co 25032013 min at - city of armadale...city of armadale minutes of ordinary council meeting held in...

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

MONDAY, 25 MARCH 2013

MINUTES

CONTENTS

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS .............................................. 3

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE............................................ 3

3 ADVICE OF RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE............... 4 MS DEB WALLIS, 10 LESCHENAULTIA STREET, ROLEYSTONE .................................................... 4

4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ..................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 JAMES HARTMEN , 23 ORCHID DRIVE, ROLEYSTONE ..................................................... 5 4.2 MARY BACICH, 21 ORCHID DRIVE, ROLEYSTONE ............................................................. 5 4.3 JOHN HARDCASTLE, 17 ORCHID DRIVE, ROLEYSTONE .................................................. 6 4.4 MATTHEW BACICH, 21 ORCHARD DRIVE, ROLEYSTONE ................................................ 7

5 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ..................................................................................... 7 5.1 REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ..................................................................................... 7

6 PETITIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 8 NIL ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

7 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ........................................................................................................... 8 MINUTES OF ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 11 MARCH 2013 ................................... 8

8 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PERSON PRESIDING WITHOUT DISCUSSION ........................... 8 1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................... 8 2 CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION .............................................................................. 9 3 MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS .................................................................................. 9 4 GOVERNANCE .............................................................................................................................. 9

9 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN – WITHOUT DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................... 10

10 REPORTS ................................................................................................................................................. 10 10.1 CITY AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING - 18 MARCH 2013 ...................................................... 10

10.1.1 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN - 2012 CALENDAR YEAR (1.1) .............................. 10 10.1.2 AMENDMENTS TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUDIT) REGULATIONS 1996

(1.2) ...................................................................................................................................... 10 10.2 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING - 18 MARCH 2013 ........................... 11

10.2.3 PROPOSED TREE PRESERVATION ORDER - LOT 1352 ROBIN ROAD, ROLEYSTONE (FORMER ROLEYSTONE PRIMARY SCHOOL SITE) (4.2) .............. 11

10.2.4 REVIEW OF ANNUAL FEES UNDER THE FOOD ACT AND HEALTH ACT 2012-2013 (1.1) ............................................................................................................................. 12

10.2.5 CHANGE OF USE - STORAGE - LOT 10 (NO. 130) THIRD AVENUE KELMSCOTT (2.1) ...................................................................................................................................... 13

10.2.6 PROPOSED EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT - STAGE 1 CAREY BAPTIST COLLEGE - LOT 2 (540) NICHOLSON ROAD, FORRESTDALE (2.2) ......................... 16

10.2.7 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY (PAW) BETWEEN LOTS 103 AND 104 POMELO WAY, SEVILLE GROVE - PETITION (3.1) ..................................................................... 21

10.2.8 NAMING OF WHITELEY PARK - LOT 8005 (DP 69861) AND FUTURE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, HILBERT (4.1) .......................................................................................... 22

10.2.9 APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS - BUILDING ACT 2011 (4.3) ....................................... 22 10.2.10 KARRAGULLEN QUARRY (1) ................................................................................... 23

10.3 CITY STRATEGY COMMITTEE MEETING - 19 MARCH 2013 ............................................. 23 10.3.11 LIST OF ACCOUNTS PAID - FEBRUARY 2013 (1.1) ............................................... 23 10.3.12 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY - FEBRUARY 2013 (1.2) .. 23 10.3.13 RATE EXEMPTION APPLICATION - FORREST PERSONNEL INC - UNIT 6 &

7/42 COMMERCE AVENUE, ARMADALE (1.3) ............................................................ 24 10.3.14 BASIS OF RATES FOR THE 2013-2014 RATING YEAR (1.4) ................................. 24 10.3.15 RENEWAL OF TRADERS PERMIT - PLANT TRADER (2.1) ................................... 25 10.3.16 RENEWAL OF TRADERS PERMIT - FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE TRADER

(2.2) ...................................................................................................................................... 26 10.3.17 NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY - CANBERRA - 16 TO 19 JUNE 2013 (3.1) .. 26 10.3.18 CORPORATE LOGO REFRESH (0.0) .......................................................................... 27 10.3.19 REVIEW OF WARD SYSTEM AND REPRESENTATION (0.0) ............................... 27 10.3.20 COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS (2.3) ...................................................................................... 27

10.4 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT - 25 MARCH 2013 ................................................ 28 10.4.20 COUNCILLORS INFORMATION BULLETIN - ISSUE NO. 5/2012 (1.1) ................. 28 10.4.21 METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW (1.2) ..................................... 28

11 MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ................................................. 28

12 URGENT BUSINESS APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION ............. 29 NIL ............................................................................................................................................................. 29

13 MATTERS FOR REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEES – WITHOUT DISCUSSION ..... 29 13.1 KEANE ROAD PROJECT ........................................................................................................... 29

14 MATTERS REQUIRING CONFIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION ..................................................... 29 14.1 METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW ............................................................. 29

15 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................................ 33 ATTACHMENTS: 10.4.21.1 CEO’s Report on Metropolitan Local Government Review

CITY OF ARMADALE

MINUTES OF ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATION CENTRE, 7 ORCHARD AVENUE, ARMADALE ON MONDAY, 25 MARCH 2013 AT 7:00 PM .

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mayor, Cr Zelones, declared the meeting open at 7.00 pm.

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE (previously approved)

PRESENT: Mayor, Cr H A Zelones JP River Ward presided over Deputy Mayor, Cr R Butterfield River Ward Cr J A Stewart Heron Ward Cr D M Shaw Heron Ward Cr G Nixon Jarrah Ward Cr C M Wielinga Jarrah Ward Cr C J MacDonald Lake Ward Cr J H Munn JP CMC Lake Ward Cr K Busby Minnawarra Ward Cr G A Best Neerigen Ward Cr M Geary Neerigen Ward Cr M S Northcott Palomino Ward Cr L Sargeson Palomino Ward IN ATTENDANCE:

Mr R S Tame Chief Executive Officer Mr A F Maxwell Executive Director Corporate Services Mr I MacRae Executive Director Development Services Mr P Lanternier A/Executive Director Technical Services Ms Y Coyne Executive Director Community Services Mrs S D’Souza CEO’s Executive Assistant Public: 4 Press: 2

LEAVE OF ABSENCE: Nil

APOLOGIES: Apology received from Cr M H Norman

MINUTES - ORDINARY MEETING 4 25 MARCH 2013 OF COUNCIL

3 ADVICE OF RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

The following questions were taken on notice at Council’s Meeting on 11 March 2013 and responses (summarized below) forwarded in a letter by the Chief Executive Officer dated 20 March 2013. Question 1 Re. the Roleystone skate park project and the amount of $11,100 left out of the $50,000 allocated for design and consultation. There should be interest accrued on the $380,000 of POS monies from June 2011 until now and this interest plus $11,100 there should now be a minimum of $15-18,000 in this account. Can the costs for ‘tweaking’ the design (without compromising the size and scope) and increases in costs due to delay be sourced from the interest rather than the $380,000 POS monies? Response: Interest earnings on the POS – Precinct I - Roleystone Trust Fund Account :- Can be used to fund skate-park capital cost increases, however, for that to happen, Council must firstly amend the budget for the skate-park by absolute majority resolution; and May not be available to fund additional design costs - the relevant Cabinet Guidelines limits the expenditure of POS land sale funds to capital improvements to recreational land in the vicinity of the land sold. Question 2 Can Council be transparent and please advise what the interest accrued has been to this point in time on those funds? Response The interest earnings on the POS-Precinct I- Roleystone Trust Fund Account as at 30th June 2012 equalled $78,093.26, and, as per Council’s adopted 2013 Annual Budget document (page 69 specifically refers), the estimated interest earnings on this Trust Fund Account for the 2012-2013 financial year, is $21,479.00, which is totally transparent. Question 3 With the information now available on the master planning, can Council proceed with the construction of the skate park and give the public an estimated time frame for commencement and completion? Response: The Council has approved the Master Plan for Cross Park and Springdale Park on 11 March 2013. The Community Services Directorate is undertaking the finalisation of the Cross Park Skate Park detailed design in the decided location. It is estimated the detailed design work will take approximately 6 weeks and the construction is estimated to take approximately 12 weeks. Currently, as detailed design has not been completed, these timeframes are estimates only.


4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

4.1 James Hartmen , 23 Orchid Drive, Roleystone

Q1: In relation to Public Toilets at Borrello Park - Am I correct in understanding that there is an actual application which has not been considered?

The Mayor advised that there is no ‘application’ as such. However, there is a toilet strategy which Council is deliberating on and which will be the guiding document for considering proposals for toilets in a number of parks.

Q2: In the toilet strategy, are all applications or all toilets then equal? For

example is a toilet in Armadale Centre looked at by the same criteria as the toilet in Borrello Park?

The Mayor advised that in accordance with the toilet strategy, proposals for toilets in parks will be based on need, population, park usage and funding. The toilet in Memorial park was to replace the one that was removed during construction works.

