclusion n in the Annual Work k Plan n.
TABLED ITEMS: Nil
BACKGR ROUND: At the Tow wns 13 December 2011 2 Ordin nary Counc cil Meeting g, Council resolved to t endorse e the Terms s of Refere ence of the e Arts Wor rking Grou up (AWG) which inclu ude the re equirement t to develop p an Annua al Work Plan.
DETAILS: At the 14 4 May 2012 meeting of the Ar rts Working g Group th he develop pment of an a Annual l Work Plan n was disc cussed. In reviewing the Town ns Plan for r the Futur re 2011-20 026 (PFF), the Working Group determined d d that the f following projects p link ked directly y to the ob bjectives in n the PFF a and therefo ore should be include ed in the An nnual Work Plan: Re eview and relaunch r th he Public A Art Master Plan evelopment t of a Main ntenance S Schedule fo or Public Art A De De evelopment t of a Community Art ts Plan evelopment t of a Publi ic Art Map De st activities s of the now w disbanded Arts an nd Culture Advisory Committee C e In reviewing the pas Working Group deter rmined tha at the follo owing proje ects be inc cluded in the Annual l the Arts W Work Plan n: Annual Selec ction of Art Acquisitio ons Bie ennial Rev view of the e Coffee Table Boo ok Publica ation Show wcasing th he Towns s Vis sual Art Ac cquisitions Co ontribute to the Delive ery of the A Annual Vict toria Park Art Awards s Legal Compliance: : Nil
13.5
142
13.5 5
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Policy Implications: Nil
12 June 2012
Strategic Plan Implications: The strategic focus for the Arts Working Group is aligned to the Plan for the Future 20112026. The purpose of the Arts Working Group is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by: Providing advice to the Council on matters relating to the review, development and implementation of the Public Art Master Plan. Providing advice to the Council regarding the creation of a vibrant Town that is a place of social interaction, creativity and vitality. Assisting the Council to develop the Town of Victoria Park as a Living Canvas through the creation of opportunities for a diverse range of creative endeavours and expressions (including fine arts, music, visual arts, literary arts, performing art) and forms of creative expression. Assisting the Council in developing and implementing an Arts Annual Work Plan. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Funds have been allocated in the draft 2012/13 Budget for the annual purchase or art works, as well as contributing to the annual Victoria Park Art Awards. No funds have been set aside from the Community Arts Reserve in the 2012/13 Budget; however should the Arts Working Group recommend a public artwork/s be commissioned there is approximately $350,000 available in the Reserve. Total Asset Management: Whilst the establishment of the Arts Working Group Annual Work Plan will have no direct impact on the Towns total asset management processes in the immediate future, it is anticipated that the long term implementation of strategies, plans and outcomes from the Work Plan will impact on the Towns total asset management e.g. the development of a maintenance schedule for public artworks. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: The social benefits of art in the public realm include, but are not limited to: developing a sense of self worth stimulating social interaction encouraging healthier life styles reducing vandalism and cost nurturing grass roots cultures expanding learning and awareness healing the social fabric
13.5
143
13.5
12 June 2012
Cultural Issues: The Annual Work Plan will result in enhanced creativity and provide opportunities to showcase the cultural diversity of the Town. Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: At the 14 May 2012 meeting of the Arts Working Group the development of an Annual Work Plan was discussed. The Working Group determined that the following be included in the Annual Work Plan: Review and relaunch the Public Art Master Plan Development of a Maintenance Schedule for Public Art Development of a Community Arts Plan Development of a Public Art Map Annual Selection of Art Acquisitions Biennial Review of the Coffee Table Book Publication Showcasing the Towns Visual Art Acquisitions Contribute to the Delivery of the Annual Victoria Park Art Awards CONCLUSION: The Arts Working Group has supported the inclusion of projects in the Annual Work Plan that are consistent with the Towns Plan for the Future 2011-2026 and commitments to existing projects that had been commenced by the now disbanded Arts and Culture Advisory Committee. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Ashton
The Arts Working Groups Annual Work Plan comprise the: 1. Review and relaunch the Public Art Master Plan in line with the Towns Strategic Plan; 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Development of a Maintenance Schedule for Public Art; Development of a Community Arts Plan; Development of a Public Art Map; Annual Selection of Art Acquisitions; Biennial Review of the Coffee Table Book Publication Showcasing the Towns Visual Art Acquisitions; and Contribute to the Delivery of the Annual Victoria Park Art Awards. CARRIED: (7-0)
7.
13.5
144
13.5
12 June J 2012 2
13.6 Re ecommen ndation from the Healthy Life L Wor rking Group G Es stablishm ment of the Hea althy Life e Workin ng Grou up Annual Work k Pla an
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: CM MS0144 Nil
29 May 2012 2 Date: N. Annson Reporting g Officer: A T. Ackerman Responsible Office er: Sim mple Major rity Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation The Hea althy Life W Working Group G Ann nual Work k Plan be endorsed. e In ac ccordance with the Healthy H Life fe Working Groups Terms T of R Reference an Annual l Work Plan mus st be prese ented to Co ouncil for considerat c ion. The Healthy Life L Working Group has reco ommended d projects for inclusion in the e Annu ual Work Plan. P
TABLED ITEMS: Nil
BACKGR ROUND: At the Tow wns 13 December 2011 2 Ordin nary Counc cil Meeting g, Council resolved to t endorse e the Terms s of Refer rence of th he Healthy y Life Working Grou up (HLWG G) which in nclude the e requireme ent to deve elop an Ann nual Work Plan. DETAILS: At the 23 3 May 2012 meeting of the He ealthy Life Working Group the e developm ment of an n Annual W Work Plan was w discus ssed. In re eviewing th he Towns Plan for th he Future 2011-2026 2 6 (PFF) and d past proj jects of the e now disb banded Sp port and Recreation A Advisory Committee C e the Working Group determined d d that the f following projects p link ked directly y to the ob bjectives in n the PFF a and therefo ore should be include ed in the An nnual Work Plan: De evelop stron nger & coh hesive com mmunities by: b Promo ote Club De evelopmen nt initiatives; and Suppo ort and acti ively promo ote the Kid dSport prog gram. prove acce ess and lev vels of part ticipation by: b Imp Facilita ate the rec creational needs of minority m gro oups and implement t an action n plan to o develop new n activit ties; and Identif fy and fa acilitate o opportunitie es for sp porting clu ub partici ipation at t approp priate public events. Support the promotion p of sport a and recreat tional orga anisations a and physic cal activity y ograms run n in or serv vicing the T Town. pro Re ecognise an nd promote e the contr ributions of f elite athle etes and/r s sporting co ontributors s thro ough the biennial b Sp porting Wa alk of Fame e. Legal Compliance: : Nil
13.6
145
13.6 6
12 June 2012
Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The strategic focus for the Healthy Life Working Group is aligned to the Plan for the Future 2011-2026 (PFF). The purpose of the Healthy Life Working Group is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by: Support Council to connect people to services, resources, information, facilities and experiences that enhance their physical and social well-being. Provide advice to the Council on matters relating to the development and implementation of the Healthy Life Plan. Assist the Council to increase and improve opportunities for physical activity through the provision of programs and activities, including active transport initiatives. Assist the Council in developing and implementing a Healthy Life Annual Work Plan. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Whilst the establishment of the HLWG annual work plan will not require the allocation of Council budgetary funds in 2012/2013, it is anticipated that the long-term implementation of strategies, plans and outcomes from the Annual Work Plan will require consideration by Council for allocation in future budgets. Total Asset Management: Whilst the establishment of the HLWG Annual Work Plan will have no direct impact on the Towns total asset management processes, it is anticipated that the long term implementation of strategies, plans and outcomes from the Annual Work Plan may impact on the Towns total asset management processes. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: The social benefits of a healthy lifestyle are many and varied including, but not limited to promoting stronger and more cohesive communities, as well as better health outcomes and reducing antisocial behaviour as a result of improving levels of physical activity. Cultural Issues: Enhanced opportunities for different cultures to participate in physical activity results in a strong and cohesive community. Environmental Issues: Nil
13.6
146
13.6
12 June 2012
COMMENT: At the 23 May 2012 meeting of the Healthy Life Working Group the development of an Annual Work Plan was discussed. In reviewing the Towns Plan for the Future 2011-2026 (PFF) and past projects of the now disbanded Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee the Working Group determined that the following projects linked directly to the objectives in the PFF and therefore should be included in the Annual Work Plan: Develop stronger & cohesive communities by: Promote Club Development initiatives; and Support and actively promote the KidSport program. Improve access and levels of participation by: Facilitate the recreational needs of minority groups and implement an action plan to develop new activities; and Identify and facilitate opportunities for sporting club participation at appropriate public events. Support the promotion of sport and recreational organisations and physical activity programs run in or servicing the Town. Recognise and promote the contributions of elite athletes and/r sporting contributors through the biennial Sporting Walk of Fame. CONCLUSION: The Healthy Life Working Group has supported the inclusion of projects in the Annual Work Plan that are consistent with the Towns Plan for the Future 2011-2026 and commitments to existing projects that had been commenced by the now disbanded Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Bissett Seconded: Councillor Skinner
The Healthy Life Working Groups Annual Work Plan comprises: 1 Developing stronger and cohesive communities by: 1.1 Promoting Club Development initiatives. 1.2 Supporting and actively promote the KidSport program. Improving access and levels of participation by: 2.1 Facilitating the recreational needs of minority groups and implementing an action plan to develop new activities. 2.2 Identifying and facilitating opportunities for sporting club participation at appropriate public events. Supporting the promotion of sport and recreational organisations and physical activity programs run in or servicing the Town. Recognising and promoting contributions of elite athletes and/or sporting contributors through the biennial Sporting Walk of Fame. CARRIED: (7-0)
13.6
147
13.6
12 June J 2012 2
14
BU USINESS S LIFE PR ROGRAM M REPOR RTS
14.1 Mu ultiple Do og Application 44 Carnarvon St treet

