attachment 2 - city of belmont › councillorportal › councillorminuteandmee… · these include...

City of Belmont

Attachment 2

Item 6 refers

Ordinary Council Attachments for Meeting to be Held

11 March 2008

City of Belmont

Attachments

Ordinary Council Meeting

Held 11 March 2008

A1

OCM 11/03/08 Attachments

Council Attachment 1

Item 6.2 refers

Information Matrix for the Agenda Briefing Forum

Held 4 March 2008

NOTE: - Attachment unavailable at time of printing and will be distributed in the week prior to the

OCM Meeting

A2


Ordinary Council 11/03/08

Item 12.1.4 refers

Built Belmont Attachment 2

The existing Fulham Street Access Plan (Belmont Avenue to

Robinson Avenue)

A3

Exis

ting

Fulh

am S

tree

t (B

elm

ont A

venu

e to

Rob

inso

n A

venu

e) V

AP

A4



Item 12.1.4 refers

Built Belmont Attachment 3

The proposed Fulham Street Access Plan (Belmont Avenue to

Robinson Avenue)

A5

Prop

osed

Ful

ham

Str

eet (

Bel

mon

t Ave

nue

to R

obin

son

Ave

nue)

VA

P A

ltern

ativ

e

Land

scap

ing

Exi

stin

g E

asem

ent i

n G

ross

Exi

stin

g E

asem

ent i

n G

ross

Exi

stin

g E

asem

ent i

n G

ross

A6



Item 12.4.1 refers

Natural Belmont Attachment 4

Playground Replacement Programme

A7

Park Playground Replacement Programme per Financial Year Summary

2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019Acton Ave Community Centre 10,675$ Centenary Park 19,100$ Mozart Mews 7,675$ Peachey Park (North) 6,500$ Pittman Park 32,150$ Selby Park 23,900$ Tomato Lake (East) 27,675$ McLarty Park 13,525$ Middleton Park 27,150$ Paulette Way Reserve 12,500$ The Cresent 34,200$ Hoffman park 20,450$ Miles Park 33,875$ Morgan Park 27,175$ Redgum Court 11,600$ Tomato Lake (West) 83,825$ Wilson Park 45,725$ Nance Park 31,575$ Aryluna Park 25,250$ Peachey Park (South) 49,590$ Alfred Park 17,950$ Miles Park 21,600$ Faulkner Park Feature Playground 6,850$ Kinghorn Park 12,950$ Parkview Chase 39,200$ Redcliffe Community Centre 17,950$ Treave Park 19,100$ Brearley Ave North 17,950$ Lions Park 15,450$ Whiteside Park 27,550$ Wicca Park 37,175$ Harmen Park 27,175$ Hoskin Park 11,600$ Belmont Oval 11,600$ Peachey Park (East) 24,000$ Rivervale Community Centre 16,074$ Tomato Lake (South) 60,850$ Aryluna Park 5,125$ Centenary Park 11,025$ Bristille Park 57,056$ Garvey Park 181,402$ Brearley Ave South 16,025$ Cracknell Park 56,950$ Faulkner Park Feature Playground 309,509$ Alfred Park 11,025$ Peet Park 98,577$ Acton Ave Community Centre 14,500$ Chamberlain reserve 25,000$ Gibson Park 15,000$ Mural Park 25,000$ Epsom Park 20,000$ Monier Park 35,000$ Alber Jordan Park 18,000$ Forster Park 32,150$ Aryluna Park 3,500$ Brearley Ave North 4,840$ Lions Park 5,550$ McLarty Park 3,690$ Hoskin Park 4,200$ Paulette Way Reserve 8,250$ Tomato Lake (South) 15,450$ TOTAL 180,850$ 256,850$ 124,365$ 151,050$ 64,725$ 167,449$ 238,458$ 382,484$ 11,025$ 113,077$ 138,000$ GRAND TOTAL