Q3: Would it be possible that in developing such a toilet strategy that it

also consider not just toilets but the applicant too? For example, if I were to apply for a toilet on the lawn outside here, would Council be obliged under that document to consider it, or would you think I’m a bit absurd?

The Mayor advised that facilities are established on Council reserves based on need and merit. It’s not the same process as an application for a house or garage. Prior to considering a request for a toilet in Borello Park, Council determined that a strategy be put in place to guide Council’s consideration of requirements, priorities and guidelines for establishing toilets in parks.

Q4: Will the toilet strategy make a distinction between establishing a

toilet in Armadale Centre as opposed to a toilet in a public park? Understand that a toilet in a public place such as the City Centre is required. However, little public parks serving the local community do not necessarily need toilets with residents having access to their homes.

The Mayor advised officers will take those issues on board as well as Council during its consideration.

4.2 Mary Bacich, 21 Orchid Drive, Roleystone

Q1: In relation to Public Toilets at Borello Park - There was apparently a telephone survey done and I’m wondering why only one resident in Orchid Drive was surveyed when it affects all Orchid Drive residents more than anybody else?


The Mayor advised that surveys are conducted using a random selection process from within a certain radius of the proposed facility. That explains why only one resident in Orchid Drive was contacted as a result of this random method which is generated electronically.

Q2 Would anyone sitting in this room like to look out their window and

instead of looking out onto a beautiful heritage listed tree as I do, would they prefer to look at a council built toilet, that probably over time will have graffiti on it?

The Mayor advised that this will be one of the many issues that Council will consider at the time of making a decision.

4.3 John Hardcastle, 17 Orchid Drive, Roleystone

Q1: In regards to this toilet proposal - as clarified if there is no proposal at this stage why are the local ward councillors appearing to be pushing for toilets when the majority of residents are opposed to it? Borello Park provides a small children’s play area and when the weather is fine visitors stay for an hour then leave. How can a toilet that will cost Council thousands of dollars to build and an estimated $20, 000 per annum to maintain be justified?

The Mayor advised that there are POS funds available for improvements within existing parks in Roleystone and ward councillors, on behalf of the community, put forward proposals for consideration. POS funds were recently approved by Council for improvements in Cross Park following extensive consultation with the community. This particular proposal will be treated no differently and will be considered by Council as a whole.

Q2: In the light of our efforts to make some enquiries about this toilet

proposal can Council in future, when a project of this nature is proposed or even discussed, canvass residents in the local vicinity.

The Mayor advised that the provision of a facility of such a size and nature generally impacts on the greater community and hence consultation included a survey of residents in the area. However, Council has noted the concerns expressed by Orchid Drive residents tonight and this will be taken on board at the time of consideration.

Q3: If we have failed in our ability to stop this toilet block going ahead

would the Council agree to us not having to pay rates because we have to look at this toilet?

The Mayor advised that the short answer is “No”, but Council makes every effort to provide community facilities and services in a rational and logical manner. He reiterated that Council is now in receipt of two petitions one supporting and one opposing a toilet facility at Borello Park. Both will be given due consideration before a decision is made.


Q4: As a resident in the area of Orchid Drive I use Northward Road

frequently. Council officers do a great job with the parks and gardens, credit to the Council, but could the Council consider doing some trimming on the road junctions as there are some hazardous intersections in Roleystone?

The Mayor advised that the Manager Parks was in attendance tonight and will follow through with this request.

Moved Cr MacDonald that Question time be extended. Motion Carried 4.4 Matthew Bacich, 21 Orchard Drive, Roleystone

Q1: This particular proposal for a toilet in Borello Park was brought up two years ago prior to the last elections and it was defeated. Why has it resurfaced and been brought back up for discussion again?

The Mayor advised that when the matter was discussed in 2011 Council deferred consideration of this proposal pending the development of a public toilet strategy. This strategy is now being discussed and once adopted will guide Council as to whether a toilet in Borello Park should be provided.

Q2: Why was a public notice placed in the Roleystone Courier by a Councillor that criticised Councillor Laurie Sargeson when he was been nothing but helpful to the residents of Orchid Drive?

The Mayor advised that this was a matter between two Councillors which he understood has now been resolved.

At this stage the CEO added the following comment: Before any further consultation with the community could take place, Council would first need to make a decision on whether it would be justified in allocating funds for such a proposal after which it would consider the type of structure, aesthetic aspects and location. That is the point at which the local residents (i.e. those overlooking the park) would be consulted prior to a final decision being made. The Mayor thanked the public for their attendance and participation during question time. Question time closed at 7.20pm

5 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

5.1 Request for Leave of Absence (Cr Kerry Busby & Cr C J MacDonald)

Request for leave of absence received from Cr K Busby for the period Tuesday 16th April to Tuesday 23rd April 2013 inclusive.


Request for leave of absence received from Cr C J MacDonald for the periods: - Wednesday 3rd April to Wednesday 10th April 2013 inclusive (includes 1

Ordinary Council meeting 8th April 2013); and - Tuesday 16th April to Wednesday 24th April 2013 inclusive (includes 1

Ordinary Council meeting 22nd April 2013)

MOVED Cr J A Stewart

1. Request for leave of absence received from Cr K Busby for the period Tuesday 16th April to Tuesday 23rd April 2013 inclusive (includes 1 Ordinary Council meeting 22nd April 2013) be received and granted.

2. Request for leave of absence received from Cr C J MacDonald for the periods:

- Wednesday 3rd April to Wednesday 10th April 2013 inclusive (includes 1 Ordinary Council meeting 8th April 2013); and

- Tuesday 16th April to Wednesday 24th April 2013 inclusive (includes 1 Ordinary Council meeting 22nd April 2013) be received and granted.

94/3/13 MOTION not opposed, DECLARED CARRIED (13/0)

6 PETITIONS

Nil

7 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

7.1 PREVIOUS ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 11 MARCH 2013.

MOVED Cr J A Stewart that the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 11 March 2013 be confirmed as a true and accurate record.


8 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PERSON PRESIDING WITHOUT DISCUSSION

1 Economic Development

On 14th March, Cr Zelones along with Executive Director, Ian MacRae held a meeting with Ed Turner from Turner Master Planners and Peter Keating (Bioscience) regarding Land Developments and Bioscience. Turner Master Planners are acting for a group of landowners in West Forrestdale for an area comprising 257.8 hectares fronting Armadale and Nicholson Roads. On 14th March, Cr Zelones attended the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority (MRA) Board and Armadale Land Redevelopment Committee 'Meet and Greet' which was held at the MRA Armadale Office.


2 Consultation and Communication

On 16th March, Cr Zelones attended and held a Radio Interview with James Wray at the Heritage FM studios regarding Local Government Reform and the possible scenarios for the City Armadale. On 20th March, Cr Zelones along with Chief Executive Officer Ray Tame and the Executive Director of Development Services Ian MacRae attended a Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) Luncheon – to discuss “A Dialogue on Western Australian Housing Supply and Affordability” which was held at the Crown Grand Ballroom in Perth. On 21st March, Cr Zelones conducted a Public Citizenship Ceremony at Kelmscott Hall. Councillors Best, Butterfield, Munn and Stewart also attended, where over 60 people were naturalised and became citizens of Australia. On 22nd March, Cr Zelones attended a meeting of the Heritage Council in Perth. On 23rd March, Cr Zelones along with Councillors Busby and Nixon attended the Blessing of the Roads event held in Memorial Park. Blessing of the Roads is a WALGA initiative which aims to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured during the Easter break.

3 Marketing and Public Relations

On 12th March, Cr Zelones attended a Channel 10 Interview regarding the Armadale Aquatic Centre. This interview was to ensure the public that our facilities are safe and that our staff act professionally at all times. The interview that went to air was favourable to the city. On 13th March, Cr Zelones attended and spoke at the 40th Anniversary of the Greendale Senior Citizen’s Centre in association with their annual St Patricks Day Celebrations. On 17th March, Cr Zelones officially opened the new display village at Sienna Wood on behalf of the Stockland/Department of Housing joint venture. Also attending the event was Councillors MacDonald and Norman. The Village features 20 display homes showcasing the designs and styles from a number of well known building companies. On 19th March, Cr Zelones attended a Photo Opportunity at Specsavers in Jull St Armadale to present them with a prize for the winning entry for the recent survey of local businesses.

4 Governance

On 13th March, Cr Zelones along with the Chief Executive Officer Ray Tame, Councillors Munn and Wielinga attended a special workshop meeting with the Rivers Regional Council members. All members were represented at the workshop to enable discussion on the River Regional Council’s Establishment Agreement and future secondary waste treatment options.


9 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN – WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Nil

10 REPORTS

10.1 CITY AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING Report of the City Audit Committee on 18 March 2013.

MOVED Cr J H Munn that the report be received.


BUSINESS ARISING FROM REPORT

Recommendation CA1/3/13 - Compliance Audit Return - 2012 Calendar Year

MOVED Cr J H Munn

That Council:

Adopts the Compliance Audit Return for the calendar year 2012 as presented in the attachment; and

Acknowledges the joint certification which is to be signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer.


