june 2012 ocm minutes asfw4er3qtr53t5w43t5-t45w 56w46yw46t4tw4
TRANSCRIPT
Please Council June 20AdminisVictoria
ANTHOACTING 15 June
be advisedwas held a
012 in the stration Ce
Park.
ONY VULEG CHIEF E
e 2012
d that the Oat 6.30pmCouncil Cntre at 99
TA EXECUTIV
Ordinary M on Tuesd
Chambers,Shepperto
VE OFFICE
Meeting of day 12 , on Road,
ER
ITEM TI 1 O
2 A
3 A
3.
3.
4 D
5 P
6 P
7 C
8 P
8.
8.
8.
9 M
10 C
10
11 FU
11
11
11
11
11
12 R
12
12
12
ITLE
OPENING
ANNOUNCE
ATTENDAN
Apo.1
App.2
ECLARAT
UBLIC QU
UBLIC ST
ONFIRMA
RESENTA
Pet.1
Pre.2
Dep.3
METHOD O
HIEF EXE
2010.1
Ann
UTURE LI
78 (1.1
53 (1.2
30-31.3
Dwe
Am1.4
Rec
Stre
and
Rev1.5
RENEW LIF
Can2.1
Ten2.2
Serv
Acc2.3
EMENTS F
NCE
ologies
proved Le
TIONS OF
UESTION T
TATEMENT
ATION OF
ATIONS
itions
sentations
putations
OF DEALIN
ECUTIVE O
2 Wester
nual Gene
FE AND B
(Lot 304) P
(Lot 1) Ga
34 (Lot 33
ellings
endment
classificat
eet, Victo
d Recreatio
view of Co
FE PROGR
nning High
nder No.
rvices.
ceptance o
TABLE
FROM TH
ave of Ab
INTERES
TIME
T TIME
MINUTES
s (Awards
(Planning
NG WITH A
OFFICER R
rn Austra
eral Meetin
BUILT LIFE
Planet Stre
llipoli Stre
36) Cannin
No. 54
ion of 31
ria Park f
on” to “Of
ouncil’s Lo
RAM REPO
hway Road
12/04 To
of Perth B
2
E OF CON
E PRESID
bsence
ST
S
s to be giv
/ Externa
AGENDA B
REPORTS
alian Loc
ng Delegat
E PROGRA
eet, Carlis
eet, Lathla
ng Highwa
to Town
1 (Lots 6
from “Lo
ffice/Resid
ocal Plann
ORTS
d Reserva
oVP – Su
Bicycle Net
TENTS
DING MEM
ven to the
al Organisa
BUSINESS
S
cal Gove
tion
AM REPO
sle – Singl
ain – Singl
ay, Victor
Planning
62, 63, 64
cal Schem
dential” zo
ning Policy
ation Revi
upply and
twork Gra
BER
Town)
ations)
S
ernment A
ORTS
le House
le House
ria Park –
g Scheme
4 and 100
me Reser
one – Fina
y - Streets
ew
d laying
ant Funds
Associatio
15 Multip
e No. 1
0) Rushto
rve – Par
al Approv
scape
of Aspha
2012-2013
PAGE NO
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
on
9
12
12
30
ple
45
–
on
ks
al 66
78
86
86
alt
89
3 94
O
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
2
2
0
5
6
8
6
6
9
4
Ordinary M
12
12
12
12
13 C
13
13
13
13
13
13
14 B
14
14
14
14
14
15 A
15
Meeting of
Com2.4
Mod
Ten2.5
Pre
Mov2.6
Occ
Plan
Ten2.7
Eng
OMMUNIT
Rec3.1
Rec3.2
– A
Rec3.3
– E
Ann
Ten3.4
Rec3.5
Esta
Rec3.6
Esta
Wo
USINESS
Mul4.1
Fina4.2
Betw
Sch4.3
201
Fee4.4
Bus4.5
APPLICATI
Cou5.1
July
f Council M
mmunity
difications
nder TVP/
pare an In
vies by B
cupy Agre
net Street
nder No.