1,828,333$ Costs include installation

freightconcretepit preparationcompliance inspection

A8



Item 12.4.2 refers

Natural Belmont Attachment 5

Garvey Park Foreshore Restoration Business Case

A9

Garvey Park Foreshore Restoration Page 1

Business Case

Ref. No. 22/02/08

Project Title Garvey Park Foreshore Restoration

Strategic program (link to Strategic Plan) Natural Belmont

SUMMARY Concise Scope

The remediation of extensive river bank erosion and collapse, and prevention of future erosion, along approximately 800m of the Swan River foreshore at Garvey Park. Works will include both hard structures and extensive native planting as means of erosion control. The project comprises the production of a concept plan, detailed design plans and on-ground work.

Principal Outcomes

The project will restore and improve the stability of the currently seriously degraded Swan River foreshore at Garvey Park between the Coolgardie Living Stream and Hilton Grove. The proposed works will significantly improve the recreational amenity aesthetics and safety of the area. The inclusion of local native plant species for stabilisation will enhance biodiversity values and provide habitat for fauna. The stabilisation of the foreshore will ensure continued safe use of the foreshore area for recreational activities by the local community and visitors to the reserve.

Finance Summary Total Cost External

Funding Net Outlay Approved Budget

Funding Excess/ (Deficit)

TC XF NO = TC-XF AB AB - NO Project Impact $2,862,298 $0 $2,862,298 $75,000 $2,787,298

Additional Costs Cost Savings Additional Revenues Net Impact AC CS AR AC-CS-AR

Ongoing Annual Operational Impact

$8,980 $0 $0 $8,980

Timing Summary Approval required Proposed start Planned complete Key Dates 11th March 2008 March 2009 December 2011

APPROVAL

Accountable Officer: Manager Parks Leisure and Environment (Acting)

Dept: Parks, Leisure and Environment (Acting)

Executive Sponsor: Director-Technical Services (Acting)

Peer Reviewer: Senior Management Group

Approved by: John Christie Position: Director - Technical Services (Acting)

A10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Rationale................................................................ 3 2 Project Scope......................................................... 5 3 Outcomes............................................................... 7 4 Costs & Cost-Benefit.............................................. 9 5 Risk Management ................................................ 12 6 Stakeholders and Consultation............................ 14 7 Schedule.............................................................. 16


A11

1 RATIONALE An environment of persistent erosion has resulted in the need for urgent restorative work to be completed on the Swan River Foreshore at Garvey Park. The effected area extends across approximately 800m of foreshore between The Coolgardie Living Stream and the Hilton Grove embankment. Whilst the restorative work primarily aims to prevent future erosion and restore currently eroded areas it also provides an opportunity to enhance the amenity and increase the biodiversity value of the area and ensures the continued safe use of the foreshore for a variety of recreational activities. Of particular concern is a 90m length of foreshore near the end of Hilton Grove and the failing limestone retaining wall adjacent the Kayak Club. At Hilton Grove erosion is presenting a safety risk and affecting an adjacent footpath that forms part of the foreshore trail linkage. This section of path is currently barricaded to prevent public access and users of the dual use path are being redirected around the adjacent car park. A site inspection carried out on the 21st February 2008 revealed the limestone retaining wall located adjacent the Kayak Club and abutting the river is severely structurally unsound, is in danger of collapse and therefore poses a significant safety risk. Works to temporarily stabilise the wall are currently being coordinated. “This limestone retaining wall terrace area is required to protect the higher elevated ground on the apex of the bend from erosion during flood events” (Foreshore Stabilisation at Garvey Park, Ascot Draft, Ecoscape, 2008). It is this higher ground which acts as foundations for the adjacent Kayak Club. Due to the high public use of the Garvey Park Foreshore and the severity of the erosion, particularly at Hilton Grove and the Kayak Club area, immediate restorative action is required. Photographs showing these two areas are attached as an appendix. Historically the river’s bend was located on the northern side of the Ron Courtney Island. Work was conducted in around 1970 to divide the river stream at this point due to high levels of erosion being experienced in the southern river bed, winter flooding and algae build-up in summer, thus creating Ron Courtney Island. This however, combined with a lack of fringing vegetation, pedestrian traffic and boat wash has resulted in extensive erosion activity along the Garvey Park Foreshore. This foreshore area is currently regularly used by the Kayak Club, anglers, walkers, runners, horse trainers and dog owners. The close proximity of the foreshore path network to the eroding riverbank is threatening the safety of this pathway for continued recreational use. A recent comprehensive study of the entire Swan River foreshore by the Swan River Trust, Swan and Canning River Foreshore Management Strategy (2007), highlights this particular area as ‘priority one’, which translates to requiring immediate action. Several previous reports have been developed regarding foreshore restoration at Garvey Park. These include the Garvey Park and Swan River Foreshore Restoration and Concept Plan (Ecoscape, 1999) and Restoration Proposal for Degraded Swan River Foreshore Site, Hilton Grove (Bennett Brook Environmental Services, 2006). Both reports and input from the Swan River Trust recommend bank battering and revegetation as a solution. An updated preliminary concept plan which takes into consideration recommendations from the above reports has been developed and detailed design plans will be required to enable foreshore restoration to progress from 2008/09. The inclusion of extensive native vegetation planting as a means of stabilisation, as shown in the preliminary concept plan, provides an excellent opportunity to enhance the biodiversity of the area and increase available habitat, therefore encouraging native fauna. The Kayak Club launching facilities will be enhanced to protect them from erosion and the provision of safe fishing and viewing platforms and beach areas will preserve public access to the foreshore. A tiered lawn terrace is proposed and will provide an excellent area for people to watch Garvey Park Foreshore Restoration Page 3