Recommendation CA2/3/13 - Amendments to the Local Government (Audit)

Regulations 1996

MOVED Cr J H Munn

That Council:

A. In response to recent amendments to the Local Government (Audit) Regulations which extend the functions of Audit Committees to include reviewing the effectiveness of systems in regards to risk management, internal control and legislative compliance :-

1. initiate discussions with Local Government Insurances Services to ascertain what level of assistance in the area of risk management they can provide to the City together with indicative costs;

2. initiate discussions with the City’s Auditor to ascertain what level of assistance in the areas of internal control


and legislative compliance they can provide to the City together with indicative costs;

3. Consider for inclusion in the forward financial plan estimates commencing the 2014 financial year, additional funding to address the City Audit Committee’s expanded functions including risk management, internal control and legislative compliance having regard for the outcomes to parts 1 and 2 of this recommendation which are to be reported to a meeting of the City Audit Committee to be held late May 2013.

B. With regards to its prior resolution CA2/3/12 of 26th March 2012, namely, “That Council through the City Audit Committee be provided with a report which examines expanding the role and responsibilities of the City Audit Committee to include, for example, risk management”, acknowledge that the recent amendments to the Local Government (Audit)Regulations 1996 together with the outcomes to part A of this recommendation, adequately addresses prior Council resolution CA3/3/12.


10.2 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING

Report of the Development Services Committee on 18 March 2013.

CORRECTION: Page 64 & 66 In the Fourth & Final Part of the Table under heading “Details

of Proposal” and in Part 1 of Recommendation D16/3/13 – Fourth Section of the Classification Table: - The words “and Medium” to be deleted and should read

“High Risk Food Businesses”

MOVED Cr D M Shaw that the report, subject to the above correction, be received.



Recommendation D15/3/13 - Proposed Tree Preservation Order - Lot 1352 Robin Road, Roleystone (Former Roleystone Primary School Site)

MOVED Cr D M Shaw That Council: 1. Decline the request for the proposed TPOs on Lots 1352 and 3268

Robin Road, Roleystone on the basis that the Conditions of Restricted Use No.9 require the preparation of a DAP that must


have regard for the identification and protection of any vegetation on the site worthy of retention, that PLN 2.4 – Tree Preservation recommends the use of alternate Planning mechanisms where available, and there are other statutory processes to consider the significance of the trees for environmental reasons.

2. Request that the DAP application required by Condition 9.4(d) of

Restricted Use No.9 within Schedule 3 of Town Planning Scheme No.4 be supported by a Significant Tree Survey to address the requirements of Condition 9.5(c) from the same. The Survey is to identify the most significant and healthy trees based on, and to be assessed against, the criteria within Local Planning Policy PLN 2.4 - Tree Preservation. Trees that the City deem to meet the criteria are to be protected within the DAP; and

3. Request the DAP be submitted to Council prior to its adoption.

100/3/13 MOTION not opposed, DECLARED CARRIED (13/0) Recommendation D16/3/13 - Review of Annual Fees Under the Food Act and

Health Act 2012-2013

MOVED Cr D M Shaw; SECONDED Cr J H Munn

That Council:

1. Adopt the annual fees set out in the table below:

Classification Annual FeeRegistration of Lodging Houses New Premises Renewals paid by 30 June Renewals paid after 30 June

$267 $240 $267

Risk Assessment Inspection Fee - Low Risk Food Businesses New Food Businesses Renewals paid by 30 June- with 10% early payment

incentive Renewals paid after 30 June

$267 $240

$267

Risk Assessment Inspection Fee - Medium Risk Food Businesses New Food Businesses Renewals paid by 30 June (with 10% early payment

incentive) Renewals paid after 30 June

$381 $343

$381

Risk Assessment Inspection Fee - High Risk Food Businesses New Food Businesses Renewals paid by 30 June (with 10% early payment

incentive) Renewals paid after 30 June

$457 $411

$457


Pro Rata Annual Risk Assessment Inspection Fees

In the case of new businesses, risk assessment inspection fees for food businesses and registration of Lodging Houses fees are to be calculated as follows: 01 July to 30 September – no reduction 01 October to 31 December – reduction by 25% 01 January to 31 March – reduction by 50% 01 April to 30 June – reduction by 75%

In the case of the permanent closure of a food business or Lodging House, a pro rata refund will apply upon request, as follows: 01 July to 30 September – 75% of full fee 01 October to 31 December – 50% of full fee 01 January to 31 March – 25% of full fee 01 April to 30 June – no refund

2. Pursuant to Section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995,

advertise the above fees in local public notices for a 7 day period. 3. Following closure of the advertising period and there being no

adverse response, adopt the above fees.

* ABSOLUTE MAJORITY RESOLUTION REQUIRED

101/3/13 MOTION DECLARED CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL (13/0)

Recommendation D17/3/13 - Change of Use - Storage - Lot 10 (No. 130)

Third Avenue Kelmscott

MOVED Cr D M Shaw

That Council:

A) Approves the application for Planning Approval for a self-storage facility on Lot 10 (No.130) Third Avenue Kelmscott as depicted in the attachments and subject to the following conditions:

1. The part of Lot 10 (No.130) Third Avenue Kelmscott that is proposed to be developed under this approval shall be amalgamated with Lot 851 (No.43) Gillam Drive Kelmscott prior to the self-storage facility beginning operations on Lot 10 to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

2. All regular, customer and general pedestrian and vehicular access to and from the self-storage facility shall be via Gillam Drive to the satisfaction of the Executive Director


Development Services.

3. Access to Third Avenue shall be for emergency purposes and occasional service vehicles only to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

4. A schedule of external colours and materials for all fencing, buildings and structures shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Services department and approved by the Executive Director Development Services. The development shall be completed and maintained in accordance with the approved schedule to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

5. No building, structure or colorbond fencing shall use zincalume, galvanized or unpainted steel surfaces or other finish likely to cause an adverse impact in relation to sunlight reflection as an exterior finish.

6. The existing mesh fencing along the lot’s John Dunn Memorial Park boundary shall be replaced prior to the self-storage facility beginning operations with fencing constructed in accordance with the standards specified in Schedule 2 Part A of the City’s Fencing Local Law to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

7. The colorbond fencing shall be installed as per the approved plans and other applicable conditions prior to the self-storage facility beginning operations to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

8. Any walls or solid fencing fronting the public realm shall be treated with anti-graffiti finish or include graffiti countermeasures to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

9. The storage containers and fencing shall be continually maintained to a high quality standard by the landowner to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

10. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from public view from John Dunn Memorial Park and Third Avenue to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

11. All rubbish bin storage areas and servicing areas associated with the development shall be screened from John Dunn Memorial Park and Third Avenue to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

12. Air conditioning units, compressors, whirlybirds / roof vents and other equipment related to utilities shall be screened from public view and positioned so as to avoid any adverse effects, including noise, on the occupants of nearby residential properties to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

13. A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the


Executive Director Development Services. Such plan shall include:

a. Plant species (predominantly West Australian natives); b. Numbers, location, container size; c. Method of irrigation of the landscaped areas; d. Treatment of adjoining verge areas; e. A minimum 7.5 metre wide landscaping strip between the

Third Avenue Boundary and the proposed fencing to achieve screening and protection of the fence fronting Third Avenue (mature plantings will need to be used in this landscaping strip); and

f. The land between the two fences shall be landscaped to screen the colorbond screen fence and reduce the likelihood of graffiti. A management plan for the maintenance of the strip of land between the mesh fencing and colorbond screen fence along the John Dunn Memorial Park Boundary (e.g. regular weeding and cutting of grass will be required). A pedestrian gate shall be included in the colorbond screen fence in this area to ensure access is available for this to occur.

All landscaping shall be installed and continually maintained as per the approved plan thereafter.

14. All vehicle manoeuvring spaces shall be constructed, including drainage and kerbing, in accordance with the approved site plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services and continuously maintained thereafter. Relocation/removal of any services/infrastructure will be at the cost of the developer.

15. To meet drainage requirements the developer/owner shall, to the

specifications and satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services:

a. Submit a stormwater management plan incorporating water

sensitive design principles for approval and implement the approved plan thereafter;

b. Show any drainage easements as may be required on the Certificate of Title in favour of the City; and

c. Relocate, remove or upgrade any drainage infrastructure on the lot or within the adjoining road reserve that is impacted by the proposed development.

16. Prior to the commencement of any site works, a dust management

plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Executive Director Development Services. All work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan thereafter.

17. All Conditions shall be complied with prior to exercising the right of

this approval. Advice Notes


a) With regard to Condition No.2, access over Lot 251 Gillam Drive Kelmscott is not permitted until its pending sale is finalised and it is amalgamated with Lot 851 (No.43) Gillam Drive Kelmscott (if the sale proceeds).

b) With regard to Conditions No.4 and No.5, Council supports the tops of the containers being powder coated with the dulux colour “Ashville”/Light grey (matt finish) and their remainders being powder coated grey or white with black detailing. With regard to the colorbond fencing, Council supports your request to use the colorbond colour “Meadow”/Light Green (with limestone piers along the Third Avenue Frontage).

c) With regard to Conditions No.6 and No.7, the colorbond screen fencing and mesh fencing shall be installed as new (i.e. not second hand) and be at high and consistent visual standard.

d) With regard to Conditions No.9, the City expects that within 14 days of any fencing being damaged or graffitied it is replaced or repaired to a standard that is consistent with condition of the fencing when new and in way that matches seamlessly the other fencing around the property.

e) With regard to Condition 14, the City’s Technical Services Directorate should be contacted so an appropriate crossover application may be made for the crossover onto Third Avenue.

f) The applicant is advised that the height of all approved buildings, structures and fencing and the finished ground level of the lot shall be consistent with those shown on the approved plan.

g) Lighting shall comply with Australian Standard 4282-1997 “Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting” or superseding standard and the City’s Environment, Animals and Nuisance Local Laws.

h) All noise emitted from the premises must comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

B) That the submitters be advised of the Council decision in this

regard.