gineering
TY LIFE PR
commenda
commenda
ppointme
commenda
Establishm
nual Work
nder TVP/1
commenda
ablishmen
commenda
ablishmen
rk Plan
LIFE PRO
ltiple Dog
ancial Sta
ween 1Ap
hedule of
2
es and Cha
siness Life
IONS FOR
uncillor J
y 2012, inc
Minutes
Environm
s to Terms
/12/03 – P
ntegrated
urswood
eement – f
, Lathlain
TVP 12/05
Maintenan
ROGRAM
ations fro
ation from
nt of Com
ation from
ment of th
k Plan
12/02– Pro
ation fro
nt of the A
ation from
nt of the
OGRAM RE
Applicatio
atements
pril and 30
Accounts
arges – Ef
e Working
R LEAVE O
(John) Bi
clusive
3
mental W
s of Refere
Provision
Movemen
– Reques
former La
5 – Pane
nce Servic
REPORTS
m the Mem
m the Com
mmunity M
m the Com
he Comm
ovision of
om the
Arts Worki
m the He
Healthy
EPORTS
on – 44 Ca
and Budg
0 April 201
s for the P
ffective fro
g Group - M
OF ABSEN
issett Ban
Working G
ence
of Cons
nt Network
st for Exte
athlain Pre
el Contrac
ces
S
morial Ga
mmunity S
ember
mmunity S
munity Sa
Gymnasiu
Arts W
ing Group
ealthy Lif
Life Wor
arnarvon S
get Variat
2
Period 1 A
om 1 July
Membersh
NCE
nksia Ward
Group –
sultancy S
k Strategy
ension of
e-Primary
ct for the
rdens Pro
afety Wor
afety Wor
fety Work
um Equip
Working
p Annual W
fe Workin
rking Gro
Street
ions For
April 2012
2012
hip
d, 23 July
12 J
Propose
Services
(IMNS)
f Licence
School 6
e Supply
oject Team
rking Grou
rking Grou
king Grou
ment
Group
Work Plan
ng Group
oup Annu
The Perio
to 30 Ap
y 2012 to 2
June 2012
ed
98
to
103
to
6-8
110
of
115
123
m 123
up
130
up
up
133
136
-
142
-
ual
145
148
148
od
152
pril
159
162
165
168
27
168
2
8
3
0
5
3
3
0
3
6
2
5
8
8
2
9
2
5
8
8
Ordinary M
15
16 M
16
16
17 Q
18 N
19 P
20 P
21 M
21
21
22 C
Meeting of
Min5.2
Cou
MOTION OF
Cr H6.1
Not6.2
Ent
Plac
QUESTION
EW BUSIN
UBLIC QU
UBLIC ST
MEETING C
Mat1.1
Pub1.2
LOSURE
f Council M
ndarie Reg
uncillor Bi
F WHICH
Hayes will
tice of
ertainmen
ce Road R
S FROM M
NESS OF A
UESTION T
TATEMENT
CLOSED T
tters for W
blic Readin
Minutes
gional Co
issett’s Le
PREVIOUS
l be Movin
Motion
nt Comple
Reserve
MEMBERS
AN URGE
TIME
T TIME
TO PUBLIC
Which the M
ng of Res
4
ouncil – A
eave of Ab
S NOTICE
ng a Notic
- Reco
ex Car Par
S WITHOU
ENT NATU
C
Meeting M
olutions T
Appointme
bsence
E HAS BEE
e of Motio
nsideratio
rk and Req
UT NOTICE
RE
May be Clo
That May b
ent of Dep
EN GIVEN
on
on of
quest to C
E
osed
be Made P
12 J
puty durin
N
Burswoo
Close Glen
Public
June 2012
ng
168
169
169
od
nn
169
178
178
178
179
179
179
179
179
2
8
9
9
9
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
5
1 OPENING
Almighty God, under whose providence we hold responsibility for this Town, grant us wisdom to understand its present needs, foresight to anticipate its future growth and grace to serve our fellow citizens with integrity and selfless devotion.
And to Thee, be all blessing and glory forever. AMEN
Acknowledgement of Country (by Mayor) I acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land the Noongar people and pay my respects to the Elders both past, present and future for they hold the memories, the traditions, the culture and hopes of Indigenous Australians.
2 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER
The Mayor asked Councillors to keep the Council Meeting as brief as possible due to the predicted approaching storm so staff are able to make it home safely.
The Mayor congratulated that the following people that were inducted into the Sporting Walk of Fame: o Bob Govan – Swimming; o Dennis Lillee – Cricket; o Graeme Wishart – Lawn Bowls; o Jack O’Dea – Football; o Sydney Corser – Yachting; and o Trevor Williams – Volleyball.
The Mayor Informed Council that a number of Tourist buses have visited the Town to view the new Artwork that have been raised.
3 ATTENDANCE
Mayor: Cr T (Trevor) Vaughan
Banksia Ward: Cr J (John) Bissett (Deputy Mayor) Cr K (Keith) Hayes Cr R (Rowena) Skinner
Jarrah Ward: Cr D (David) Ashton Cr D V (Vin) Nairn Cr V (Vicki) Potter
Acting Chief Executive Officer: Mr A (Anthony) Vuleta
Directors: Mr (N) Nathan Cain Ms R (Rochelle) Lavery
Acting Directors: Mr W (Warren) Bow Ms N (Nicole) Anson
Executive Manager Built Life: Mr R (Robert) Cruickshank
Secretary: Ms K (Kathleen) Highfield
Public: 12
Ordinary M
Ap3.1 Chief Exe Director C Banksia W
Ap3.2 Jarrah W 4 DE DeclaratioMeeting, Agenda). Declarati Nil Declarati Elected MConduct] required tThis decldecision-mthe nature
Name/Pos
Item No/S
Nature of
Extent of
Meeting of
pologies
ecutive Of
Communi
Ward:
pproved
Ward:
ECLARAT
ons of inte(a form to
on of Fina
on of Inte
Members (Regulationto declare aration domaking proe of the inte
sition
Subject
Interest
Interest
f Council M
fficer:
ty Life:
Leave of
TIONS O
erest are o assist E
ancial Inte
rest affec
in accordans 2007) aany intere
oes not reocess. Theerest.
Minutes
M
M
C
f Absenc
C
OF INTER
to be madElected Me
erests
ting impar
ance with Rand employest that maestrict any e Elected
Anthony
12.2 - As
Interest th
1. I amMr Mitem
2. I hav
my rtend
6
Mr A (Arthu
Ms T (Tina
Cr C (Clair
ce
Cr A (Adam
REST
de in writembers an
rtiality
Regulationyees (in acay affect t
right to pMember/e
y Vuleta –
phalt Tend
hat may af
m friends wMartyn Glo
m.
ve been exrole as Preder for this
ur) Kyron
) Ackerma
e) Anderso
m) Vilaca
ing prior tnd Staff is
n 11 of theccordance their imparparticipatemployee is
Director R
der
ffect impar
with the Genover, who h
xtended hoesident of Iitem
an
on
to the coms attached
e Local Gowith the C
rtiality in coin or be
s also enc
Renew Life
tiality
neral Manahas provide
ospitality byPWEA, wh
12 J
mmencemed at the e
overnmentCode of Coonsideringpresent d
couraged t
e Program
ager of Roed a tende
y Fulton Hhich has su
June 2012
ent of thend of this
t [Rules ofonduct) areg a matter.during theto disclose
m
ads 2000 er for this
Hogan, in ubmitted a
2
e s
f e .