A12

the various kayak events and the annual Avon Decent. The accessibility of the park will be improved by way of a jetty with the capacity for boats to temporarily moor whilst the people aboard access the park and associated facilities. Complimentary works are scheduled in this area for 2008/09 with the installation of Senior Citizens exercise equipment as part of the Be Active programme and the installation of an extensive limestone walking trail network throughout the park.


A13

2 PROJECT SCOPE In discussion with the Manager Park Leisure and Environment and Environmental Coordinator the consultants Ecoscape and MP Rogers have been employed to prepare a conceptual landscape design for the area in accordance with the following scope of works:

• Stabilisation and prevention of further erosion of the riverbank; • Protection of infrastructure and fringing remnant vegetation, particularly old, large

trees; • Establishment of local, native species to provide habitat for fauna; • Retention of current recreational uses of the foreshore area.

The concept design is required to take into consideration recommendations from previous reports developed regarding foreshore restoration at Garvey Park. These include the Garvey Park and Swan River Foreshore Restoration and Concept Plan (Ecoscape, 1999) and Restoration Proposal for Degraded Swan River Foreshore Site, Hilton Grove (Bennett Brook Environmental Services, 2006). To date Ecoscape and MP Rogers have developed a preliminary concept plan which includes:

• Extensive fringe wetland plantings • Bank regrading at various locations; • A fishing platform; • A slalom viewing platform; • A Jetty which incorporates a universal access ramp and has the capacity for small boats to

temporarily moor; • A kayak beach and a wading beach; • Planted groins on either side of the beach areas for controlling sediment erosion; • A tiered lawn terrace to replace the existing failing retaining wall, • Stabilisation of the wetland drain outlet.

Following Council approval and Aboriginal and community consultation, final concept plans will be developed. The required detailed design plans will then be produced. In order to spread the financial impact and to ensure that priority areas of Hilton Grove and the failing limestone retaining wall are addressed in the first year it is suggested to complete these works in four sections spread over three years. 2008/09 Section 1, Hilton Grove Embankment:

- Regrading and planting of clay bank at Hilton Grove; - Fringe vegetation planting at Hilton Grove.


Section 3, Kayak Club Area. - Installation of two beach areas and groins; - Construction of lawn terrace.