Recommendation D18/3/13 - Proposed Educational Establishment - Stage 1

Carey Baptist College - Lot 2 (540) Nicholson Road, Forrestdale

MOVED Cr D M Shaw That Council: 1. Approves the application for Planning Approval under the City’s

Town Planning Scheme No. 4 for the development of Stage 1 of an


Educational Establishment on Lot 2 (540) Nicholson Road, Forrestdale subject to the following conditions:

a) Nicholson Road being upgraded to the specification and

satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services including (but not necessarily limited to):

i) provision of left hand and right hand turn deceleration

lanes; ii) construction of central median to restrict traffic

movements; iii) widening of Nicholson Road carriageways both north and

south to accommodate median and deceleration lanes; iv) provision of street lighting at ingress and egress points; and v) provision of directional signage. b) A wetland management plan for the Resource Enhancement

wetland and the Conservation category wetland buffer, is to be submitted for approval by the Executive Director Development Services prior to the commencement of any site works, and implemented to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services (on advice from the Department of Environment and Conservation).

e) An acid sulfate soils self-assessment form and, if required as a result of the self-assessment, an acid sulfate soils report and an acid sulfate soils management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Environment and Conservation before the development is commenced. Where an acid sulfate soils management plan is required to be submitted, all development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan.

d) Submission and implementation of a Weed Control Management Plan, including what weeds are present on the subject lot, what chemicals will be utilised for which weeds and appropriate timing of weed control based on weed species, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

e) Submission and implementation of a Nutrient and Irrigation Management Plan, including the proposed design of the reticulation system, anticipated watering regime and water use figures based on flow rate, fertilising regime and details as to how nutrients will be kept out of groundwater, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

f) Prior to the commencement of any site works, a dust management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Executive Director Development Services. All work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan thereafter.

g) A revegetation plan being prepared, approved and implemented for the revegetation of wetland areas, wetland buffers and other areas of the site outside the development area identified on the Master Plan for the school dated 28 November 2012 with


appropriate native species to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

h) A seed bank is to be compiled for native plants existing on Lot 2 for the purpose of growing plants for revegetation and wetland rehabilitation to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services. Collection of seed is to occur in the year prior to any clearing.

i) Prior to the commencement of subdivisional works a dieback management plan is to be prepared and approved to ensure the protection and management of the sites environmental assets with satisfactory arrangements being made for the implementation of the approved plan.

j) A fire management plan being prepared, approved and relevant provisions implemented, in accordance with the WAPC’s Guideline Planning for Bushfire Protection Edition 2, May 2010 (in particular Appendix 3) to the specifications of the City.

k) A landscape plan for the developed areas of the school site shall be submitted to and approved by the Executive Director Development Services. Such plan shall include:

a) Plant species (predominantly West Australian natives); b) Numbers, location, container size; c) Method of irrigation of the landscaped areas; d) Treatment of adjoining verge areas; e) The provision of shade trees within the car park at the

rates of at least 1 tree per 10 metre interval along any line of car parking;

g) Retention of existing trees as identified on the approved site plan;

All landscaping shall be installed and maintained as per the approved plan thereafter.

l) An Urban Water Management Plan is to be prepared and approved prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services and the Department of Water.

m) The approved Urban Water Management Plan shall be implemented by the landowner, including construction of the identified wastewater, stormwater and groundwater management systems, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services.

n) A Disability Access Inclusion Plan for the school is to be prepared, submitted to and approved, prior to commencement of construction of any buildings, by the Executive Director Development Services and implemented thereafter.

o) The development including construction, access, drainage requirements and ongoing maintenance is not to result in the clearing and/or disturbance to any native vegetation within Bush


Forever area 344.

p) No building materials, rubbish or any other deleterious matter is to be deposited within Bush Forever area 344 or the Jandakot Regional Park.

q) A fence is to be constructed to the specifications of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) and located on the boundary of Jandakot Regional Park to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

r) A schedule of external colours and materials shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Services department and approved by the Executive Director Development Services. The development shall be completed and maintained in accordance with the approved schedule to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

s) All rubbish bin storage areas and servicing areas associated with the development shall be appropriately screened from public vantage points to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

t) Air conditioning units, compressors and other equipment related to utilities shall be screened from public view and positioned so as to avoid any adverse effects, including noise, on the occupants of nearby residential properties to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Development Services.

u) All vehicle manoeuvring spaces shall be constructed, including drainage and kerbing, in accordance with the approved site plan to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services and continuously maintained thereafter. Relocation/removal of any services/infrastructure will be at the cost of the developer.

v) ‘End of trip bicycle facilities’ in accordance with Clause 5.12.1 and Schedule 11.B of Town Planning Scheme No.4 shall be provided prior to occupation of the development in a location agreed to by the City and continuously maintained thereafter.

w) Provision of bus parking bays on site sufficient to accommodate the number of buses required to support Stage 1 to the satisfaction of the Executive Director Technical Services,

x) All Conditions shall be complied with prior to exercising the right of this approval.

Advice Notes

i) The wetland management plan is to include measures to protect remnant vegetation, rehabilitation with native vegetation, address drainage and hydrology, management access requirements and installation of appropriate fencing or barriers.

ii) The applicant is advised to apply the Guidelines Checklist for Preparing a Wetland Management Plan by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). The guidelines are on the DEC internet site in the Wetlands section. The submitted plan is to clearly detail those actions that are to be implemented as part


of the development.

iii) Clearing of native vegetation in Western Australia is prohibited unless the clearing is authorised by a clearing permit obtained from the Department of Environment and Conservation or is of a kind that is exempt in accordance with Schedule 6 or Regulation 5 Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004. The site is declared as an environmentally sensitive area, therefore the exemptions under Regulation 5 do not apply.

iv) Flora species known to be invasive or environmentally damaging shall not be used in any landscaping, where they may spread into the adjacent Bush Forever Site or Jandakot Regional Park.

v) The applicant and the clearing agency are advised to liaise with the Department of Environment and Conservation regarding fire management measures that may impact upon Jandakot Regional Park prior to finalisation of the Fire Management Plan.

vi) It is recommended that the school buildings be constructed in-accordance with Australian Standard 3959 – Construction of Buildings in Bush Fire Prone Areas (or superseding standard). Ember protection screens should be installed to any evaporative air conditioning unit. Further information can be obtained at:

http://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/safetyinformation/fire/bushfire/BushfireInfoNotesPublications/infonote_-Ember_protection_Screens_V2.pdf

vii) In regard to Condition i) above, native vegetation on the property may be susceptible to Phytophthora Dieback. The soil/water management plan shall outline the treatment of soil, with respect of stability and regeneration of vegetation for the entire subdivision and stormwater run-off areas. The plans are to outline measures to be implemented prior to carrying out any bulk earthworks as well as those of drainage, nutrient stripping, retention and soil stabilising measures

viii) The dieback management plan shall map the dieback status of remnant vegetation, provide management strategies to reduce likelihood of dieback spread, provide a treatment plan for any infected areas and include an information kit to notify future purchasers of the dieback status of the land

ix) With regard to Condition k) above, please refer to the City’s Landscaping Guidelines Industrial and Commercial] and the Landscaping Guidelines – Plants to Avoid, to assist you to formulate a satisfactory landscaping proposal. Copies of these documents are available on the City’s website at: www.armadale.wa.gov.au/publications/

x) With regard to Condition n) above, guidelines on preparing a Disability Access Inclusion Plan and designing buildings and their surrounds to achieve maximum accessibility can be found on the Disability Services Commission website


www.disability.wa.gov.au.

xi) With regard to Condition r) above, it is expected that the colour and material schedule will be submitted and approved prior to the submission of a Building Permit Application.

xii) The impacts of the adjoining poultry farm will need to be examined further and more detailed studies undertaken as part of later stages of the school’s development.

xiii) A contribution towards the construction of a Dual Use Path from the school to Armadale Road will be required as part of Stage 2 of the school.

xiv) Premises must comply with the Food Act 2008 and the Food Standards Code.

xv) Compliance with the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992 is required. In this regard, a Public Building application shall be submitted to the City’s Health Department and approved prior to occupation of the proposed building.

xvi) Compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 is required.

xvii) With regard to Condition h) above, the applicant is advised that a Management Procedure is requested to be submitted to the Executive Director Development Services for approval prior to the collection of seeds or land clearing.