e e
a
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
7
Name/Position Councillor Keith Hayes
Item No/Subject 16.1 - Burswood Entertainment Complex Car Park and Request to Close Glenn Place Road Reserve
Nature of Interest Interest that may affect impartiality
Extent of Interest Member of the Burswood Park Board
5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Ms Debbie Allen, 34b Mars Street, Carlisle WA 6100 What is the recent progress with the roll-out of the National Broadband Network in Victoria Park? Answer Commencement of the roll-out is scheduled to start in July/August and will be a 12 month timeframe for installation, 1st & 2nd parts of the roll-out will take place in that timeframe from Miller Street across through to Burswood Road. Further information can be found on the Town’s website. 6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME Ms Tracy Pola, 53 Gallipoli Street, Lathlain WA 6100 Ms Pola asked Council if they could approve her submitted plans and grant that the requesting setback be changed from 3m to 2.2m. Ms Pola believes this will not affect residents but it will impact their living. Mr Peter Lessiter, 40 Oats Street, East Victoria Park WA 6100 Mr Lessiter requested that consultation should be done prior to rubber speed bumps being placed within the Town. 7 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Potter
That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 be confirmed. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
8 PR
Pe8.1 Mr Sam Z Submittedbetween B RESOLVE Moved: The PetitBurlingtoinvestiga The Motio In favour oCr Potter
Pre8.2 Nil
De8.3 Nil 9 ME
Meeting of
RESENTA
etitions
Zammit, 31
d a 21 signBurlington
ED:
Councill
tion dealion Street ation, in ac
on was Pu
of the Motio
esentatio
eputation
ETHOD O
f Council M
ATIONS
Alvah Stre
nature PetStreet and
or Ashton
ng with sand Berwccordance
ut and
on: Mayor V
ons (Awa
ns (Plann
OF DEAL
Minutes
eet, ST JA
ition opposd Berwick S
n
speed cuswick Streete with the
Vaughan; C
ards to b
ning / Ex
LING WIT
8
AMES WA
sing speedStreet.
shions bet be referAdministr
Cr Bissett; C
be given
xternal O
TH AGEN
6102
d cushions
Secon
eing placerred to theration Pro
Cr Ashton;
to the T
rganisat
NDA BUS
s being pla
ded: Co
ed on Alde Director
ocedure AD
Cr Hayes;
own)
ions)
SINESS
12 J
aced on Ald
ouncillor P
day Streetr of RenewDP09.
CARR
Cr Skinner
June 2012
day Street
Potter
t betweenw Life for
RIED: (7-0)
r; Cr Nairn;
2
t
n r
)
;
Ordinary M
10.1
10 CH
2010.1Ge
File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommrepresent2012 Ann The
Conv Cou
WAL Cou
dele TABLED Nil BACKGRPursuant by two (2) Member voting delprovision Only regivoting enMembers DETAILSThe 2012held priorAugust 20following the Conve
Meeting of
HIEF EXE
12 Westeneral Me
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation t it on th
nual GeneWALGA 2
vention anncils are toLGA 2012 ncil are togates and
ITEMS:
ROUND: to the WA
) voting de
Councils slegates areneeds to b
stered dentitlements
or serving
: Annual G
r to the co012 at the by the Traention held
f Council M
ECUTIVE
tern Auseeting D
ADNil 15 Kat
er: Artnt: Abry: – The Cou
he Westerral Meetin2012 AGM
nd Exhibitioo appoint AGM.
o consider in relation
ALGA Conslegates.
seeking toe registerebe made fo
legates oron beha
g officers.
General Meommencem
Perth Conade Exhibitd over the f
Minutes
E OFFICE
stralian elegation
DM0049
May 2012thleen Higthur Kyronsolute Maj
uncil apporn Austrang (AGM).M will be hon Centre.two (2) vo
appointing to nomina
stitution, a
o exercise ed. In the or a proxy d
r proxy realf Membe
eeting for Wment of thenvention antion and Cfollowing tw
9
ER REPO
Local Gn
2 hfield
ority
oints two lian Loca
held on W
oting deleg
g Mayor Tating a prox
all Member
their votievent tha
delegate to
egistered der Councils
WA Local Ge Local Gond Exhibitionvention wo (2) day
ORTS
Governme
(2) delegaal Govern
Wednesday
ates and a
revor Vaugxy to nomi
r Councils
ng entitlemat a Votingo be regist
delegates s. Voting
Governmeovernment ion CentreWelcome
ys Thursda
ent Asso
ates and ament Ass
y 1 Augus
a proxy de
ghan and nate Cr Vi
are entitle
ments muDelegate
ered.
will be peg delegate
nt AssociaConventio
e, 21 MounReceptiony, 2 and Fr
12 J
ociation
a proxy desociation
st 2012 at
elegate to
Cr Bissettlaca.
ed to be re
st ensure is unable
ermitted toes may b
ation will thon on Wednts Bay Ron that evenriday 3 Au
June 2012
10.1
Annual
elegate to(WALGA)
the Perth
attend the
t as voting
epresented
that theirto attend,
o exercisebe Elected
his year bednesday 1oad, Perth,ning. Withgust.