- Fringe vegetation planting along the central kayak area riverbank. 2009/10 Section 2, Fishing Platform to Jetty:

- Installation of new jetty and universal access ramp; - Wetland drain outlet stabilisation; - Install fishing platform; - Install slalom viewing platform;

- Fringe vegetation planting along the Eastern riverbank; - Infill planting of fringing vegetation planted in Year 1.

20010/11 Section 4, Fringing Wetland to Coolgardie Living Stream:

- Installation of one beach area and groins; - Fringe vegetation planting along the Western riverbank;

A14

- Infill planting of fringing vegetation planted in Year 2. An amended preliminary concept plan which shows the four different sections outlined above and the initial draft report prepared by Ecoscape and MP Rogers are attached as an appendix. Please note that both documents are in draft stage pending the various required consultations and subsequent reviews.


A15

3 OUTCOMES

3.1 Description of the Outcomes The provision of continued safe access and enhancement of the foreshore at Garvey Park will benefit local residents, workers and visitors alike making the City of Belmont a better place to live and work enabling the realisation of the following benefits: Social – The assurance of continued access to this stretch of foreshore and the enhanced aesthetic value will ensure sustained use, and entice new users to utilise the park’s foreshore. Safety – Bank stabilisation will improve the safety of the pathway which stretches the length of the foreshore. The provision of designated access routes and structured platforms will improve safety for anglers and other users accessing the foreshore between Hilton Grove and the Kayak Club. The replacement of the limestone retaining wall will ensure the continued safe use of the beaches for kayaking activities and protect the kayak club foundations from erosions in flood events. The principals of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) will be incorporated where practical. Environment – Stabilisation will protect the riverbank from the negative impacts of various human actions conducted in the area such as boat wash and clearing of native vegetation. The use of native plants as a method for stabilisation will enhance the biodiversity value of the area. Stabilisation will decrease sediment loading of the Swan River caused by this erosion. City Image – The protection and improvement of this accessible area of river frontage in an environmentally friendly way will further develop the perception of the City of Belmont as a desirable place to live. Health - the insurance of the continued provision of safe access to this foreshore reserve and the associated path network will act to encourage people to continue to use the whole length of foreshore for regular participation in walking, running, cycling, fishing and rowing.

3.2 Alignment with Existing Plans Is the project included in any existing Plans Yes

If ‘Yes’, which Plan? Parks, Leisure and Environment Department Strategic Plan and Environmental Plan 2005-2010

Which KRAs does this contribute to?

• Community Satisfaction Yes

• Social Belmont Yes • Natural Belmont Yes

• Business Belmont No • Built Belmont No

Describe how it will impact the KRAs? Community Satisfaction Improved public perception of Environmental Management, Recreation and Culture.


A16

Natural Belmont Maintain and enhance the Swan River – its setting, amenity value and biodiversity – as a community resource. Protect and enhance local biodiversity values by increasing the area of biodiversity within the City. Maintain public open space in accordance with the needs and expectations of the community. Promote community awareness of environmental issues and management in an effort to protect and enhance the City’s natural environment. Social Belmont Promote the City of Belmont as a desirable place to live

3.3 Performance Measures Affected

Community Satisfaction Levels of community satisfaction of residents, specifically for Environmental Management, Recreation and Culture. Social Belmont Number of volunteers engaged in Council services and programmes. Natural Belmont Contributing towards the target of increasing the biodiversity area within the City by 10 hectares by 2015. Increasing the number of trees planted for CO2 abatement. Public participation in environmental programmes. Built Belmont Increasing the amount invested in major enhancement projects.

3.4 Additional Activities Required to Achieve the Outcomes Consultation with: Swan River Trust;

Aboriginal Community Community

Final concept plan developed, incorporating any comments from Council and community consultations. Councillor approval of concept design and allocation of municipal funds. Development of detailed design plans. Approval from the WAPC/DPI as the landowner. Submission of Planning and Section 18 Department of Indigenous Affairs Applications. Funding requests. Procurement of works.