22 May 2012 2 Date: A. Lantzke Reporting g Officer: N. Cain Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation The app plication fo or an exem mption to keep mor re than tw wo dogs at t 44 Carnarvon Stree et, East Victoria Par rk be appr roved sub bject to co onditions. September 2010 the same ap plicant wa as granted an exem mption to keep k three e In S dogs s. In a accordance e with the e previous s exemptio on a new applicatio on has be een made e beca ause one of o the previ ious dogs has died and a the app plicant wou uld like to replace r it. No o objections to this app plication ha ave been re eceived fro om neighbo ours. The Town has received no n previou s complain nts about dogs d at this s property.
TABLED ITEMS: Nil
ROUND: BACKGR An application to ke eep more than the p prescribed number of o dogs wa as received d from Ms s Susan Lake of 44 Carnarvon C Street, S Eas st Victoria Park. Ms Lake was previously gran nted an ex xemption to t keep three dogs in Septem mber 2010. . These do ogs were two Chihu uahuas an nd a Pom meranian. The Town n has no history of f offences o or complaints relating g to Ms La ke or her dogs. d One of M Ms Lakes dogs, d whic ch was sub bject to this exempti ion, has re ecently die ed and Ms s Lake wou uld like to replace r him m with ano other Pome eranian. In accordan ce with the e previous s exemption n for Ms La ake to get a replacem ment dog she s must reapply r for r an exemp ption, from m Council. The Town n has just over 2,00 00 existing dog regis strations and current tly has 11 approved d exemption ns to keep more than n 2 dogs. e eight exem mptions hav ve been ap pproved in n the last 5 years and d none of th he exempt tions appro oved have been revoked.
DETAILS: In investig gating this application n, the Tow wn Rangers s inspected d the prope erty at 44 Carnarvon C n Street, iss sued consu ultation lett ters to neig ghbours an nd conduct ted a deskt ktop audit.
14.1
148
14.1
12 June 2012
The investigation found that the property at 44 Carnarvon Street was well maintained and of a suitable size to keep three dogs. No objections to this application from neighbours were received and no history of offences or complaints are recorded with the Town.
Legal Compliance: The following clauses outline the legal framework pertaining to this report. In summary the Town limits the number of dogs that can be kept to two unless an exemption is granted. If an application for an exemption is refused, or if the applicant disagrees with any conditions imposed under an exemption the applicant can ask for the decision to be reviewed by the State Administrative Tribunal. Dog Act 1976 states inter alia: Part V The keeping of dogs 26. Limitation as to numbers (1) The provisions of this Part shall not operate to prevent the keeping on any premises of 2 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age. (2) Subject to subsection (1), a local government, pursuant to local laws, may limit the number of dogs over the age of 3 months, or the number of such dogs of any specified breed or kind, that may be kept on any premises situate in a specified area to which those local laws apply unless those premises are licensed as an approved kennel establishment or are exempt. (3) Where by a local law under this Act a local government has placed a limit on the keeping of dogs in any specified area but the local government is satisfied in relation to any particular premises that the provisions of this Act relating to approved kennel establishments need not be applied in the circumstances, the local government may grant an exemption in respect of those premises but any such exemption (a) may be made subject to conditions, including a condition that it applies only to the dogs specified therein; (b) shall not operate to authorise the keeping of more than 6 dogs on those premises; and (c) may be revoked or varied at any time. (4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3), a person who keeps on any premises, not being premises licensed as an approved kennel establishment, dogs over the age of 3 months in numbers exceeding any limit imposed in relation to those dogs by a local law made under subsection (2) commits an offence. Penalty: $1 000 and a daily penalty of $100. (5) Any person who is aggrieved (a) by the conditions imposed in relation to any exemption from the provisions of a local law placing a limitation on the number of dogs that may be kept on any premises; or (b) by the refusal of a local government to grant such an exemption, or by the revocation of an exemption, may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision.
14.1
149
14.1
12 June 2012
(6) An application under subsection (5) cannot be made later than the expiry of a period of 28 days after the day on which a notice of the decision is served on the person affected by that decision. Dog Local Law 2000 states inter alia: 3.2 Limitation on the number of dogs (1) This clause does not apply to premises which have been (a) licensed under Part 4 as an approved kennel establishment; or (b) granted an exemption under section 26(3) of the Act. (2) The limit on the number of dogs which may be kept on any premises is, for the purpose of section 26(4) of the Act, 2 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age. Policy Implications: This recommendation is consistent with the Towns Plan for the Future. Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil
COMMENT: The Dog Act 1976 and the Towns Dog Local Law 2000 clearly limit the number of dogs that can be kept on any property to two unless an exemption is granted. The requirement of getting an exemption ensures that any negative impact or undesirable outcomes that may come about as a result of keeping multiple dogs is able to be avoided.
14.1
150
14.1
12 June 2012
Ms Lakes previous history of keeping dogs, and in particular of keeping three dogs, demonstrates a capacity to do so without impacting on other members of the community. The same conditions that the Town applies to all applications of this type were part of the previous exemption and should be included in this exemption also. CONCLUSION: Ms Lake is a suitable candidate for an exemption to keep three dogs. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Nairn
That Council, Pursuant to the Dog Act 1976 and the Town of Victoria Parks Dog Local Law 2000, approves the application for an exemption to the limitation to keep more than two dogs on the property at 44 Carnarvon Street be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Only dogs which are the subject of this exemption are to be kept at this property; 2. All dogs are to be registered in accordance with the Dog Act 1976 and all registrations shall be renewed and maintained as required; 3. Fences are to be maintained in order to effectively confine the dogs within the property; 4. The yard area of the property where the dogs are kept is to be maintained in a clean and tidy condition; 5. Dog faeces are to be disposed of in the weekly refuse service or by other approved means; 6. Dogs kept at the property are not permitted to bark or behave otherwise in a way so as to create a nuisance; 7. If the property is developed so as to reduce the area used to keep the dogs, the exemption provided by Council will no longer be valid. The applicant may seek a further exemption based on the modified condition of the property; 8. The exemption relates to the individual dogs subject to this application only. Those dogs being: Animal number 21866, named Saffie, a female Pomeranian, Animal number 20932, named Tilly, a female Chihuahua, and A currently unregistered female Pomeranian named Pips. These dogs cannot be replaced without first seeking a further exemption from Council; 9. On receipt of a justifiable complaint, Council may revoke or vary the exemption at any time. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
14.1
151
14.1
12 June J 2012 2
14.2 Fin nancial Stateme ents and d Budget Varia ations F For The Period d Be etween 1April and d 30 Apr ril 2012
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: FIN N0015 Yes
22 March 201 12 Date: G. Pattrick Reporting g Officer: N. Cain Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation That th he Financ cial Statem ments for the perio od ending g 30 April l 2012 be r received. This report pro ovides an analysis of f the financial statem ments for t the period ending 30 0 April l 2012 iden ntifying neg gative ope erating variances over $10,000 and negat tive capital l varia ances over r $1,000.
TABLED ITEMS: Nil
BACKGR ROUND: The Town n is require ed by the Local L Gove ernment (F Financial Managemen M nt) Regulations 1996 6 to prepare e, and present to Co ouncil mon nthly financ cial statements of a p prescribed kind. The e following report contains these e monthly financial statements s , and also provides comments s on signific cant operat ting and ca apital expe enditure va ariances.
DETAILS: A detailed d review of the mo onthly fina ancial state ements ha as been u undertaken n and the e significant t variances s are detailed below. ce of the Chief C Exec cutive The Offic a Year to o Date Res sults 2011-2012 Budget and Budg get Annu ual Operating g Income Operating g Expenditu ure Capital Ex xpenditure 0 1,950,982 Nil Budget YTD Y 0 1,782 2,369 Nil Act tual YTD (15,637) 1,307,637 1 Nil $Varianc ce YTD 15, ,637 429, ,365 Nil
e no variances to repo ort on this month for the Office of the Chi ef Executiv ve. There are
14.2
152
14.2 2
12 June 2012
Business Life 2011-2012 Budget and Year to Date Results Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 29,174,039 28,752.249 28,172,744 579,505 2,802,200 2,401,647 2890,096 488,449 Nil Nil Nil Nil
Operating Income Operating Expenditure Capital Expenditure Variance Type
Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 1,679,900 1,000,592 783,037 217,555 406000: General Purpose Funding The timing of grant funding needs to be reviewed so it better matches when it is receipted. Variance Type Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 46,000 39,970 28,577 11,393 411000: Animal Control Variance has occurred due to a once off write off of aged debts Variance Type Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 31,877 26,560 9,280 17,280 Ranger