2. That the application be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission for determination under the Metropolitan Region Scheme in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 1 (b) of the Instrument of Delegation made under the Planning and Development 2005.

3. That the submitters and Government agencies be advised of the Council decision in this regard.

103/3/13 MOTION not opposed, DECLARED CARRIED (13/0) Recommendation D19/3/13 - Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) Between Lots

103 and 104 Pomelo Way, Seville Grove - Petition

MOVED Cr D M Shaw

That Council: 1. Advertise the proposed closure of the pedestrian access way (PAW)

between Lots 103 (No.5) and 104 (No.7) Pomelo Way, Seville Grove to the surrounding landowners/occupiers and in a newspaper circulating within the district for public comment.

2. Advise the organisers of the petition of Council’s decision.



Recommendation D20/3/13 - Naming of Whiteley Park - Lot 8005 (DP

69861) and future Public Open Space, Hilbert

MOVED Cr D M Shaw That Council: 1. Approach Geographic Names Committee for approval from the

Minister of Lands of the name ‘Whiteley Park’ to be applied to the portion of existing Public Open Space in the Sienna Wood Estate as per the attached plan.

2. Authorise officers to approach Geographic Names Committee when additional areas of this Public Open Space/Drainage link between Ninth Road and Eleventh Road are ceded to the Crown to include the Public Open Space areas within ‘Whiteley Park’.

105/3/13 MOTION not opposed, DECLARED CARRIED (13/0) Recommendation D21/3/13 - Appointment of Officers - Building Act 2011

MOVED Cr D M Shaw That Council: 1. Approve the appointment of the following officer classes as

“Authorised Officer” pursuant to section 96 (s100, s101, s102 and s103) of the Building Act 2011 for the purpose/s of s100 (Entry Powers), s101 (Powers after entry for compliance purposes), s102 (Obtaining information and documents), s103 (Use of force and assistance), s104 (Directions generally) and s105 (Obstruction of authorised persons).

To Senior Building Surveyor – Roy Goodger. 2. Confirm the appointment of Authorised Officer by instrument in

writing. 3. Approve the issue of an “Identity Card” to the Authorised

Officer in accordance with the requirements of the Building Act 2011.



Recommendation D22/3/13 - Karragullen Quarry

MOVED Cr D M Shaw That the item regarding Karragullen Quarry be referred to the appropriate Directorate for action.

107/3/13 MOTION not opposed, DECLARED CARRIED (13/0) 10.3 CITY STRATEGY COMMITTEE MEETING

Report of the City Strategy Committee on 19 March 2013 .

MOVED Cr C Wielinga that the report be received.



Recommendation CS25/3/13 - List of Accounts Paid - February 2013

MOVED Cr C Wielinga

That Council note the List of Accounts paid as presented in the attachment and summarised as follows: Municipal Fund Accounts paid totalling $18,803,648.93 on Vouchers 19198 – 19396, Batch 1388-1394, 1396-1398, 1400-1401, 102163-102179, PY01.16-PY01.17 & Y99.04 Trust Fund Accounts paid totalling $2,526,754.27 on Vouchers 2635-2669, 400192-400195, Batch 1395 & Batch 1399


Recommendation CS26/3/13 - Monthly Statement of Financial Activity -

February 2013

MOVED Cr C Wielinga

That Council:

pursuant to Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (Financial Activity Statement Report) accept the Statement of Financial Activity for the 8 month period ended 28 February 2013.



Recommendation CS27/3/13 - Rate Exemption Application - Forrest Personnel Inc - Unit 6 & 7/42 Commerce Avenue, Armadale

Councillor Stewart disclosed that as a carer for a family member with a disability he had an association with this project. As a consequence, he advised that there may be a perception on the basis of his non-financial interests that his impartiality on the matter may be affected, but declared that he would set aside this association, consider the matter on its merits and vote accordingly.

MOVED Cr C Wielinga :-

That Council:-

1. Pursuant to Section 6.26(2)(g) of the Local Government Act 1995 (land used exclusively for charitable purposes), approves a rates exemption on the following properties effective from 28 February 2013, on the basis :-

(a) that the land is and continues to be used exclusively for the provision of providing help for people who are injured and/or have an illness or disability, obtain and retain employment within the community, and

(b) of noting that this decision to grant a rates exemption is subject to the City firstly receiving from the property owners (Judge Trust for Sidhu Subscription & J H Heuvink) and the lessee (Forrest Personnel Inc) written confirmation that the rates exemption granted in this instance will be passed on and received by Forrest Personnel Inc.

A169092 6/42 Commerce Avenue, Armadale

A169105 7/42 Commerce Avenue, Armadale

2. Advises the property owner and Forrest Personnel Inc. that this rate exemption will be reviewed when the current lease arrangements expire in October 2014 so as to ensure ongoing rate exemption eligibility.


Recommendation CS28/3/13 - Basis of Rates for the 2013-2014 Rating Year

MOVED Cr C Wielinga

That Council pursuant to Section 6.28 of the Local Government Act 1995, request the Minister for Local Government to determine, with effect from the 1st July 2013, the method of valuation for the following (2) properties as being the gross rental valuation of the land given the properties are used predominantly for non-rural purposes i.e:


Assess Lot Diagram/Plan

Details House No Street Suburb

213249 Lot 60 D/P 86148 85 Dmietrieff Road Bedfordale

318821 Lot 5072 D/P 30019 - Rowley Road Hilbert


Recommendation CS29/3/13 - Renewal of Traders Permit - Plant Trader

MOVED Cr C Wielinga

That Council approves, pursuant to the City’s Activities and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law, a trader’s permit being issued to Mr J Stewart to carry on plants trading in the Jull Street Mall subject to the following permit conditions:

Area to which permit applies – refer to Area 1 on map within Jull Street Mall;

Days and Hours of Trading – Monday to Sunday, 8.00 am to 5.00 pm

Vehicle access within the mall area is to be strictly before 8.00am and after 5.00pm

Type of goods to be traded – plants;

Application fee – $50 (non-refundable);

Annual Licence fee - $500 per annum;

Period of permit – 23 March 2013 to 22 March 2014;

The applicant obtaining public liability insurance for an amount not less than $20,000,000;

Compliance with the Activities and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law and any other applicable legislation; and

the City reserving the right to cancel the permit should substantiated complaints be received;

All litter is to be removed immediately after close of business and the area is to be left in a clean and tidy state;

Compliance with any newly developed policy relating to trading within the Jull St Mall.



Recommendation CS30/3/13 - Renewal of Traders Permit - Fresh Fruit &

Vegetable Trader

MOVED Cr C Wielinga

That Council approves, pursuant to the City’s Activities and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law, a trader’s permit being issued to Mr L Del Dot carry on fresh fruit and vegetable trading in the Jull Street Mall subject to the following permit conditions:

Area to which permit applies – refer to Area 2 on map within Jull Street Mall;

Days and Hours of Trading – Monday to Sunday, 8.00 am to 5.00 pm

Vehicle access within the mall area is to be strictly before 8.00am and after 5.00pm

Type of goods to be traded – fresh fruit & vegetables;

Application fee – $50 (non-refundable);

Annual Licence fee - $500 per annum;

Period of permit – 23 March 2013 to 22 March 2014;

The applicant obtaining public liability insurance for an amount not less than $20,000,000;

Compliance with the Activities and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law and any other applicable legislation; and

the City reserving the right to cancel the permit should substantiated complaints be received;

the applicant being registered with the City’s Health Department and comply with the Food Act 2008;

All litter is to be removed immediately after close of business and the area is to be left in a clean and tidy state.

Compliance with any newly developed policy relating to trading within the Jull St Mall.


Recommendation CS31/3/13 - National General Assembly - Canberra - 16 to

19 June 2013

MOVED Cr C Wielinga

That Council:

nominate the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to attend as Council delegates at the 2013 National General Assembly of Local Government to be held in Canberra from 16th to 19th June 2013 with costs to be charged to the relevant Conference accounts.



Recommendation CS32/3/13 - Corporate Logo Refresh

MOVED Cr C Wielinga

That Council recommit the matter of a ‘refresh’ of the City’s Corporate Logo to the next City Strategy Committee meeting.


Recommendation CS33/3/13 – Review of Ward System and Representation

MOVED Cr C Wielinga SECONDED Cr J A Stewart

That Council, in accordance with Schedule 2.2(9) of the Local Government Act 1995, *recommend to the Local Government Advisory Board that:-

1. An order be made under section 2.2(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 to divide the district into seven (7) wards with boundaries as shown on the “Proposed Wards” map attached thereby replacing the current ward boundaries;

2. An order be made under section 2.3 of the Local Government Act 1995 to name the seven (7) wards, Heron, Jarrah, Lake, Minnawarra, Neerigen, River and Palomino as shown on the “Proposed Wards” map attached to this report;

3. An order be made under section 2.18 of the Local Government Act 1995 to designate the number of offices of councillor for each ward to be two (2); and

4. The City of Armadale undertake another review of wards and representation in 2 to 3 years’ time.

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY RESOLUTION REQUIRED

117/3/13 MOTION DECLARED CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE

MAJORITY RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL (13/0) Recommendation CS34/3/13 – Councillors Items

MOVED Cr J A Stewart That Council refer the Councillor items: Illegal Signage Review of Traders Permit Fees After Hours Service Profiling Armadale to the relevant Directorate for action and/or report to the appropriate Committee.