A17

4 COSTS & COST-BENEFIT

4.1 Project Costs COSTS ($000s): 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 4 yr Total Concept and Detailed design plans and Aboriginal Consultation.

75,000 75,000

Section 1 Hilton Grove Bank Regrading

60,000 60,000

Hilton Grove Landscaping

51,742 51,742

Section 2 Fishing Platform 67,000 67,000 Wetland Drain 15,000 15,000 Slalom Viewing Platform

125,000 125,000

Jetty 500,000 500,000 Fishing Platform to Jetty Landscaping

28,402 28,402

Section 3 Kayak Beach 411,000 411,000 Grass Terrace 463,000 463,000 Swimming Beach 303,000 303,000 Kayak Area Landscaping

92,202 92,202

Section 4 Fringe Wetland 33,000 33,000 Fishing Beach 290,000 290,000 Kayak to Coolgardie Landscaping

94,562 94,562

Contingency & Escalation

138,094 73,540 41,756 253,390

TOTAL COST 75,000 1,519,038 808,942 459,318 2,862,298 As per the project schedule the contractors, MP Rogers and Ecoscape, have completed a preliminary concept plan for the Garvey Park Foreshore Stabilisation works. This enables comments to be gathered from presentation to Council, Aboriginal and community consultations and incorporated into the design before a final conceptual design is approved. Following acceptance of the final concept plan, detailed design plans will be produced for the various areas containing hard structures. It would be at this point in the project development that definitive cost estimates for the completion of the works could be ascertained. In order to provide the Council with an overall estimate for inclusion in this Business Case and subsequent approval for progression, MP Rogers and Ecoscape, as part of the development of the preliminary concept plans and draft report, provided an estimate for the completion of the foreshore works broken up into the three sections. Since the foreshore inspection on the 28th February 2008 identified that the limestone wall adjacent the Kayak Club was failing and in need of replacement, this has since been divided into four areas which are indicated on the attached concept plan. Due to past experience and the current climate which sees rapid inflation of construction related costs it is reasonable to assume that this cost would increase between now and construction. It is for this reason that there has been a contingency and escalation fee of 10% added to the cost estimate provided by the contractors.


A18

4.2 Project Funding 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 4 yr Total Approved Budget 75,000 75,000 TOTAL FUNDING 75,000 75,000 FUNDING DEFICIT 0 1,519,038 808,942 459,318 2,787,298

4.3 Net Project Financial Impactd 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 4 yr Total TOTAL NET 75,000 1,519,038 808,942 459,318 2,862,298

4.4 Details of Project Funding Sources INTERNAL Identified Budget $75,000 Current Environmental Capital Improvements Budget. The existing approved budget includes development of a concept plan, detailed design plans, Aboriginal consultation and associated costs. Required Municipal Funding The estimate for required municipal funding based on the preliminary concept plan is : $1,519,038 2008/2009 Park Construction Budget, Completion of Section 1 and 3; $808,942 2009/2010 Parks Construction Budget, Completion of Section 2; $459,318 2010/2011 Parks Construction Budget, Completion of Section 4. TOTAL $2,787,298. Potential Funding External funding from the Swan River Trust through the Riverbank Funding Programme will be applied for each year of the project. This funding, if successful, would require a minimum 50/50 contribution from the City of Belmont. Swan Alcoa Land Care Programme funding will be applied for each year for the works relating to the restoration of foreshore vegetation. A minimum 50/50 contribution would be required from the City if this funding were successful. In 2008 there is a total of $625,000 available. Funding towards the Jetty will be applied for through the Recreational Boating Facilities Scheme (RBFS). This scheme makes available contributions of up to $300,000 per project, with a 50/50 contribution required from the Council. While the above potential funding schemes are specific to the proposed works at Garvey Park, Council officers will endeavour to source alternative funding to ensure a reduced dependency on municipal fund over the duration of the project.