2
l
o )
h
e
g
d
r
e d
e
, h
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
10.1 10 10.1
Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: Given that the Councils delegate’s on the South East Metropolitan Zone (SEMZ) of WALGA are Cr Bissett and Cr Vilaca it would seem appropriate for Cr Bissett to be nominated as the second voting delegate and Cr Vilaca to be nominated as the proxy delegate to represent the Council at the 2012 AGM of WALGA. CONCLUSION: The Town should maintain its full voting entitlements at meetings of WALGA’s 2012 Annual General Meeting. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: At the Elected Members Briefing Session held on the 5 June 2012 a question was raised as to why there was a change in practice from recommending the Zone representatives to attend the Annual General meeting of WALGA.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
10.1 11 10.1
In terms of protocol, it was deemed appropriate to enquire whether the Mayor as the political leader of the Council was interested in attending WALGA’s Annual General Meeting as a voting delegate to represent the Town. The Mayor advised that he was desirous of being one of the Council’s voting delegates and therefore it was recommended that he be appointed. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Hayes The Council appoints Mayor Trevor Vaughan and Cr John Bissett its voting delegates and Cr Vilaca as the proxy delegate on the Western Australian Local Government Association 2012 Annual General Meeting. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
11.1
11 FU
7811.1 File ReferAppendicLandownApplicantApplicatiDA/BA orMRS ZonTPS ZoniTPS PrecUse ClasUse Perm Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm Appl
dwe The
form The
Couapprthe s
The enviCou
TABLED Deve Ame Colo Supe Phot Ema Appl Cons Subm
Meeting of
UTURE L
(Lot 304
rence: ces: ner: t: on Date: r WAPC R
ning: ing: cinct: s:
missibility:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –lication folling constrsite is loc
m part of a Wdevelopm
ncil’s Locaropriate restreetscape
applicant ronmentallncil’s deve
ITEMS: elopment aended planour and maerseded pltographs oail correspolicant’s wrisultation lemission fro
f Council M
IFE AND
4) Planet
PLNoS.S.30
Ref: 12UrRePrSi
: ‘P 30D.
er: R.nt: Siry: – Refusal
or Single ructed in 1cated outsWeatherbo
ment doesal Planninplacemente;
argues tly sustaina
elopment s
applicationns and elevaterial schelans and eof existing dondence totten justific
etter to surom owner o
Minutes
D BUILT L
t Street, C
LAN78 o & D. Fels & D. Fels
0 May 20122/0196 rban esidential Rrecinct P8 ngle House’ use
0 May 2012 Rowley Cruickshample Majo
House in937;
side of theoard Streets not sating Policy t developm
hat the pable desigtandards.
n form datevations datedule datedlevations ddwelling ano applicantcation daterrounding oof 80 Plane
12
LIFE PRO
Carlisle –
2
R30 ‘Carlisle’ e
2
ank ority
volving de
e Residenttscape; isfy the A– Streetsc
ment havin
proposal hn principle
ed receivedted received receiveddated recend adjacent dated 18 ed receivedowners/occet St dated
OGRAM
– Single
emolition
tial Charac
Acceptablecape and g regard t
as been es and the
d 26 Marched 16 May 26 Marchived 26 Mant propertieApril 2012d 17 May 2cupiers datd 11 May 2
REPORT
House
of an ori
cter Study
e Developis not co
o the exist
designed erefore wa
h 2012; 2012; 2012;
arch 2012;es along P;
2012; ted 26 Apr2012.
12 J
TS
iginal wea
Area and
pment Staonsidered ting built fo
in accordarrants a v
; lanet Stree
ril 2012; an
June 2012
11.1
atherboard
d does not
ndards ofto be an
orm within
ance withvariation to
et;
nd
2
d
t
f n n
h o
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 13 11.1
BACKGROUND: As the application involves the demolition of a structurally sound dwelling constructed prior to 1945 its determination at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council is required. DETAILS: A development application has been received proposing demolition of the existing fibro and weatherboard dwelling at 78 Planet Street, Carlisle and its replacement with a new single-storey house. The subject property is located outside of the Residential Character Study Area and does not form part of a Weatherboard Streetscape, as defined in Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape. The site is zoned ‘Residential R30’ and has potential to accommodate up to three Grouped Dwellings based on its lot area of 1052m2. Existing Streetscape The subject site is located on the eastern end of the Planet Street street-block located between Archer and Lion Streets in Carlisle. The site adjoins a Town of Victoria Park sump at No. 76 Planet Street, with the majority of existing development along both sides of this portion of Planet Street consisting of single storey duplex and triplex developments. A number of dwellings constructed prior to 1945 are located within the immediate vicinity of the site in close proximity to the Lion Street intersection. These form an isolated pocket of original housing stock that is otherwise surrounded by newer development constructed largely from the 1980s to the present day. Dwellings are typically provided with hipped roofs of red/orange tiles, or Colorbond roof sheeting in a range of colours. Predominant wall materials within this portion of Planet Street include red, cream and brown facebrick, and white/cream render. Existing Dwelling The existing dwelling was constructed in 1937 and features an L-shaped design with timber veranda and large gable ends facing the street. There have been no significant modifications made to the original dwelling structure aside from a minor carport addition to the side and rear of the dwelling in 2003. The dwelling includes a number of traditional design features typical of its era of construction, including a metal roof with exposed rafter ends, three-piece timber framed windows, weatherboard cladding, high ceilings, red brick chimney and a visible wall height of approximately 3.5 metres high. The front elevation includes half-height weatherboard cladding with fibro (possibly asbestos) sheeting above, with a timber and metal awning over one set of the dwelling’s three-piece windows. The side elevations are wholly clad in weatherboards. Whilst the existing dwelling is clearly in need of repainting and the possible replacement of several weatherboards, it otherwise appears to be structurally sound and in a good state of repair, being currently lived in by the applicant. Proposed Development The replacement development comprises a single-storey Single House with four bedrooms, two bathrooms and a double garage open on two sides. The dwelling is proposed to have a zincalume metal roof and its external walls clad in ‘blue/grey’ ‘Weathertex Primelock’ artificial weatherboard cladding.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 14 11.1
The proposed dwelling incorporates a mixture of roof elements, having a large gable element running parallel to and facing the street, with a connecting gable that splits to incorporate skylight window panels, an overlapping skillion veranda roof which forms a butterfly roof element with the main dwelling roof, and a rear off-centred gable roof element. These various roof elements arise from the applicant’s wish to maximise natural light and ventilation to the dwelling. The visible wall height of the front elevation of the dwelling is approximately 2.5 metres high due to the large unrelieved gable portion of roof at the front of the dwelling. The front elevation features windows of non-traditional design, comprising full-length glass louvres to the main bedroom and ensuite bathroom, and a french door with adjoining full-length side light panel to the front entry. Discussions were held with the applicant regarding the design of the proposed dwelling throughout the assessment process, in relation to roof form, window design and wall heights. These discussions resulted in the applicant’s submission of amended plans on 16 May 2012, as well as a written justification received on 17 May 2012, in support of the proposed demolition and several variations to Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape, most of which hinges on the purported sustainability benefits of the dwelling design. These include the following as advised in the applicant’s justification:
Stack ventilation in bedrooms 2, 3 and 4 (Windows that open at the top and bottom allow cooler air near the ground into the room on still nights and release hot air near the ceiling.) Sometimes known as thermosiphon.