412000: Services Variance is due to a lower that predicted number of identified offences and a once off write off of aged debts Variance Type Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 1,679,900 1,000,592 783,037 217,555 406000: General Purpose Funding The timing of grant funding needs to be reviewed so it better match when it is receipted. Variance Type Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 679,972 566,962 294,016 272,946 474500: Parking Due to delays in implementing hotspots parking changes expected revenue has not been met. A withdrawal has been made of bulk aging infringements totalling $97,375. Variance Type Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 120,000 60,000 0 60,000 490600: Business Development This is grant funding that has not yet been received. It is expected to be received prior to the end of the financial year.
14.2
153
14.2
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD
12 June 2012 $Variance YTD 48,705 45,771
0 2,934 591000: Information Technology Accumulated Depreciation is a non-cash transaction and does not influence the year-end position Community Life 2011-2012 Budget and Year to Date Results Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD Operating Income 5,487,842 3,765,637 3,648,295 117,342 Operating Expenditure 11,468,356 7,752,452 6,406,702 1,345,750 Capital Expenditure Nil Nil Nil Nil Variance Type Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD Annual 763,785 700,366 653,063 433300: Recreational Swimming This account is offset by a positive variance to single entry attendance. Variance Type Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD Annual 1,503,160 1,210,700 943,030 433600: Memberships Variance due to over estimation of proposed revenue $Variance YTD 47,303
$Variance YTD 267,670
Variance Type
Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 264,586 223,988 212,209 11,779 437100: Sporting Life Variation has occurred due to a mistiming of CPI increases in comparison to the budget estimates. Variance Type Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 907,705 744,500 717,298 27,202 439000: Bingo Op Rev Variance due to a power outage, variance is also offset, in part, by a positive variance in expenditure. Variance Type Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 197,656 168,524 207,669 39,145 Aqualife
535500: Caf Variance comprises of standing order with caf suppliers and over estimation of staff requirements during the summer months. A review of casual staff expenditure has been undertaken and rostered hours have been adjusted to ensure minimum spending for the remaining few months.
14.2
154
14.2
12 June 2012
Variance Type
Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 73,536 61,280 0 61,280 457500 : Edward Millen Reserve Variance due to Lottery West Grant not yet received. Variance Type Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 75,000 62,510 7,112 55,398 464500: Events Op Rev Variance due to a shortfall of estimated revenue of events, variance will be partially of set by Lotterywest in May 2012 Variance Type Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 102,000 85,000 106,010 21,010 664506: Music by Moonlight Variance is a timing issue. This project is now complete. Built Life/Future Life 2011-2012 Budget and Year to Date Results Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 868,550 579,032 470,156 108,876 3,250,984 2,239,248 1,538,389 700,859 Nil Nil Nil Nil
Operating Income Operating Expenditure Capital Expenditure Variance Type
Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 462,050 3385,040 287,691 97,349 428000: Urban Planning Op Rev Revenue from planning applications is less than anticipated, which is a direct reflection of the conditions in the property development market Variance Type Budget Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance Annual YTD 406,500 723,790 589,988 133.802 47800: Building Op Rev Revenue from building applications is less than anticipated, which is a direct reflection of the conditions in the property development market
14.2
155
14.2
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Renew Life 2011-2012 Budget and Year to Date Results Budget Annual Operating Income Operating Expenditure Capital Expenditure Variance Type 5,623,621 23,146,589 Nil Budget Annual Budget YTD 1,242,325 13,149,276 Nil Budget YTD Actual YTD
12 June 2012
$Variance YTD 677,036 565,289 11,568,774 1,580,502 Nil Nil $Variance YTD 25,943 15,057
Actual YTD
46,000 41,000 442500: Brownes Stadium Variance due to timing issues, revenue is expected to equalise before the end of the financial year Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD 342,028 834,849
4,839,609 1,1176,877 479000: Underground Power Not all 7 cells will be processed this financial year and therefore a corresponding change in timing of receipts will occur. Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD 13,636 13,636 807 12,829 487500: Parks Plant Variance due to plant disposal funds not yet receipted Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD 57,710 14,042
51,167 43,668 547500: Macmillan Park Variance due to over expenditure on building cleaning and grounds maintenance. Funds to be reallocated from Operating Master Account 555000.670 Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD 38,895 32,660 51,457 18,797 552000: Patterson Park Variance due to the requirement of additional maintenance resources on bollard installation and irrigation upgrade Funding to be reallocated from other areas
14.2
156
14.2
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD
12 June 2012
$Variance YTD 556500: Higgins Park 122,179 103,106 129,539 26,433 Variance is due to additional maintenance works. Funding to be reallocated from other areas Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD 740,293 620,932 725,759 104,827 566500: Footpaths Variance is due to costs related to tree root damage. Funding to be reallocated from other areas 23,536 19,912 186,894 166,982 580000: Private Works City of South Perth has decided to continue with the street sweeping services provided by the Town. Revenue to Private Works Operating Revenue will therefore increase by $60,000.
Variance Type
Budget Annual
Budget YTD
Actual YTD
65,000 32,500 671001: Contaminated Site Investigate Variance is due to timing. This project is complete.
$Variance YTD 59,000 26,500
Legal Compliance: This report satisfies the requirements of Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, pursuant to section 6.4 of Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Amendment Regulations 2005. Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil
14.2
157
14.2
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil
12 June 2012
COMMENT: It is recommended that the financial statements for the month ended 30 April 2012 be received.
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Potter
That Council, pursuant to Regulation 34 of The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1966 (as amended), accepts the Statement of Financial Activity for the period ended 30 April 2012. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
14.2
158
14.2
J 2012 2 12 June
14.3 Sc chedule of o Accou unts for t the Perio od 1 April 2012 to o 30 Apri il 2012
File Refer rence: Appendic ces: FIN N0015 Yes
8 May M 2012 Date: G. Pattrick Reporting g Officer: N. Cain Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation That Council, pursuan nt to Regulation 13 of the Local l ment (Finan ncial Mana agement) Regulatio ons 1996 (as amend ded), confi irm; Governm The List of Acc counts Paid d for the pe eriod 1 Ap pril 2012 to 30 April 20 012. ct lodgeme ent of payr roll paymen nts to the personal p bank accou unts of emp ployees; Direc Depo osits and withdrawa al, of inves stments to and from accounts in the na ame of the e Loca al Governm ment. This report pro ovides an overview o o of payments made by y the Town n during the e month of f April l 2012.
TABLED ITEMS: Nil
BACKGR ROUND: Council has delegat ted to the Chief Exec cutive Offic cer the aut thority to m make paym ments from m the muni icipal and trust fun nds in ac ccordance with Regulation 1 12(1) of the Local l ent (Financ cial Manag gement) Re egulations 1996. Governme egulation 13(1) 1 of th he Local G Governmen nt (Financ cial Manag gement) Regulations R s Under Re 1996, whe ere a local governme ent has de elegated to the Chief Executive e Officer the exercise e of its pow wer to mak ke paymen nts from th he municip pal fund or the trust f fund, each h payment t from the m municipal fund f or the e trust fund d is to be noted on a list comp piled for ea ach month h showing: a) The pa ayees nam me; The am mount of th he paymen nt b) c) The da ate of the payment; p a and d) Sufficient information to ide entify the transaction should then be prese ented at th he next Ordinary Me eeting of th he Council following g That list s the prepa aration of the list, and a record ded in the minutes of the me eeting at which w it is s presented d.
DETAILS: The list o of accounts s paid by the CEO in accorda ance with Regulation n 13(1) of f the Local l Governme ent (Financ cial Manag gement) Re egulations 1996 be confirmed. c
14.3
159
14.3 3
12 June 2012
FUND Municipal Account Recoup Advance Account Automatic Cheques Drawn Creditors Payroll Bank Fees Corporate Mastercard
CHEQUE NUMBERS / PAY PERIODS
AMOUNTS $ 18.12 502,716.28 2,223,045.69 772,984.60 6,406.12 6,576.51 3,511,747.32
602730 - 602865
Advance Account Bank Fees
18.12 18.12
Trust Account
Cheques Drawn 2757 2771 15,088.50 15,088.50
Legal Compliance: This report and the attached list are submitted in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil
14.3
160
14.3
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Environmental Issues: Nil
12 June 2012
COMMENT: It is recommended that the payments made for the month of April 2012 be confirmed.
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Skinner
That Council, pursuant to Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (as amended), confirm; 1. 2. The List of Accounts Paid for the period 1 April 2012 to 30 April 2012. Direct lodgement of payroll payments to the personal bank accounts of employees; Deposits and withdrawal, of investments to and from accounts in the name of the Local Government.
3.
CARRIED: (7-0)
14.3
161
14.3
12 June J 2012 2
14.4 Fe ees and Charges C Effecti ive from 1 July 2012