A19

4.5 Operating Costs: Additional Costs and Cost Savings COSTS ($000s): 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 5 yr Total Ongoing 1201 - Wages 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 13,000 2,600 1219 - Overheads 3,380 3,380 3,380 3,380 3,380 16,900 3,380 1222 - Materials General 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 3,000 Infill Planting 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 0 TOTAL COST/SAVINGS

13,980 13,980 13,980 13,980 13,980 69,900 8,980

TOTAL FUNDING 0 0 0 0 0 0 FUNDING DEFICIT 13,980 13,980 13,980 13,980 13,980 69,900

4.6 Details of Additional Operating Cost and Cost Savings Additional annual operating costs identified are based in comparisons with ongoing operational costs of other similar open spaces within the City.


A20

5 RISK MANAGEMENT

5.1 Project Risk:

Risk Detail Mitigation Probability/Impact

Councillor Support Not agreeing with the concept design or allocating sufficient Council funds.

Consulted as part of the concept design development. Identifying strong links to corporate priorities. Option to rescope the project.

Low/High

Approval from Indigenous Affairs

Not agreeing to concept design

Aboriginal consultation to be undertaken.

Low/High

Planning Approval Objections raised Key Stakeholders to be consulted prior to submission to planning

Low/High

Environmental Exposure of Acid Sulphate Soils during excavation works.

If required, acid sulphate soil (ASS) testing will be conducted prior to beginning of works. If ASS are detected an Acid Sulphate Soils Management will be developed.

Low/High

Disturbance of bird breeding areas during earthworks

Timing of earthworks to avoid bird breeding season.

Low/Medium

Increased Costs Costs of works greater than identified

Rescope project. Include contingency as part of project budget. Obtain additional funds.

Medium/High

Delays to Programme Delays could result in project cost increases

Close project management control.

Medium/Medium

5.2 Funding Risk:

Risk Detail Mitigation Probability/Impact Council Funding Required funds not

allocated Rescoping of project Low/High

Recreational Boating and Fishing Scheme Funding

Application for grant unsuccessful

Seek additional funds from Council

Medium/High

Swan Alcoa Land Care Programme

Application for grant unsuccessful


Medium/High

Riverbank funding Application for grant unsuccessful


Medium/High


A21

5.3 Outcome Risk:

Risk Detail Mitigation Probability/Impact User dissatisfaction Users complaining

about works completed, methods used.

User consultation prior to final design

Low/Medium

Stabilisation fails Method of stabilisation does not satisfactorily stabilise bank

Using consultant with bank stabilisation experience to develop concept and detailed designs.

Low/High


A22

6 STAKEHOLDERS AND CONSULTATION

6.1 Critical Customers and High Impact Stakeholders

Consultation Undertaken? Communication Undertaken? Key Customer or

Stakeholder Nature of Impact (Yes/No) (Yes/No)

Councillors

Ultimate decision on whether project proceeds, its content and amount of Council funding allocated

Business Cases to be presented to OCM 11th March, 2008

WAPC/DPI Could require rescoping Once concept plan agreed

Aboriginal/Department of Indigenous Affairs

Could halt the project or require rescoping

To be completed as part of concept plan development by Ecoscape and MP Rogers

Swan River Trust Could require rescoping Yes – were present at a site meeting with consultants. Concept Plan will be distributed once finalised.

Two Rivers Catchment Group

Could require rescoping Once concept plan agreed

Local Residents Potential User of facility. Once Preliminary concept plan agreed.

Existing users Possible negative assessment of outcomes

Once preliminary concept plan agreed.

6.2 Consultation Results To be confirmed once the required consultation is undertaken in accordance with the proposed consultation plan attached as an appendix.

6.3 Internal Implementation Impact

Community & Statutory Services Technical Services Corporate & Governance

Impact (H/M/L)

Medium

The Planning Department will process the planning application. The Building Department will be required to process the building applications

High

Environmental and Parks officers will need to be involved in developing the design. Officer time will be spent on consulting with residents as well as Aboriginal

Low

The marketing team will be required to assist in the communication and publicity relating to the project.