Deciduous vines over glazing to the north to provide shade in summer and good solar access to the northern living area in winter.
Full length windows to the south and eastern sides to maximize natural light. These windows will be covered with pelmets and thick curtains to reduce loss of warmer air on winter nights and reduce heat gain during hot summer days.
Deciduous trees planted to the western side to shade the house from intense summer sun in the afternoon.
Thermal mass in the form of concrete floors throughout. Rugs laid in the southern rooms in winter to provide extra warmth.
Local native species planted in a water wise garden. Other – Solar hot water system, low use water devices, low VOC paint and
cabinetry to reduce harmful off gassing.
Legal Compliance: Relevant General Provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 In assessing and determining this application, Council is to have regards to the following general provisions of the Scheme: Clause 36 ‘Determination of Application – General Provisions’ Clause 39 ‘Determination of Application for Demolition’ Statement of Intent contained in Precinct Plan P8 ‘Carlisle Precinct’. Compliance with Development Requirements TPS 1 Scheme Text, Policy Manual and Precinct Plan; Residential Design Codes (R Codes); Local Planning Policy – Streetscape (LPPS); and
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 15 11.1
The following is a summary of compliance with key development requirements:
Item Relevant Provision
Requirement Proposed Compliance
Primary Street Setback
Clause 3.2.1 of LPPS
3.0m min. 4.55m min. Complies 6.0m avg. 6.47m avg.
Setback of Garage
Clause 3.2.3 of LPPS
4.5m min.
4.55m min.
Complies
Garage Design
Clause 3.2.3 of LPPS
Not project >1m forward of façade Max. width of 57% of frontage
0.5m projection 31.9% of frontage
Complies
Boundary Setbacks
Clause 6.3.1 of R Codes
Varies from 1.0m to 1.5m
All walls meet or exceed applicable requirement with exception of shower wall, which is setback 1.0m in lieu of a 1.2m requirement.
Non-compliant. Supported, as minor variation and no objection to setback has been raised by the affected neighbour.
Open Space
Clause 6.4.1 of R Codes
50% min.
73.5%
Complies
Access and Parking
Clause 6.5.1 of R Codes
2 bays
2 bays
Complies
Building Height
Clause 6.7.1 of R Codes
6.0m max. wall height to walls below pitched roof; 7.0m max. wall height to walls with a concealed/skillion roof; 9.0m max. ridge height to top of pitched roof
Max. wall height of 5.5m high to walls below pitched roof; Max. wall height of 7.0m to portions of dwelling with concealed/skillion roof; Max. ridge height of 7.0m
Complies
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 16 11.1
Visual Privacy
Clause 6.8.1 of R Codes
Major openings to bedrooms with a FFL of 0.5m or more above NGL to be setback from the boundary a min. distance of 4.5m within cone of vision
Bedroom 4 windows/french doors setback 2.0m from No. 80 Planet Street, within cone of vision
Non-Compliant – Extent of variation considered unacceptable. Condition recommended to be applied to any forthcoming approval for the windows/french doors to be screened or the Bed 4 FFL reduced to less than 0.5m above NGL in order to comply.
Building Design
Clause 3.2.11 of LPPS
In keeping with scale and character of streetscape and designed in sympathy with existing built form particularly in terms of materials, colours, scale, form and roof pitch (hipped roof, red/cream facebrick, windows of traditional size and proportions, articulated front elevation)
Dwelling incorporates full length windows of modern/ contemporary design. Front elevation is dominated by a large gable roof element that runs parallel to Planet Street which lacks articulation and is inconsistent with surrounding development. Visible wall height is approximately 2.5m high and of lesser height than the roof structure above.
Non-compliant. Refer Comments section below.
Demolition of existing dwelling
Clause 3.2.9 of LPPS
Replacement development to contribute positively to streetscape and be an appropriate replacement for traditional character dwelling.
Refer above.
As above – Refer Comments section below for criteria used to determine acceptability of demolition.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 17 11.1
Submissions: Community Consultation: Assessment of the original plans submitted as part of the application identified several non-compliant matters with regard to boundary setback and building height requirements, which required consultation to be undertaken with surrounding property owners for 14 days.