File Refer rence: Appendic ces: AD DM0058 Yes
30 May 2012 2 Date: N Cain C Reporting g Officer: N Cain C Responsible Office er: Absolute Maj ority Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation That Co ouncil, pur rsuant to Section S 6.16 of the Local Go overnment t Act 1995 (as amen nded), ame end the c current Fee es and Ch harges an nd impose e the Fees s rges, as at ttached in n the appe ndices, ef ffective fro om 1 July 2012. and Char Councillors rec cently indicated a d esire to have the pr roposed 2 2012-2013 Fees and d Charges to hav ve effect fr rom 1 July 2012. As th he 2012-20 013 Annua al Budget w will not be adopted until u 31 Jully 2012, a subsidiary y item (this item) ) is require ed to exped dite this req quest.
TABLED ITEMS: Nil
ROUND: BACKGR Councillor rs, at a recent r Council Wor rkshop, ac cknowledge ed a Sch edule of Fees and d Charges (as prepar red by Off ficers) prop posed to be b in effec ct for the 2 2012-2013 3 Financial l Year. At t the same e worksho op Councilllors also acknowled dged that the adopt tion of the e 2012-2013 Annual Budget B wo ould not occ cur until th he end of July J 2012. The adop ption of the e Annual Budget is normally n th he mechan nism by wh hich Council sets an nd adopts Fees and d onth would d therefore occur whe ere the ne ew Schedule of Fees s Charges. A period of one mo rges would d not be in effect. This Item m allows for the tim mely adoption of the e and Char proposed Fees and d Charges for the 20 012-2013 Financial F Year Y and w will, in effe ect, amend d and repla ace the cur rrent Fees and Char rges with the t propos sed Fees a and Charg ges for the e 2012-2013 Financia al Year.
DETAILS: A detailed d analysis s has been n conducte ed on the e Fees and d Charges s levied by y Council. . Officers, in reviewing the appli icable Fee es and Cha arges, have e taken into o consider ration a) The e cost to provide p the service or r good; b) The e importan nce of the service s or g goods to th he community; and c) The e price at t which th he service e or goods s could be provided d by an alternative e pro ovider. The propo osed Schedule of Fees and Ch harges are included in n the appe endices.
14.4
162
14.4 4
12 June 2012
Legal Compliance: Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) (Imposition of Fees and Charges) states (1) A local government may impose* and recover a fee or charge for any goods or service it provides or proposes to provide, other than a service for which a service charge is imposed. * Absolute majority required. (2) A fee or charge may be imposed for the following (a) providing the use of, or allowing admission to, any property or facility wholly or partly owned, controlled, managed or maintained by the local government; (b) supplying a service or carrying out work at the request of a person; (c) subject to section 5.94, providing information from local government records; (d) receiving an application for approval, granting an approval, making an inspection and issuing a licence, permit, authorisation or certificate; (e) supplying goods; (f) such other service as may be prescribed. (3) Fees and charges are to be imposed when adopting the annual budget but may be (a) imposed* during a financial year; and (b) amended* from time to time during a financial year. * Absolute majority required.
Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The Town of Victoria Park - Strategic Plan 2004-2013 has, as a strategy under the Good Governance Key Result Area, the need to provide and manage organisational resources and assets. This Item is seen to support this strategy by implementing Fees and Charges designed to ensure sound financial management over Councils resources. Financial Implications: Fees and Charges encompass approximately 19% of the Operating Funds required to operate Council activities. Due to the fact that the Fees and Charges are, in effect, being set outside the normal process (of adoption via the Annual Budget (which will also need to occur), a period of local public notice is required. This will have a minor cost and two week timeframe associated with it. At the end of that period the amended / new Fees and Charges will apply.
14.4
163
14.4
12 June 2012
Sustainability Assessment: The Fees and Charges have been amended so as to consider the cost impact of providing those goods and services. This extends across the economic, social, cultural and environment assessment areas.
COMMENT AND CONCLUSION Councillors request for a timely adoption of Fees and Charges can be met through the application of Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended). The Schedule of Fees and Charges (as proposed) have taken into consideration all requirements as set forth by legislation, are considered fair and reasonable, and will assist in the continued delivery and operation of Council services and activities.
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Ashton
That Council, pursuant to Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended), amend the current Fees and Charges and impose the Fees and Charges, as attached in the appendices, effective from 1 July 2012. The Motion was Put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: (7-0)
14.4
164
14.4
12 June J 2012 2
14.5 Bu usiness Life L Working Gro oup - Mem mbership