A23

7 SCHEDULE Key Provisional Milestones / Dates Council Approval for Project Progression March 2008 Finalise Concept Plan March/April 2008 Consultation Period March - April 2008 Detailed Design Plans Completed April – June 2008 Council Allocation of Budget July 2008, July 2009 and July 2010 Planning Approval April – December 2008 Completion of work Stage 1: March 2009-May 2009 Stage 2: October 2009 – November 2009 Stage 3: October 2010 – November 2010 Official Opening December 2010 A more detailed implementation plan is attached as an appendix


A25

Loc

atio

ns Im

pact

ed S

ever

ely

by E

rosi

on A

long

the

G

arve

y Pa

rk F

ores

hore

Show

ing

unde

rmin

ing

and

subs

iden

ce.

Show

s sur

face

of t

he si

nk h

ole

whi

ch

lead

s to

a la

rge

cavi

ty b

ehin

d th

e

reta

inin

g w

all.

Clo

se u

p of

subs

iden

ce.

LIM

EST

ON

E R

ETA

ININ

G W

AL

L

HIL

TON

GR

OV

E E

MB

AN

KM

EN

T

Hilt

on G

rove

clo

sed

foot

path

H

ilton

Gro

ve su

bsid

ence

Sh

ows p

roxi

mity

of f

ootp

ath

to su

bsid

ence

. Im

min

ent

foot

path

col

laps

e.

A26

Sect

ion

1

Sect

ion

3

Sect

ion

2

Sect

ion

4

A27

City of Belmont Consultation Plan In Practice

PROCEDURAL NOTES AVAILABLE

Garvey Park Foreshore File Ref: 32/011 Project Coordinator: Nicole Davey Position: Environmental Coordinator Consultation Coordinator: Kara Fleming Position: Project Coordinator

Consultation Assessment Project Identification: An environment of persistent erosion has resulted in the need for urgent restorative work to be completed on the Swan River Foreshore at Garvey Park. The effected area extends across approximately 800m of foreshore between The Coolgardie Living Stream and the Hilton Grove embankment. Whilst the restorative work primarily aims to prevent future erosion and restore currently eroded areas it also provides an opportunity to increase the biodiversity values of the area and ensures the continued safe use of the foreshore area for a variety of recreational activities. Stakeholder Identification

Internal External Parks Aboriginal/Department of Indigenous

Affairs Environment WAPC/DPI

Works Swan River Trust Planning Local Community

Councillors Current Users Two Rivers Catchment Group Neighbouring residents

Stakeholder Impact Assessment Attached: YES NO

See Business Case Section 6.1.

1

A30

City

of B

elm

ont

Con

sulta

tion

Pla

n In

Pra

ctic

e

Dec

isio

n M

akin

g R

equi

rem

ents

: (V

room

-Yet

ton

Dec

isio

n Tr

ee)

Q1.

Doe

s th

e de

cisi

on m

aker

hav

e

suffi

cien

t inf

orm

atio

n to

mak

e a

high

qua

lity

deci

sion

?

NO

YE

S Q

2. Is

the

deci

sion

stru

ctur

ed s

uch

that

ther

e is

spa

ce fo

r al

tern

ativ

e so

lutio

ns?

YES

N

O

Q3.

Is p

ublic

/ st

akeh

olde

r acc

epta

nce

of th

e de

cisi

on c

ritic

al to

ef

fect

ive

impl

emen

tatio

n?

NO

YE

S

NO

YE

S

YES

N

O

Q4.

If p

ublic

/ st

akeh

olde

r acc

epta

nce

is

nec

essa

ry, i

s it

reas

onab

ly

assu

red

if th

e de

cisi

on m

aker

de

cide

s al

one?

Y

ES

N

O

YE

S

NO

N

O

YES

CO

NSU

LT

Q5.

Are

the

publ

ic /

stak

ehol

ders

w

illin

g to

eng

age

in a

dia

logu

e in

or

der t

o im

prov

e th

e si

tuat

ion?