One submission was received during the consultation period from the owner/occupant of 80 Planet Street on 11 May 2012, stating no objection to the proposal with the exception of the non-compliant building height to the top of a concealed roof portion of the dwelling. Subsequent discussion held between the applicant and this owner and the Town’s Officers resulted in the submission of amended plans on 16 May 2012, amending the subject portion of the dwelling roof from a concealed (skillion) roof, to an off-centre gable element, effectively reducing the wall height of this portion of the dwelling to a compliant 5.0 metres.
It should be noted that the variation proposed to the visual privacy requirements of the R Codes identified above in relation to the Bedroom 4 windows/french doors closest to the boundary with 80 Planet Street was not raised with the owner/occupier of 80 Planet Street during the consultation process. In view of this oversight and given the extent of the proposed variation which may result in undue loss of privacy and overlooking into the rear yard on this adjoining property, the Council may only contemplate approval of the application (without further consultation) if a condition is included requiring the subject windows/french doors being modified to comply with visual privacy requirements or the finished floor level of the dwelling being reduced to less than 0.5m above the natural ground level immediately below the windows/french doors.
Policy Implications: No impact Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: No impact Cultural Issues: No impact Environmental Issues: The applicant contents that there will be sustainability benefits gained through the proposed design, internal finish, fittings, selection of building services and plants for the proposed dwelling.
COMMENT: The application proposes the demolition of the original metal and weatherboard dwelling at 78 Planet Street and its replacement with a single-storey house. Council’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and Local Planning Policy – Streetscape has a presumption against the demolition of pre-1945 dwellings, unless there are compelling reasons to justify demolition. This and other relevant issues are considered further below.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 18 11.1
Demolition of Existing Dwelling Assessment of the subject application by Council’s Urban Planning Unit has acknowledged the direction adopted by the Council as part of its current review of the Local Planning Policy – Streetscape (LPPS) which is not to require the retention of dwellings in Carlisle and Lathlain, except where they are located within an identified ‘Character Streetscape’. The subject dwelling does not comprise part of a ‘Character Streetscape’ identified as part of this review. Whilst the above is acknowledged, it does not diminish or reduce the requirements of the LPPS which seek to ensure that new development is in keeping with the scale and character of existing development and that it has been designed in a sympathetic matter having regard to its context within the streetscape. Replacement Development Council’s LPPS require new development to respect existing development with regard to roof shapes, heights, pitches, materials and window design. It also requires new development to be sufficiently articulated/provide interest and to not overly dominate or adversely affect the streetscape by way of undue bulk or scale. These and other matters are considered as follows: Roof Form – A mixture of roof forms is proposed inconsistent with the Acceptable
Development Standards of the LPPS. The proposal also incorporates a large gable roof running parallel to the street which overly dominates and contributes to the perceived bulk and scale of the building. The large visible raking side of this roof element is not provided with any relief or articulation that may otherwise be possible through the incorporation of dormer windows, gablets or filial treatments. The relative blandness of this design and the orientation of the gable roof portion of the dwelling is inconsistent with the scale and character of housing predominating within the streetscape, that consists of predominantly hipped roof dwellings and relatively minor gable roofs, which are for the most part oriented with their gable end facing the street.
Wall Height – The replacement dwelling is proposed to have a visible wall height of approximately 2.5m high, which is out of keeping with existing surrounding development which ranges from 2.8 to 3.5 metres high. This low wall height emphasises the dominance of the large gable roof above which measures 3.2m in height, and is considered to give the building a squat and top-heavy appearance.
Window Design – The majority of dwellings found within the streetscape are provided with windows on their front elevations of traditional size and shape, being vertically oriented, with most openings occurring at waist height and having visible wall/brickwork above the opening. The proposed dwelling features full length windows consisting of glass louvres and a french door with adjoining sidelight panel. These windows are inconsistent with the Acceptable Development Standard of the LPPS and do not reflect the character or scale of windows that are found on the majority of front elevations of dwellings found elsewhere within the streetscape.