29 May 2012 2 Date: K. Bel-Bachir r Reporting g Officer: N. Cain Responsible Office er: mple Major rity Sim Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation: That Cou uncil appo oints Ms Danielle D No orrish and d Ms Pat Lupton L as s communi ity representatives on the Bu usiness Li ife Workin ng Group f for the pe eriod of 13 3 June 2012 until the e 19 Octob ber 2013. ip of the B The e current membersh m Business Li ife Working g Group is s not fully subscribed s d as there are currently c 4 positions vacant. The e recomme ended app plicants willl offer a we ealth of business skillls and exp perience to o the e Working Group. G
TABLED ITEMS Nil
BACKGR ROUND: The Coun ncil at its 13 Decemb ber Ordina ry Council Meeting have h estab blished the e Business s Life Work king Group p to include e 5 comm munity repre esentatives. To dat te, only on ne position n has been filled. Ms Danie elle Norrish h and Ms Pat Lupto on attende ed the 13 March Bu siness Life e Working g Group Me eeting by invitation and have e both sinc ce express sed an int terest in joining the e Working G Group.
DETAILS: In order f for the Bus siness Life e Working Group to represent the intere ests and co oncerns of f the reside ents of the Town of Victoria V Par rk there mu ust be an appropriate a e level of community c y representation on the Workin ng Group. The Term ms of Refe erence that t were endorsed by y Council al llow the ap ppointment t of five (5) ) community member rs as repre esentatives s. With the a appointme ent of Ms Norrish N an nd Ms Lupt ton to the Business Life Work king Group p will include three (3) ) community represe ntatives, tw wo position ns currently y remain vacant. v Legal Compliance: : Nil Policy Im mplications s: Nil
14.5
165
14.5 5
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil
12 June 2012
Social Issues: Representation from the community will increase the diversity of representation on the Business Life Working Group. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil
COMMENT: Ms Danielle Norrish is a local resident currently employed by the Communications Council of Australia. Her background and experience in Marketing and Communications as well as her passion for the community will be an asset to the Business Life Working Group. Ms Pat Lupton is co-owner of Booksabilia, a local business located in Carlisle. Ms Lupton has an in depth knowledge of the local area as well excellent business skills, her insights as a small business owner will be invaluable to the Business Life Working Group.
CONCLUSION: Both Ms Danielle Norrish and Ms Pat Lupton will be welcome additions to the Business Life Working Group as community representatives due to their professional skills and business experience.
WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION/S: Moved: Councillor Ashton Seconded: Councillor Potter
That Council appoints Ms Danielle Norrish and Ms Pat Lupton as community representatives on the Business Life Working Group for the period of 13 June 2012 until the 19 October 2013.
14.5
166
14.5
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Ashton Seconded:
12 June 2012
Councillor Potter
To delete Ms Pat Lupton as a representative on the Business Life Working Group. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
Reason: she no longer can be a Community Representative.
ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: That Council appoints Ms Danielle Norrish as a community representative on the Business Life Working Group for the period of 13 June 2012 until the 19 October 2013. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
14.5
167
14.5
12 June J 2012 2
15
AP PPLICATIONS FO OR LEAV VE OF AB BSENCE
15.1 Co ouncillor r J (John n) Bisset tt Banksi ia Ward, 23 July y 2012 to o 27 July y 2012, inclu usive
Moved: Councillor Nairn Seconded: Co ouncillor Skinner S
That Cr J (John) Bissett B be granted leave of absence a from 23 Ju uly 2012 to t 27 July y 2012 inclusive. on was Pu ut and The Motio CARR RIED: (7-0) )
15.2 Mindarie Regiona al Counc cil Appointm A ment of Deputy during g Co ouncillor r Bissetts Leave of Absence
The Coun ncil at its Special Meeting h held on 17 October 2011 w when considering its s representative on th he Mindarie e Regionall Council (M MRC) reso olved as folllows:
Ap ppoints Cr Bissett to represent t the Town on the Min ndarie Regiional Coun ncil until 19 9 Oct tober 2013 and Cr Hayes as the Deputy Me ember until 19 October r 2013, noti ing that the e app pointment of o the Deput ty needs to be by Council resoluti ion for the s specific per riod that the e app pointed (prim mary) mem mber is not a available;
Cr Bissett t has applied for app proved Lea ave of Abs sence for the t period 23 July 2012 to the e 27 July 2 2012 inclus sive. Ther re are no scheduled d meetings s of the M MRC during g this time e period, however, in case a Special Meeting is i called the Coun cil should d consider r appointing g Cr Haye es as the Deputy M ember for r the term that Cr B Bissett is on o leave if f approved by the Council.
ED: RESOLVE Moved: Councillor Bissett t Seconded: Co ouncillor Skinner S
The Cou uncil appo oints Cr Hayes as s it Depu uty Repre esentative e on the Mindarie e Regional Council from f 23 July 2012 t to the 27 July J 2012 during C r Bissetts s leave of f absence subject to o it being approved a by the Co ouncil at It tem 15.1 a above. The Motio on was Pu ut and CARR RIED: (7-0) )
168
12 June J 2012 2
16
MO OTION OF O WHICH H PREVI OUS NO OTICE HA AS BEEN N GIVEN
16.1 Cr r Hayes will w be Moving a Notice of o Motion