10.4 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

Report of the Chief Executive Officer .

MOVED Cr C J MacDonald that the report be received.



Councillors Information Bulletin - Issue No. 5/2012

MOVED Cr G A Best

That Council acknowledge receipt of Issue No 5/2013 of the Information Bulletin.


Metropolitan Local Government Review

A copy of the late CEO’s report on the above matter is attached to these Minutes. (Attachment 10.4.21.1) At this stage of the meeting Cr Munn foreshadowed amendments that he would be seeking to the Officer’s Recommendation. The Mayor called for a motion to discuss this item later during the meeting possibly behind closed doors and, if necessary, following a short adjournment.

MOVED Cr J H Munn

That discussion on this item be deferred to later in the meeting under Item 14-Matters Requiring Confidential Consideration” as there are aspects of this report that may require the meeting to be closed to members of the public as it may have significant consequences for other entities, the employees of the City and the future legal process of boundary change and restructure.


11 MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil


12 URGENT BUSINESS APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION

Nil

13 MATTERS FOR REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEES – WITHOUT DISCUSSION

13.1 Keane Road Project (Cr Caroline Wielinga)

That the matter of cost estimates for the Keane Road project be referred to the Technical Services Committee.

MEETING ADJOURNED

122/3/13 MOVED Cr C M Wielinga that that the meeting be adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 7.52pm

MEETING RESUMED

123/3/13 MOVED Cr C M Wielinga that that the meeting be resumed. Meeting resumed at 8.00pm

14 MATTERS REQUIRING CONFIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION

14.1 Metropolitan Local Government Review

A copy of the late report on the above matter is attached to these Minutes.

Officer Recommendation: That Council

1. Make a submission to the Department of Local Government addressing the recommendations of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel’s Final Report in accordance with the Table included in this report and Council’s earlier resolved position.

2. In addressing Recommendation No.15, support the findings of the G20 Group of Mayors that in the face of compulsory metropolitan local government reform, the Group preferred an option of 16 metropolitan Councils, with a number of supplementary boundary variations to be resolved between neighbouring Councils.

3. Note that the G20 Group of Mayors strongly supported the Variation (A2) that, in the event of City of Armadale and Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale being required to merge, that the northern part of Serpentine-Jarrahdale be linked to Armadale and the southern part be ceded to Shire of Murray.

4. Advise the Department of Local Government that:


Any restructure of metropolitan local government should be seen as Stage One of a total statewide restructure.

Armadale’s acceptance of any major boundary change or merger with Serpentine-Jarrahdale is reluctant and only acceptable as part of a metropolitan wide restructure. Armadale respects the aspirations of the communities of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale and believes that both authorities could grow to an optimum size of 150,000 population without a merger.

The City of Armadale has long-supported review of local government throughout Western Australia on the basis that all local governments should be operating on sound business and sustainability principles. The City is of the view that urban Councils of between 100,000 and 150,000 population offer the best combination of economies of scale, representation and accessibility by the community.

MOVED Cr J H Munn, SECONDED Cr C J MacDonald

OPPOSED Cr K Busby That the Officer’s Recommendation be amended as follows:- 1. The second dot point of part (4) of the recommendation be

amended to read as follows:- City does not accept any merger with the Shire of Serpentine-

Jarrahdale. Armadale respects the aspirations of the communities of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale and believes that both authorities could grow to an optimum size of 150,000 population without a merger.

2. A part 5 be added as follows: 5. Advise the Department of Local Government that if a merger

is forced on the City, the City should be financially protected by the State Government such that it suffers no financial loss.

In moving the above amendment, Cr Munn advised that current population

and financial statistics did not necessitate a merger or boundary change with the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale. The Minister and the Department needed to be made aware of the financial imposition any merger would place on the City’s Fifteen Year Plan. At this stage Council wished to discuss the summary of the outcomes of the Planning Context report prepared for G20 Councils. This was provided confidentially pending release of the final report by the consultant.

MEETING CLOSED MOVED Cr Butterfield that the meeting be closed to members of the public as the matter to be discussed, if disclosed, would reveal information that has a commercial value to a person or persons, affects the employees of the City and could affect the future legal process of boundary change and local government restructure. MOTION CARRIED (13-0)


Meeting declared closed at 8.10pm Members of the public and press left the meeting at 8.10pm MOVED Cr R Butterfield that Standing Orders be suspended. MOTION CARRIED (13-0) Council discussed the confidential report and believed that both the City of Armadale and Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale could grow to an optimum size of 150,000 population without a merger. It was also Council’s view that it would not be acceptable for the communities of both authorities to be put through a reform process if other parts of metropolitan Perth continue on unaffected. MOVED Cr D M Shaw that Standing Orders be resumed. MOTION CARRIED (13-0) Following this discussion, Cr Munn’s amendment was put to the vote.

MOVED Cr J H Munn SECONDED Cr C J MacDonald OPPOSED Cr K Busby That the Officer’s Recommendation be amended as follows:- 1. The second dot point of part (4) of the recommendation be

amended to read as follows:- City does not accept any merger with the Shire of Serpentine-

Jarrahdale. Armadale respects the aspirations of the communities of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale and believes that both authorities could grow to an optimum size of 150,000 population without a merger.

2. A part 5 be added as follows: 5. Advise the Department of Local Government that if a merger

is forced on the City, the City should be financially protected by the State Government such that it suffers no financial loss.

124/3/13 AMENDMENT DECLARED CARRIED (13/0)

MOVED Cr C J MacDonald OPPOSED Cr K Busby That in part (2) of the Officer’s Recommendation the word ‘support’ be replaced with ‘note’. AMENDMENT LAPSED FOR WANT OF A SECONDER

MOVED Cr R Butterfield That in the second dot point of part (4) of the amended motion the words ‘not accept’ be replaced with ‘not support’.

125/3/13 AMENDMENT not opposed, DECLARED CARRIED (13/0)


MOVED Cr H A Zelones that the amended motion, as follows, be adopted:

That Council


2. In addressing Recommendation No.15, support the findings of the G20 Group of Mayors that in the face of compulsory metropolitan local government reform, the Group preferred an option of 16 metropolitan Councils, with a number of supplementary boundary variations to be resolved between neighbouring Councils.




City does not support any merger with the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale. Armadale respects the aspirations of the communities of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale and believes that both authorities could grow to an optimum size of 150,000 population without a merger.


5. Advise the Department of Local Government that if a merger is forced on the City, the City should be financially protected by the State Government such that it suffers no financial loss.

126/3/13 MOTION not opposed, DECLARED CARRIED (13/0) MEETING OPENED MOVED Cr Butterfield that the meeting be opened to members of the public. MOTION CARRIED (13-0) Meeting declared open at 8.55pm Members of the press returned to the meeting. The Mayor read aloud Resolution 126/3/13 to the meeting.


15 CLOSURE

The Mayor, Cr Zelones, declared the meeting closed at 9.00pm

MINUTES CONFIRMED THIS 8th DAY OF APRIL 2013

MAYOR

MINUTES - ORDINARY MEETING 34 ATTACHMENT 10.4.21.1 OF COUNCIL

1.2 - METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW

WARD

: ALL In Brief:

This Report

recommends that Council make a submission to the Department addressing the recommendations of the MLGR Panel’s Final Report in accordance with its earlier resolution in January 2013 when it considered WALGA’s response; and

includes the outcomes of the G20 Mayors Group and support for its key recommendation.

FILE No.

: M/191/13

DATE

: 20 March 2013

REF

: RT

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: Chief Executive Officer

Tabled Items

Nil Officer Interest Declaration

Nil Strategic Implications

4.1.3 Provide leadership for the community in sustainability issues and local government reform matters. Legislation Implications

Local Government Act 1995 Council Policy/Local Law Implications

Nil Budget/Financial Implications

There are potentially significant budget implications arising from the implementation of some of the Panel’s recommendations. Consultation

G20 Mayoral Group WALGA BACKGROUND

The City has made numerous submissions on the matter of Metropolitan Local Government Review. In May 2012 it made detailed submission on the MLGR Panel’s Draft Findings (Resolution 138/5/12 of 14 May 2012). In October 2012 the Review Panel’s findings and recommendations were released and on 18 December 2012 the City held a Workshop to advise a WALGA arranged meeting of Mayors on 20 December 2012. WALGA had invited feedback from all metropolitan Councils by 23 January 2013 to enable a combined WALGA response to the Panel’s recommendation. The December 20th meeting of Mayors was specifically called to address the controversial Recommendation 15 “that 12 (metropolitan) Local Governments should be formed with


boundaries as proposed in the Panel’s report”. The group failed to reach consensus in considering a WALGA recommendation to support a model of 15 to 20 metropolitan local governments. In January 2013 (CS8/1/13 of 21 January 2013 refers), the City considered WALGA’s response to the Review Panel’s 30 recommendations, supporting 23, offering qualified support to 4 and opposing 3, as follows:-

RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW

No. REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDATION

WALGA RESPONSE SUGGESTED COUNCIL COMMENT

1. The State Government gives consideration to the inequities that exist in local government rating, including rate-equivalent payments and State Agreement Acts.