Sustainability Benefits of Proposed Dwelling Design In response to discussions held with Council Officers during assessment of the application the applicant submitted a statement outlining the proposed environmental benefits and sustainability measures incorporated into the dwelling design.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 19 11.1
Aside from the benefits gained through the rear split-gable and skillion portions of roof that maximise light penetration, the majority of measures identified in the applicant’s justification relate to non-design related matters or matters that could be reasonably incorporated into a conventionally designed home. These include measures such as concrete floors to improve thermal mass, windows that open at the top and bottom to allow the flow of hot and cool air, the planting of deciduous vines and trees, use of native vegetation and selection of renewable/ energy efficient air and water cooling/heating systems. Such measures have no bearing on the roof form, visible wall height or articulation provided to the front elevation of the dwelling. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed louvre windows, being full length and able to open to 90 degrees will maximise ventilation, it is considered questionable whether their inclusion in the ensuite bathroom will contribute significantly to cross-ventilation of the dwelling as a whole and the applicant has not responded favourably to requests to include traditionally proportioned windows in combination with the proposed louvre windows. The solid rear and side garage walls would also appear as prime locations for additional windows (including for cross-ventilation purposes given their alignment with the main living areas of the house) which would also relieve these blank walls and add further interest and articulation to the front elevation. CONCLUSION: The proposed design of the dwelling is considered to lack sufficient articulation and is not considered to have been designed in sympathy with surrounding development within the streetscape, particularly with regard to its front elevation which is considered to have an adverse effect upon the streetscape by virtue of its large and unrelieved dominant roof form, low visible wall height and lack of any traditionally proportioned windows that would provide the dwelling with a more conventional appearance that would sit more comfortably within the existing streetscape. Whilst the proposal may have been designed having regard to several sustainable design principles, the majority of claims made by the applicant regarding its environmental benefits relate to non-design related matters that bear little relationship to the provisions outlined in the LPPS, and could reasonably be incorporated into the design of a new dwelling designed in accordance with Policy requirements. It is also noted that a house incorporating traditional design elements may also be capable of performing to a high environmental standard and the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated to the contrary. It should also be noted that one of the Objectives of the Town’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape is “sustainable designs and innovative designs are encouraged; however regard is still to be given to maintaining design compatibility with the existing and desired streetscape character.” Planning staff are of the view that the proposed development does not meet this Objective of the Policy, in which case the application cannot be supported. In view of the above the demolition of the existing dwelling at 78 Planet Street and its replacement with a new single storey Single House is recommended for refusal.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 20 11.1
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: 1. In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning
Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by S. & D. Fels on behalf of S. & D. Fels (BA/DA Ref: 12/0196) for Single House at No. 78 (Lot 304) Planet Street, Carlisle as indicated on the plans dated received 16 May 2012 be Refused for the following reasons:
1.1 Non-compliance with Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Clause 36(5) –
‘Determination of Application – General Provisions’, with particular reference to the following subclauses: (a) the provisions of this Scheme and of any other written law applying within
the Scheme area including the Metropolitan Region Scheme; (b) any relevant planning policy; (c) any relevant precinct plan; (g) the orderly and proper planning of the locality; (h) the conservation of the amenities of the locality; and (i) the design, scale and relationship to existing buildings and surroundings of
any proposed building or structure;
1.2 Non-compliance with Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Clause 39 ‘Determination of Application for Demolition’, having regard to the matters listed in Clause 36(5) of the Scheme;
1.3 The proposal is inconsistent with the Statement of Intent contained in Precinct
Plan P8 ‘Carlisle Precinct’ which encourages the retention and restoration of existing dwellings that contribute to the character of the precinct and promotes new development that complements the scale, materials and character of existing dwellings;
1.4 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.9 ‘Retention of Dwelling’ A1 of the Local
Planning Policy – Streetscape, as the proposed dwelling has not been designed in sympathy with the existing built form and streetscape, having regard to the prevailing scale, form and roof pitch of existing development within the streetscape;
1.5 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.9 ‘Retention of Dwelling’ A2.1 of the Local
Planning Policy – Streetscape, as the proposal does not meet any of the identified circumstances where demolition of an existing dwelling may be considered acceptable;
1.6 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.9 ‘Retention of Dwelling’ A2.2 of the Local
Planning Policy – Streetscape, as the proposed dwelling is not considered to contribute positively to the streetscape in which the development is set and as it is not considered to be an appropriate replacement for the traditional character dwelling proposed for demolition;
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 21 11.1
1.7 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.11 “Building Design” P1 of the Local Planning Policy – Streetscape, as the applicant has not demonstrated that the design of the proposed dwelling achieves a high degree of sustainability through energy conscious design, building design or materials choices, compared to that of a dwelling designed in accordance with the Acceptable Development Criteria (Clause 3.2.11 A1.1) of the Local Planning Policy – Streetscape; and
1.8 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.11 “Building Design” A1 of the Local Planning
Policy – Streetscape, with regard to the roof form and pitch, visible wall height, and design of windows facing the street of the proposed dwelling.
Advice to Applicant:
1.9 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may exist
under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.
2. Those persons who made a submission in respect to the application being advised of
the Council’s decision. NEW MOTION: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Nairn 1. In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning
Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by S and D Fels (DA Ref: 12/0196) for a Single House at 78 (Lot 304) Planet Street, Carlisle as shown on plans dated received 16 May 2012 be Approved subject to the following conditions:
1.1 The roof of that portion of the dwelling indicated in red on the approved
drawings, being modified to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning.
1.2 The visible wall height of the front part of the dwelling being increased to
a minimum of 2.8 metres above ground level. 1.3 The north-east facing Bedroom 4 windows/doors being deleted or
modified to comply with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes. 1.4 Complete details of the proposed external colours, finishes and materials
to be used in the construction of the buildings and fencing are to be provided to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning prior to submission of an application for building permit. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be thereafter maintained.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 22 11.1
1.5 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all relevant Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit: Urban Planning; Street Life; Park Life; Environmental Health; Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note).
1.6 Not more than one brick pier (350mm X 350mm maximum size) is to be
constructed within any 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre truncation area adjacent to the intersection of any driveway and the front property boundary.
1.7 Fencing on side boundaries forward of the building line is not to exceed a
height of 1.2 metres and may be constructed of either brick, limestone, pickets, wrought iron, colorbond or fibro cement sheeting. Such fencing shall be detailed on the working drawings to be submitted to the Council in accordance with Condition No. 5 of this approval.
1.8 The use of sheet fencing, such as colorbond or fibro cement sheeting, in
front of the building line is not permitted. 1.9 All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and
all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level.
1.10 The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as
the required new fencing is to be erected. 1.11 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5
metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the front property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of: (i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); (ii) wrought iron or similar metal tubing style infill fencing; and/or (iii) pickets of a maximum width of 80mm, a maximum thickness of 20mm,
and being spaced a minimum gap of 40mm and a maximum gap of 80% of the width of the pickets.