That the e matter of o Burswo ood Entert tainment Complex car park be raised from the e table so t that it can n be recon nsidered a at the Elec cted Memb bers Briefi ing Sessio on 5 June e 2012, and d at the su ubsequent t Ordinary y Meeting of Counci il 12 June 2012. RESOLVE ED: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Co ouncillor Skinner S
That item m 16.2 be lifted from m the table e in acco ordance with w Sectio on 12.7 (3) of the Town of V Victoria Park Local Law relat ting to Sta anding Ord ders. on was Pu ut and The Motio RIED: (7-0) ) CARR
16.2 No otice of Motion- Recon sideratio on of Burswood d Entert tainment t Co omplex Car Par rk and Request t to Clo ose Gle nn Plac ce Road d Re eserve
TES0273 File Refer rence: No. Appendic ces: 24 May 2012 2 Date: T. McCarthy M / R Cruicks shank Reporting g Officer: V / R Lavery A. Vuleta Responsible Office er: Sim mple Major rity Voting Re equiremen nt: Executive e Summar ry: Recommendation That the t propo osal to close c Glenn Place e road re eserve be e ed in acco ordance with w the requireme ents of th he Land A Administr ration Act t advertise 1997. tion 58 of f the Land d Adminis tration Ac ct 1997 requires tha at any roa ad closure e Sect prop posal be ad dvertised and a 35 day ys allowed for submissions to b be made to o the local l gove ernment. Council to con nsider, at a future O Ordinary Meeting, M an ny submiss sions relat ting to the e posed road d closure made m during g the 35 da ay submiss sion period d. prop Adm ministration has conce erns that th he construction of the e multi-leve el car park k has been n appr roved by Cabinet C pr rior to fina alisation of the Mas sterplan/Str ructure Pla an for the e Burs swood Pen ninsula Pre ecinct. TABLED ITEMS: 11 from Bu urswood En ntertainment Comple ex. Letter dated 6 October 201 Letter dated 30 April A 2012 from the H Hon Ministe er for Racing and Ga aming. ng A1.04A A of reques sted road c closure are ea provide ed by Burs swood Ente ertainment t Drawin Compl lex. 169
12 June 2012
BACKGROUND: At the Ordinary Meeting held 8 November 2011, Council resolved that the motion relating to a request for closure of Glenn Place road reserve lay on the Table, with the stated reason for leaving the motion on the Table being that Council was awaiting the results of discussion between the Burswood Entertainment Complex (BEC) and the State Government. Written advice, dated 30 April 2012, has been received from the Hon Minister for Racing and Gaming that State Cabinet has approved: the excision of 12,472m of land from the Burswood Park Reserve 39361 and for that land to be granted to Burswood Nominees Ltd; a multi- level car park to be constructed in such land; and new roads to be created and existing roads realigned (including related infrastructure). The Hon Minister for Racing and Gaming has indicated that he has advised the Town of Cabinets approval of the proposal in order that the Town can progress with the various applications (such as road closures, building licences etc) necessary to commence the project. BEC submitted to the Town, on 7 September 2011, a building licence application to commence forward works for a proposed multi-storey car park to be located on the southern side of the complex, straddling the Glenn Place road reserve. The proposed multi-storey car park is to be located partially within the area defined as the Resort Lands in the Casino (Burswood Island) Agreement Act 1985. Developments within the Resort Lands do not require normal Planning Approval, as they are exempt under the aforementioned Act. The road reserve known as Glenn Place is not within the area defined as Resort Lands, and as the proposed structure is to be located over the Glenn Place road reserve which is reserved Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, Planning Approval will be required from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). BEC was advised by the Town that as the proposed multi-storey car park is located over the road reserve, a formal application to Council to consider closure of the road reserve is required to enable Council to determine whether it is appropriate to request the Minister for Lands to close the road. BEC lodged, by letter dated 6 October 2011, a formal request for Council to consider closure of the Glenn Place road reserve. That request was presented to Council at its Ordinary Meeting held 8 November 2011, and the matter was left to lay on the Table.
DETAILS: The proposed multi-storey car park is to be located partially on Crown land under the management of the Burswood Park Board (part of Kagoshima Park) and partially on Glenn Place road reserve. The structure is proposed to accommodate 1004 car bays. The height of the structure has not been specified, but drawings supplied appear to indicate that it will be 3 storeys high and additionally have a basement level. Artistic impressions previously provided by representatives of BEC to Council Officers indicate that the faade of the car park will incorporate design treatments and articulation to provide some visual interest,
16.2
170
16.2
12 June 2012
however the faade will not be activated. Associated modifications will also be made to the existing at grade car park adjacent to Glenn Place. BEC proposes to purchase land from the Crown, close Glenn Place and create a new road reserve on the southern side of the proposed car park to replace the Glenn Place road reserve. The Town was not involved in any of the negotiation between BEC and the Minister for Sport and Recreation; Racing and Gaming in respect to the proposal. Legal Compliance: Council can, if it chooses to do so, request the Minister for Lands to close a road reserve under Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. Section 58 of the Act states: 58. Closure of roads (1) When a local government wishes a road in its district to be closed permanently, the local government may, subject to subsection (3), request the Minister to close the road. (2) When a local government resolves to make a request under subsection (1), the local government must in accordance with the regulations prepare and deliver the request to the Minister. (3) A local government must not resolve to make a request under subsection (1) until a period of 35 days has elapsed from the publication in a newspaper circulating in its district of notice of motion for that resolution, and the local government has considered any objections made to it within that period concerning the proposals set out in that notice. (4) On receiving a request delivered to him or her under subsection (2), the Minister may, if he or she is satisfied that the relevant local government has complied with the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) (a) by order grant the request; (b) direct the relevant local government to reconsider the request, having regard to such matters as he or she thinks fit to mention in that direction; or (c) refuse the request. (5) If the Minister grants a request under subsection (4) (a) the road concerned is closed on and from the day on which the relevant order is registered; and (b) any rights suspended under section 55(3)(a) cease to be so suspended.
Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The proposal to relocate the road and construct the car park at the location proposed is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework which contained the following relevant statement -
16.2
171
16.2
12 June 2012
A new local road link on the southern side of Burswood Entertainment Complex extending from the Swan River in the west to the Burswood station east area via a proposed subway, provides the opportunity to replace the existing casino back of house activities with an active public frontage to Great Eastern Highway. The new buildings adjacent to the casino would be multi storey carparks sleeved with commercial frontage. It should be noted that the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework was advertised and supported by the WAPC, and although not having been approved by Cabinet owing to the intervening announcement of a new sports stadium at Burswood, is a seriously entertained planning proposal in the absence of any other strategic document. Additionally, it is not yet known whether the proposal will be in accordance with the Burswood Station West Masterplan, which has not yet been prepared by the Department of Planning. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Closure of a road reserve and creation of a new road reserve will impact on the Towns ongoing operational responsibility for roads under the Towns care, control and management. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: The proposed car park structure would cause a reduction in parkland area available for general public use. The reduced area of available parkland is currently Crown land under the management of the Burswood Park Board.
COMMENT: BEC has applied for a building licence for approval to commence forward works for the proposed car park within the road reserve. It is not appropriate for such approval to be issued prior to Council consideration of a request for closure of the road reserve, and no approval has therefore been issued. In addition, as part of the works are contained on land for which the planning approval of the WAPC is required, it would be appropriate that a decision on the road closure request first be made, and if approved, then be followed by an application for planning approval.
16.2
172
16.2
12 June 2012
The process for closure of road reserves is detailed in Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. The Land Administration Act 1997 does not set out any alternate procedure whereby road reserves can be closed. It may be possible, however, that if Council does not agree to consider the proposed closure, the Minister for Lands could, as the controller of Crown land, close the subject road reserve without reference to Council. The Director Future Life and Built Life Programs has been in contact with the Department of Planning in regard to the proposed road closure and car park. The Department of Planning considers that the proposal to relocate Glenn Place road reserve and construct the proposed car park is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework and should not be supported until such time as the future direction for the area is determined through the Masterplan/Structure Plan process. This is in keeping with the view expressed by the Minister for Planning to the Town in respect to an application by EG Custodians for review of Councils refusal of a variation to the Burswood Lakes Structure Plan pertaining to Lots 9 and 9525 Victoria Park Drive, Burswood, which was also affected by the future Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula, where the Minister indicated that the development under review should not proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed. The following provisions contained in the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Precinct Plan P1 Burswood Peninsula Precinct which apply to the BEC are also of relevance Any further expansion of the Complex into existing parkland will not be supported. Use of parkland for Burswood Resort parking on a