Adopted: Support - That LandCorp and other Government Trading Entities' rate equivalency payments be made to the relevant Local Governments instead of the State Government.

Support recommendation.

2. A collaborative process between State and local government be commenced to establish a new Partnership Agreement which will progress strategic issues and key result areas for both State Government and local government.

Adopted: Support - The Association supports a Partnership Agreement with associated consultation protocol being in place.


3. The State Government facilitate improved co-ordination between State Government agencies in the metropolitan area, including between State Government agencies and local government.

Adopted: Support Support recommendation.

4. A full review of State and local government functions be undertaken by the proposed Local Government Commission as a second stage in the reform process.

Indicative: Support - provides opportunities for efficiencies to be gained

Support recommendation – Note that this should address issues of cost-shifting and include considerations of funding.

5. In conjunction with the proposed structural and governance reforms, that local government planning approval powers be reinstated in metropolitan Perth by the State Government.

Indicative: Support - Local Governments should have planning approval powers.

Qualified Support – Note that the planning powers allocated to DAPs should be reinstated to local government in any event and not be contingent on structural reform.

6. The State Government consider the management of waste treatment and disposal at a metropolitan-wide scale either be undertaken by a State authority or through a partnership with local government.

Adopted: Support - "Local Government demands more State Government engagement and leadership on the issue of waste management." Further detail required in relation to how this would work. E.g. current contracts etc


7. A shared vision for the future of Perth be developed by the State Government, in conjunction with local government, stakeholder and community groups.

Adopted: Support - A shared vision for the future of Perth should be developed by the State Government, together with Local Government, stakeholder

Support recommendation in principle. However, it should be noted that any such vision should be based on the optimal manner of providing services to the





and community groups. community. 8. A Forum of Mayors be formed to

facilitate regional collaboration and effective lobbying for the needs of the metropolitan area and to provide a voice for Perth.

Adopted: Supported in principle - WALGA has established this.

Support WALGA’s position.

9. The Forum of Mayors be chaired by the Lord Mayor of the modified City of Perth in the first instance.

Adopted: Supported in principle - WALGA has established this.

Oppose WALGA’s position.

10. The newly created local governments should make the development and support of best practice community engagement a priority, including consideration of place management approaches and participatory governance modes, recognition of new and emerging social media channels and the use of open-government platforms.

Indicative: Support - Local Governments already engage their communities well.

Qualified Support: Best practice community engagement could be supported, however, the promotion of place management may not be an optimal model in all cases.

11. The existing Regional Local Governments in the metropolitan area be dissolved, their provisions in the Local Government Act 1995 be repealed for the metropolitan area and a transitional plan for dissolving the existing bodies in the metropolitan area be developed.

Indicative: Conditionally Support one Regional Council in the metropolitan area for waste management only, provided other Regional Councils are not disbanded.


12. The State Government give consideration to transferring oversight responsibility for developments at Perth's airports, major hospitals and universities to the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority.

Indicative: Oppose – unnecessary.

Support WALGA’s position to Oppose – the MRA is over-extended already without further commitments in areas it lacks expertise. There is no evidence that airports, or hospitals are inappropriate within local government jurisdictions and the inclusion of universities could owe more to the bias of the Panel members. It is inconsistent to include some uses while excluding other public uses such as schools and prisons – in any event State interests concerning the planning of regional facilities are protected by their designation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

13. Periodic local government boundary reviews are undertaken by an independent body every 15 years to ensure the city's local government structure continues to be optimal as the metropolitan region develops.

Indicative: Support - periodic reviews are appropriate.

Oppose WALGA’s position. Any such review should have a clearly defined outcome. Recognition should be given to the cost to local government of such reviews which, in the case of the current review, has been substantial and inevitably diverts resources from other priorities.





14. The Local Government Advisory Board be dissolved and its operating and process provisions in the Local Government Act 1995 be rescinded, with the Local Government Commission taking over its roles, including consideration of representation reviews.

Adopted: The intent of establishing a Local Government Commission is SUPPORTED subject to: The poll provisions in Schedule 2.1 of Act are not repealed. The Local Government Commission has a greater capacity building focus than the current LGAB. The Association accepts there should be one body responsible for boundary reviews.


15. A new structure of local government in metropolitan Perth be created through specific legislation which: a) incorporates all of the Swan

and Canning Rivers within applicable local government areas

b) transfers Rottnest Island to the proposed local government centred around the City of Fremantle

c) reduces the number of local governments in metropolitan Perth to 12, with boundaries as detailed in Section 5 of this report.

Adopted: Not Supported - WALGA supports a Governance Model for the Perth metropolitan region consisting of approximately 15-20 Local Governments, and will work towards achieving this objective, based on sustainability principles, with reference to Directions 2031, using existing Local Government boundaries as a starting point. WALGA is concerned with 15(a) due to potential for cost-shifting to Local Governments.

Support WALGA’s position. Consideration should be given to the financial consequences of proposals. In particular analysis of debt, reserves and commitments needs to be undertaken to ensure that any restructuring does not impose additional costs on any local government due to the imposition of a boundary change.

16. Consideration be given to all local government elections being conducted by the Western Australian Electoral Commission.

Adopted: Oppose - the Association's formal position is that other bodies, including Local Governments, should be empowered to conduct postal elections.


17. Compulsory voting for local government elections be enacted.

Adopted: Oppose - WALGA position.


18. All Mayors and Presidents be directly elected by the community.

Sector feedback- this was noted in WALGA's Submission to the Draft Findings.

Oppose Recommendation. There are significant additional costs to candidates associated with being elected at large. This inhibits potentially competent candidates with limited financial resources from standing. The support of the Panel for directly elected Mayors shows a lack of understanding of the practical benefits of the Council leader being elected by peers and the difficulties experienced in recent years in a number of Councils where Mayors have been elected at large.





19. Party and group nominations for local government electoral vacancies be permitted.

Indicative: Oppose - the Association has advocated to keep party politics out of Local Government.

Support WALGA’s position. The Panel has demonstrated little awareness of the disadvantages of party-orientated local government. While it is desirable to keep party politics out of local government, there is no current restriction on candidates aligning with politician parties or interest groups now. Accordingly it is unclear what exact changes are proposed from the recommendation.

20. Elected members be limited to serving three consecutive terms as councillor and two consecutive terms as Mayor/President.

Adopted: Oppose - anti-democratic. The Panel based their recommendations on consistency with State / Federal Government and clearly this would not be consistent with other spheres of Government.

Support WALGA’s position. The Panel has presented no evidence to demonstrate that the most experienced and knowledgeable councillors should be excluded from serving. The Panel does not recognise that in some cases it is difficult to encourage competent nominees.

21. Elected members be provided with appropriate training to encourage strategic leadership and board-like behaviour.

Adopted: Support Support recommendation.

22. A full review of the current legislation be conducted to address the issue of the property franchise and the most appropriate voting system (noting the Panel considers that first-past-the-post is inappropriate for the larger districts that it has recommended).

Indicative: Support a review of the property franchise - generally support any review. Adopted: The Association supports first past the post as the most appropriate voting system.


23. Implementation of the proposed setting of fees and allowances for elected members as set by the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal.

Adopted: Support - Already legislated. Review hasn't been finalised but is expected to be implemented in 2013. WALGA will make a submission to the review.

Support the setting of fees and allowances for members by the Salaries and Allowances Tribunal. It could be noted that such an initiative could provide some impetus to voluntary restructuring in that higher allowances would accompany the greater responsibility that would occur with larger local governments.

24. Payments made to elected members be reported to the community on a regular basis by each local government.

Indicative: No position - current arrangements are adequate (It is a requirement of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 for payments to Elected Members to be reported in the Annual Report).

Support WALGA’s position. The recommendation may be more reflective of the Panel’s lack of awareness of the openness of local government processes than any real identified shortcomings of current arrangements.

25. The Public Sector Commission provide advice and assistance to local governments in the

Indicative: Support - WALGA's Submission to the Draft Findings (p33) states, "The text






appointment and performance management of local government Chief Executive Officers with consideration given to the Public Sector Commission being represented on relevant selection panels and committees.

supporting this Finding suggests that, while remaining a Council responsibility, there should be oversight of the CEO recruitment and performance management processes by an independent body. This concept should be included in the Finding."

26. A State Government decision on reform should be made as soon as possible, and if the decision is to proceed with structural reforms, the process of implementation should begin without delay.

Adopted: Support - WALGA Additional Recommendation "That the State Government be requested to: 1. Release the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel's final report for a two month sector consultation period, and 2. Declare its position in regard to Local Government reform prior to the 2013 State election".

Support WALGA’s position. However, it is noted that it has already been superseded by events and the Government has decided not to declare its position in regard to Local Government reform prior to the election.

27. Councils take on a leadership role in the reform debate and prepare their residents now for the possibility of changes in the future.