N

O

YES

INFO

RM

PA

RTN

ER

Q6.

Wou

ld th

e qu

ality

of s

take

hold

er

inpu

t (or

futu

re re

latio

ns) b

e

impr

oved

if le

arni

ng o

ccur

s

amon

g th

e pu

blic

and

N

O

YES

N

O

YES

stak

ehol

ders

abo

ut th

e is

sues

?

IN

VOLV

E

INVO

LVE

INVO

LVE

INVO

LVE

(S

epar

ated

) (M

ixed

) (S

epar

ated

) (M

ixed

)

2

A31

City of Belmont Consultation Plan In Practice Risk & Complexity Assessment:

Risk Assessment Score: Q1: How do you rate the potential for conflict with the community /

stakeholders over this project? Not relevant / None / Very Low = 0 Low = 1 Medium =2 High = 3 Q2: How do you rate the potential for social, environmental, or

financial damage if the wrong decision is made? Not relevant / None / Very Low = 0 Low = 1 Medium =2 High = 3 Q3: How many unknowns are there in the current decision making equation? Not relevant / None = 0 Low = 1 Medium =2 High = 3

Total: 3

Standard of Technical Complexity Score: Q1: How much information needs to be communicated to the

stakeholder for them to participate? None = 0 A few simple facts = 1 A detailed proposal =2 A significant amount of technical data = 3

Q2: How much learning is required by the participants before they

can be expected to make an informed decision? None = 0 Low = 1 Medium =2 High = 3

Q3: How many abstract or technical concepts need to be digested

before an informed decision can be made? None = 0 A Couple = 1 Several =2 Many = 3

Total: 4 Technical Complexity Result: NIL = Score 0 LOW = Score 1 - 4 MEDIUM = Score 5 - 7 HIGH = Score 8 or greater

RISK / TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT RESULT 1 NO ACTION REQUIRED

INFORM

CONSULT

INVOLVE - SEPARATED

INVOLVE - MIXED

9 PARTNER

Result: NO ACTION CONSULT INVOLVE (Mixed) INFORM INVOLVE (Separated) PARTNER

3

A32


Consultation Proposal Consultation Coordinator: Name: Kara Fleming Position: {Insert Position Title} NO ACTION INVOLVE (Separated)* INFORM INVOLVE (Mixed)*

CONSULT* PARTNER* COMMENTS: {If required, provide comment regarding specific impacting factors for this consultation} *Statement of Intent Required? YES NO Attached: YES NO

{Insert DW hyperlink to Statement of Intent if available}

Consultation Tools

Consultation Tool/s Selected

Potential. Stakeholders

Captured Timeline /

Relevant Dates Comments

Site meeting coordinated by consultants

Internal stakeholders,

SRT,. December 2007 Conducted by Ecoscape

Research and Site meeting undertaken by consultant

Indigenous Community February 2008

Community Consultation

Local Community,

Current Users

February 2008

Mail-out to adjacent residents

Neighbouring residents February 2008

Business Case to OCM Councillors Feb/March 2008 For progression approval as per current business case elements

Article in the Belmont Bulletin Local Community May/June 2008

Information Noticeboard Current Users October 2008

Cost Estimate

Account Ref: Staff Time Hours 10 External Consultants $25,000Other Costs including: -

Printing $50 Postage $60 Venue Hire $50 Refreshments $100 Advertising $680

4

A33


Photocopying $50 Noticeboard $1,000

Total Estimated Costs $26,990

Consultation Authorisation PROCEDURAL NOTES

Please refer the completed Consultation plan to your Divisional Community Information & Consultation Coordinator. Record Keeping Requirement Register this document in the City’s record management system – Dataworks folio 32/011. In registering the document the following descriptor must be used: -

CONSULT / INSERT PROJECT NAME / CONSULTATION PLAN

5

A34

attachment 2 - city of belmont › councillorportal › councillorminuteandmee… · these include...

Documents