permanent basis will not be supported. Any additional parking or access to the Resort should be accommodated on-site and not encroach into existing parkland. As Cabinet has approved the proposal to build the multi-level car park and the Minister has advised the Town of that approval in order that the road closure may be progressed, it is recommended that Council agree to advertise the proposed road closure in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and consider any submissions received within the specified 35 days after advertisement of the proposal. It is also recommended that Council advise the Minister of its concerns in relation to the proposed multi-level car park, those concerns being: The proposal to construct a multi-storey car park at the nominated location is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework. It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed. It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the Burswood Station West Masterplan, which is being prepared by the Department of Planning, being completed. The proposal is inconsistent with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Precinct Plan P1 Burswood Peninsula Precinct which states Any further expansion of the Complex into existing parkland will not be supported and Use of parkland for Burswood Resort parking on a permanent basis will not be supported. Any additional parking or access to the Resort should be accommodated on-site and not encroach into existing parkland. Approval of the proposed multi-level car park prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed is contrary to the view expressed by the Minister for Planning to the Town in respect to an application by EG Custodians for review of
16.2
173
16.2
12 June 2012
Councils refusal of a variation to the Burswood Lakes Structure Plan pertaining to Lots 9 and 9525 Victoria Park Drive, Burswood, which was also affected by the future Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula, where the Minister indicated that the development under review should not proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed. BEC has not provided a traffic impact assessment for the design and operation of the proposed road layout. The proposed new alignment of Glenn Place appears to have been selected on no basis other than skirting around the new multi-level car park. Little consideration appears to have been given to the efficient movement of traffic in the proposed road layout, and there are several points of potential traffic conflict contained in the layout provided.
CONCLUSION: In acknowledgement of State Cabinets approval of the proposed multi-storey car park located partially over Glenn Place road reserve, the proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve be advertised in accordance with the requirements of Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Bissett
1. The proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve, as depicted on drawing A1.04A provided by Burswood Entertainment Centre, be advertised at the applicants cost, in accordance with the requirements of Section 58(3) of the Land Administration Act 1997 and a further report be presented to Council for consideration after the expiry of the period specified for the lodgement of objections. 2. The Hon Minister for Racing and Gaming and the Hon Minister for Planning be advised of Councils resolution in respect to the advertising of the proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve, and they also be advised of Councils concerns in relation to the proposed multi-level car park, those concerns being: 2.1 The proposal to construct a multi-storey car park at the nominated location is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework. 2.2 It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed. 2.3 It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the Burswood Station West Masterplan, which is being prepared by the Department of Planning, being completed.
16.2
174
16.2
12 June 2012
2.4 The proposal is inconsistent with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Precinct Plan P1 Burswood Peninsula Precinct which states Any further expansion of the Complex into existing parkland will not be supported and Use of parkland for Burswood Resort parking on a permanent basis will not be supported. Any additional parking or access to the Resort should be accommodated on-site and not encroach into existing parkland. 2.5 Approval of the proposed multi-level car park prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed is contrary to the view expressed by the Minister for Planning to the Town in respect to an application by EG Custodians for review of Councils refusal of a variation to the Burswood Lakes Structure Plan pertaining to Lots 9 and 9525 Victoria Park Drive, Burswood, which was also affected by the future Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula, where the Minister indicated that the development under review should not proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed. 2.6 Burswood Entertainment Complex has not provided a traffic impact assessment for the design and operation of the proposed road layout. The proposed new alignment of Glenn Place appears to have been selected on no basis other than skirting around the new multi-level car park. Little consideration appears to have been given to the efficient movement of traffic in the proposed road layout, and there are several points of potential traffic conflict contained in the layout provided.
AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Bissett Seconded: Councillor Skinner
That a recommendation No 3 be added to read that, the report be forwarded to the local Victoria Park Members of Parliament. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
Reason: for their information.
ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: 1. The proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve, as depicted on drawing A1.04A provided by Burswood Entertainment Centre, be advertised at the applicants cost, in accordance with the requirements of Section 58(3) of the Land Administration Act 1997 and a further report be presented to Council for consideration after the expiry of the period specified for the lodgement of objections.
16.2
175
16.2
12 June 2012
2. The Hon Minister for Racing and Gaming and the Hon Minister for Planning be advised of Councils resolution in respect to the advertising of the proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve, and they also be advised of Councils concerns in relation to the proposed multi-level car park, those concerns being: 2.1 The proposal to construct a multi-storey car park at the nominated location is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework. 2.2 It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed. 2.3 It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the Burswood Station West Masterplan, which is being prepared by the Department of Planning, being completed. 2.4 The proposal is inconsistent with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Precinct Plan P1 Burswood Peninsula Precinct which states Any further expansion of the Complex into existing parkland will not be supported and Use of parkland for Burswood Resort parking on a permanent basis will not be supported. Any additional parking or access to the Resort should be accommodated on-site and not encroach into existing parkland. 2.5 Approval of the proposed multi-level car park prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed is contrary to the view expressed by the Minister for Planning to the Town in respect to an application by EG Custodians for review of Councils refusal of a variation to the Burswood Lakes Structure Plan pertaining to Lots 9 and 9525 Victoria Park Drive, Burswood, which was also affected by the future Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula, where the Minister indicated that the development under review should not proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed. 2.6 Burswood Entertainment Complex has not provided a traffic impact assessment for the design and operation of the proposed road layout. The proposed new alignment of Glenn Place appears to have been selected on no basis other than skirting around the new multi-level car park. Little consideration appears to have been given to the efficient movement of traffic in the proposed road layout, and there are several points of potential traffic conflict contained in the layout provided. 3. The report be forwarded to the local Victoria Park Members of Parliament. The Amended Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0)
16.2
176
16.2
12 June 2012 2
16.2
177
16.2 2
17
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS WITHOUT NOTICE
Question 1 Cr Nairn asked if Renew Life Program Staff can deal with the asphalt quality issue on some recently maintained roads? Answer Mr Anthony Vuleta advised that nothing can be done at the moment untill the next financial years budget and that currently all roads are undergoing a condition audit.
Question 2 Cr Nairn asked that local member Mr Ben Wyatt MLA would like Albany Highway to be closed once a month, can Council advise as to the status of this request? Answer Ms Nicole Annson advised that no consultation has taken place with Community Life at this stage. Question 3 Cr Ashton asked who is going to fund and organise the event Mr Ben Wyatt MLA is proposing? Answer Mayor Vaughan advised that it will be on the decision from Council as to whether or not this should occur, and will need to clarify if there is enough funds in the budget.
18
Nil
NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE
19
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Mr David Crann, 443 Albany Highway, Victoria Park WA 6100 Has the 2015 ANZAC Day Ceremony Project Team actually been disbanded? Answer The Mayor advised that appropriate representation will be needed to attend the Cultural and History Working Group.
Mr Peter Lessiter, 40 Oats Street, East Victoria Park WA 6100 Mr Lessiter asked what is the definition now of Light Rail? Answer The Acting Chief Executive Officer Mr Anthony Vuleta advised that the current definition of Light Rail is light rail transit (LRT) is a form of urban rail public transportation that generally has a lower capacity and lower speed than heavy rail and metro systems, it can be from 20-30m long, smaller than a train but bigger than a tram, higher capacity and higher speed than traditional or older style tram systems. 178
12 June J 2012 2
20
PU UBLIC ST TATEMEN NT TIME
Mr Sonja Fels, 78 Planet P Stree et, Carlisle e WA 6100 Wanted t to acknow wledge and d commen nd Councillors on th heir time and effort t spent to o research a and listen to complai ints and th eir hard wo ork.
21
ME EETING CLOSED C D TO PUB BLIC
21.1 Ma atters for r Which the t Meet ting May y be Clos sed
Nil
21.2 Pu ublic Rea ading of Resoluti ons Tha at May be e Made P Public
Nil
22
CL LOSURE
her busines ss the May yor declare ed the mee eting closed d at 7.55pm. There being no furth b a true and accu urate recor rd of the proceedings of this s I confirm these Minutes to be Council. .. Mayor r Signed: Dated this s . Day of 2012 2
179