Indicative: Support Support in principle, however, each Council would have to be supportive of the ultimate outcome – leadership cannot be expected if a decision is imposed against the advice and interests of participating local governments.

28. The State Government assist and support local governments by providing tools to cope with change and developing an overarching communication and change management strategy.

Indicative: Support Support recommendation.

29. A Local Government Commission be established as an independent body to administer and implement the structural and governance reforms recommended by the Panel, and facilitate the ongoing relationship between State and local government.

Adopted: The intent establishing a Local Government Commission is SUPPORTED subject to:

1. Responsibility for Intergovernmental Agreements sitting with the Department of Premier and Cabinet, in liaison with WALGA. 2. The Local Government Commission, established as an independent body from the Department of Local Government, undertaking the following functions: • The majority of the advisory and sector support functions currently undertaken by the Department of Local Government Progressing Local Government's ability to examine and improve its sustainability • Improving access to consistent aggregated Local Government






financial information • Encouraging standard asset management practices • Encouraging long term strategic financial planning and management, and • Assisting with the implementation of community infrastructure planning WALGA, the LGMA and the Local Government sector should be involved in any transition process.

30. The recommendations from the Panel should be considered as a complete reform package and be implemented in their entirety.

Indicative: Oppose - many recommendations are not dependent on other recommendations. E.g. direct election of Mayors has no effect, or is not effected by, the number of local governments in metropolitan Perth.

Support WALGA’s position. While the recommendations could be considered as a complete reform package, to suggest that they should necessarily all be adopted and implemented would be completely inappropriate as some are without sufficient justification.

On 31 January 2013 a further meeting of metropolitan Mayors, Presidents and CEOs representing 17 Councils was held at South Perth to again consider the controversial Recommendation 15 and seek to make some recommendation to Government on just where metropolitan government boundaries might need to shift to meet the Government’s (and Review Panel’s) clear intent to restructure local government, without destroying its very reason for existence, as submitted by many Councils to the Panel. That Group, subsequently joined by a further 3 Councils to form a ‘G20’ group of metropolitan Councils, determined:-

Resolution That this meeting of Metropolitan Mayors, CEOs and Presidents:

1. Supports the appointment of consultants, Planning Context, to draft a map showing proposed alternative revised local government boundaries.

2. That Planning Context seek the advice of Mayors, Presidents and CEOs of all metropolitan local governments including Councils not in attendance at this meeting, when drafting the map.

3. Once a map is prepared this group will meet again, to determine whether the map reflects the views of the group, prior to formal consideration of the map by each participating Council.

4. That the process of appointment and oversight of consultants Planning Context be undertaken on behalf of the group by the City of Armadale, on the basis that each participating Council will contribute $4,000 towards the contract, which will also include some financial modelling to provide a more robust recommendation to government.

Moved: Mayor Barker Seconded: Mayor Aubrey CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY


On 11 March 2013, the G20 group met at the City of Stirling to consider options and try and reach consensus. While Planning Context’s report is not yet available the Mayor and CEO can report that 6 options were considered with a number of variations and sub-options voted on separately. The Robson Review Panel’s option (12 Councils, Options A and B) had no support and were not favoured. The 6 options represent the range of recommendations submitted by the G20 Councils, if local government is required to submit to structural reform. The options were ranked by a preferential voting system as follows:- Rank

1. Option D 16 Councils 2. Option C 18 Councils 3. Option E 15 Councils 4. Option B 20 Councils 5. Option A 22 Councils 6. Option F 9 Councils

The first 3 options were only narrowly separated. In addition, the group strongly supported variations:-

A-2 Only the northern part of SJ to be linked to Armadale C-1 Expanding Fremantle to take in Mosman Park and part of Cockburn, as well as East Fremantle E-1 South Perth, Victoria park and Canning amalgamate, but Parts of Canning go to Melville and Gosnells

Councillors have been briefed on the process undertaken by the G20 consultants under confidential separate cover. It will be recommended below that the City consider using the G20 recommendations to support its earlier submission, in the event Councils are required to submit to amalgamation or boundary change. It can be seen that every Option prepared included three common amalgamations:- Bayswater/Bassendean Fremantle/East Fremantle Armadale/Serpentine-Jarrahdale The G20 showed strong support for variation A-2 wherein if the City of Armadale and Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale are required to merge, it should only be the Byford and Mundijong urban growth areas that should be brought into the City of Armadale, recognizing that areas further south are more closely affiliated with the Shire of Murray and Peel district. This supports the City’s own submission. No submissions at G20 supported the Panel Review’s recommendation Option-B where Armadale is amalgamated with Gosnells, part of Canning and part of Serpentine-Jarrahdale.


COMMENT This report is to enable Council to confirm its position in response to the MLGR Panel Recommendations, and consider any further information that might influence its position since last considering this matter in January. First, the City’s submission will reiterate its support of WALGA’s submission on the 27 Recommendations identified about as ‘Supported’ or granted ‘Qualified Support’, with the addition that Recommendation 15 (Number of metropolitan local governments) will be further addressed after considering the G20 findings. The three WALGA responses opposed by the City are:- Recommendation 9 : The forum of Mayors be chaired by the Lord Mayor of the modified

City of Perth in the first instance.

With no disrespect intended to the Lord Mayor, the City of Armadale has expressed the view that a forum of Mayors should elect its own leader who can then act as a spokesperson and leader of the body with full support of members. The Lord Mayor currently represents a population of just 18,000 while the Mayor of the City of Stirling has been elected from a community of 200,000 persons. The leader of the Mayoral forum should be elected on merit. This is commensurate with the City’s strong conviction on Recommendation 18 (below).

Recommendation 13: Periodic local government boundary reviews are undertaken by an

independent body every 15 years to ensure the city's local government structure continues to be optimal as the metropolitan region develops.

Council qualified its response as it was opposed to the concept of reviews without clearly defined outcomes.

Recommendation 18: All Mayors and Presidents be directly elected by the Community.

WALGA has not expressed a view on this. The City’s view has been expressed in earlier submissions. A WALGA indicative response, along with the City’s view was expressed as follows:- “The Association does not support this proposal. Mayors elected by the community present an increased governance risk for the sector. History demonstrates that a large proportion of Inquiries related to dysfunctional Councils have been brought about by Mayors elected by the community in conflict with the Council. The concept of term limits for Elected Members is raised in the document. Term limits for Elected Members are not supported. Term limits are not in place in other spheres of government and may cause significant issues in attracting Elected Members in rural and regional Western Australia.

CoA Comment (23c)

WALGA’s position here is strongly supported and the Panel’s view is hard to understand. The

City’s original submission strongly contends that team leadership is critical and that a

Council should elect its own leader and spokesperson on merit.


A city‐wide mayoral election campaign would be beyond the resources of most citizens,

requiring the candidate to consider party political support, or other interest groups – with

the obvious connotations.”

The City’s submission should also advise the Department of Local Government that:

Any restructure of metropolitan local government should be seen as Stage One of a total statewide restructure. The whole question of sustainability and resourcing stems from the difficulties faced by rural Councils throughout the State, and yet WA has followed the course of other States in reverting to amalgamation of urban Councils, while not addressing the serious issue of regional and remote rural local governments.

Armadale’s acceptance of any major boundary change or merger with Serpentine-Jarrahdale is reluctant and only acceptable as part of a metropolitan wide restructure. Armadale respects the aspirations of the communities of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale and believes that both authorities could grow to an optimum size of 150,000 population without a merger. Further, that the residents of the current City of Armadale will be disadvantaged over the next decade should the two authorities be brought together.

If Armadale and Serpentine-Jarrahdale (along with Bayswater/Bassendean and Fremantle/East Fremantle) are seen as the ‘low-hanging fruit’ to appease the proponents of reform, it is important the City makes a statement about broader metropolitan reform and supports one (or more?) of the Options considered by the G20 group. There is a long way to go yet in the process and it would not be acceptable for our communities to be put through this process, while other parts of metropolitan Perth (and the State) continue on unaffected. It is important that it is seen as a genuine step towards reform, otherwise our industry will continue this discussion interminably.


It should also be noted that in Planning Context’s report to G20, Armadale’s population igures appear to be understated. Planning Context state that a population of 100,000 by 2026 is a ‘target’ of the process. It is the City’s view that our population will be 121,000 by 2026, which may well remove the compulsion to amalgamate.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Executive Summary-Consultant Report for G20 on MLGR RECOMMEND

That Council


2. In addressing Recommendation No.15, support the findings of the G20 Group of Mayors that in the face of compulsory metropolitan


local government reform, the Group preferred an option of 16 metropolitan Councils, with a number of supplementary boundary variations to be resolved between neighbouring Councils.




Armadale’s acceptance of any major boundary change or merger with Serpentine-Jarrahdale is reluctant and only acceptable as part of a metropolitan wide restructure. Armadale respects the aspirations of the communities of the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale and believes that both authorities could grow to an optimum size of 150,000 population without a merger.


MINUTES – ORDINARY MEETING 45 ATTACHMENT 10.4.21.1OF COUNCIL - 25 March 2013

co 25032013 min at - city of armadale...city of armadale minutes of ordinary council meeting held in...

Documents