June 2012 OCM Minutes Asfw4er3qtr53t5w43t5-T45w 56w46yw46t4tw4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

June 2012 OCM Minutes Asfw4er3qtr53t5w43t5-T45w 56w46yw46t4tw4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

d that the O Ordinary Meeting M of Please be advised Council was held at a 6.

ANTHO ONY VULETA ACTING G CHIEF EXECUTIV E VE OFFICE ER 15 June e 2012

12 June J 2012 2 Propose ed 98 8

145 5 148 8 148 8

159 9 162 2 165 5 168 8

Ordinary M Meeting of f Council Minutes M 15 5.2

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER

Mayor: Banksia Ward:

Ordinary M Meeting of f Council Minutes M

Chief Exe ecutive Of fficer: Director C Community Life: Banksia W Ward:

Ap pproved Leave of f Absenc ce

DE ECLARAT TIONS OF O INTER REST

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME

RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Potter

Ordinary M Meeting of f Council Minutes M

PR RESENTA ATIONS Pe etitions

RESOLVE ED: Moved: Councillor Ashton n Seconded: Co ouncillor Potter P

Pre esentatio ons (Awa ards to b be given to the Town)

De eputation ns (Plann ning / Ex xternal Organisations)

ME ETHOD OF O DEAL LING WIT TH AGEN NDA BUS SINESS

Ordinary M Meeting of f Council Minutes M

CH HIEF EXE ECUTIVE E OFFICE ER REPO ORTS

TABLED ITEMS: Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Hayes

Ordinary M Meeting of f Council Minutes M

FU UTURE LIFE AND D BUILT L LIFE PRO OGRAM REPORT TS

11.1 78 (Lot 304 4) Planet t Street, C Carlisle Single House

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

0.5m projection 31.9% of frontage

Clause 6.3.1 of R Codes

Access and Parking Building Height

Clause 6.4.1 of R Codes Clause 6.5.1 of R Codes Clause 6.7.1 of R Codes

Clause 3.2.11 of LPPS

Demolition of existing dwelling

Clause 3.2.9 of LPPS

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: 1.

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

NEW MOTION: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Nairn

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 1.5

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 1.13

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Nairn

Reason: Energy efficient design.

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes NEW MOTION AS AMENDED:

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 1.8

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 1.28

The Motion was Put and

Ordinary M Meeting of f Council Minutes

Ordinary M Meeting of f Council Minutes M

11.2 53 (Lot 1) Gallipoli G Street, L Lathlain Single House

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

Clause 6.3.1 of R-Codes

1.0 & 1.5 metres

1.0 & 1.5 metres