1.12 Removal, lopping or pruning of any verge tree affected by the
development on the subject site is subject to the written approval of the Manager Park Life Program at the applicant’s cost.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 23 11.1
1.13 The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation or strata titling of the building(s) whichever occurs first and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. (Refer related Advice Note)
1.14 A minimum of 50% of the front setback area of the front unit is to be softly
landscaped. Landscaping is to be installed prior to occupation of the building(s) or strata titling whichever occurs first and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Park Life Program.
1.15 During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work.
1.16 All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving,
liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning.
1.17 Existing crossovers that are not used as part of the development or
redevelopment shall be removed and the verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program.
1.18 Proposed development complying with setbacks, fencing, driveways,
landscaping and other details and amendments as shown in red on the approved site plan.
1.19 External fixtures, including but not restricted to airconditioning units,
satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the Primary Street, secondary street or right-of-way.
1.20 External clothes drying facilities are to be screened from view from the
street or any other public place. 1.21 The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated
to the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces.
1.22 All building works to be carried out under this planning approval are
required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot. 1.23 Compliance with Council’s Building, Environmental Health and Street Life
and Park Life requirements. Advice to applicant 1.24 A separate application for planning approval will be required to be
submitted for demolition.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 24 11.1
1.25 In regards to Condition No. 4, where a Council Building Surveyor is
issuing the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit separate applications (Form TVP2 and Form TVP3) for the approval of Council Business Units. These forms are available on the Town’s website and at the front counter of Council’s Offices.
1.26 With regards to Condition No. 15 the following are minimum requirements
of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone.
1.27 Failure to maintain the verge by current or future owners or occupiers will
render the offender liable to infringement under Section 2.9 of the Activities on Thoroughfares and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law – Modified penalty $100.
1.28 Any modifications to the approved drawings forming part of this planning
approval may require the submission of an application for modification to planning approval and reassessment of the proposal.
1.29 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may
exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.
AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Nairn That condition 1.1 be deleted. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter Reason: Energy efficient design.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 25 11.1
NEW MOTION AS AMENDED: 1. In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning
Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by S and D Fels (DA Ref: 12/0196) for a Single House at 78 (Lot 304) Planet Street, Carlisle as shown on plans dated received 16 May 2012 be Approved subject to the following conditions:
1.1 The visible wall height of the front part of the dwelling being increased to
a minimum of 2.8 metres above ground level. 1.2 The north-east facing Bedroom 4 windows/doors being deleted or
modified to comply with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes. 1.3 Complete details of the proposed external colours, finishes and materials
to be used in the construction of the buildings and fencing are to be provided to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning prior to submission of an application for building permit. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be thereafter maintained.
1.4 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all
relevant Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit: Urban Planning; Street Life; Park Life; Environmental Health; Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note).
1.5 Not more than one brick pier (350mm X 350mm maximum size) is to be
constructed within any 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre truncation area adjacent to the intersection of any driveway and the front property boundary.
1.6 Fencing on side boundaries forward of the building line is not to exceed a
height of 1.2 metres and may be constructed of either brick, limestone, pickets, wrought iron, colorbond or fibro cement sheeting. Such fencing shall be detailed on the working drawings to be submitted to the Council in accordance with Condition No. 5 of this approval.
1.7 The use of sheet fencing, such as colorbond or fibro cement sheeting, in
front of the building line is not permitted.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 26 11.1
1.8 All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level.
1.9 The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as
the required new fencing is to be erected. 1.10 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5
metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the front property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of: (i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); (ii) wrought iron or similar metal tubing style infill fencing; and/or (iii) pickets of a maximum width of 80mm, a maximum thickness of 20mm,
and being spaced a minimum gap of 40mm and a maximum gap of 80% of the width of the pickets.
1.11 Removal, lopping or pruning of any verge tree affected by the
development on the subject site is subject to the written approval of the Manager Park Life Program at the applicant’s cost.
1.12 The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be
landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation or strata titling of the building(s) whichever occurs first and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. (Refer related Advice Note)
1.13 A minimum of 50% of the front setback area of the front unit is to be softly
landscaped. Landscaping is to be installed prior to occupation of the building(s) or strata titling whichever occurs first and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Park Life Program.
1.14 During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work.
1.15 All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving,
liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning.
1.16 Existing crossovers that are not used as part of the development or
redevelopment shall be removed and the verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program.
1.17 Proposed development complying with setbacks, fencing, driveways,
landscaping and other details and amendments as shown in red on the approved site plan.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 27 11.1
1.18 External fixtures, including but not restricted to airconditioning units,
satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the Primary Street, secondary street or right-of-way.
1.19 External clothes drying facilities are to be screened from view from the
street or any other public place. 1.20 The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated
to the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces.
1.21 All building works to be carried out under this planning approval are
required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot. 1.22 Compliance with Council’s Building, Environmental Health and Street Life
and Park Life requirements. Advice to applicant 1.23 A separate application for planning approval will be required to be
submitted for demolition. 1.24 In regards to Condition No. 4, where a Council Building Surveyor is
issuing the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit separate applications (Form TVP2 and Form TVP3) for the approval of Council Business Units. These forms are available on the Town’s website and at the front counter of Council’s Offices.
1.25 With regards to Condition No. 15 the following are minimum requirements
of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone.
1.26 Failure to maintain the verge by current or future owners or occupiers will
render the offender liable to infringement under Section 2.9 of the Activities on Thoroughfares and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law – Modified penalty $100.
1.27 Any modifications to the approved drawings forming part of this planning
approval may require the submission of an application for modification to planning approval and reassessment of the proposal.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.1 28 11.1
1.28 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.
The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
11.1
Meeting off Council MMinutes
29
12 JJune 2012
11.1
2
Ordinary M
11.2
5311.2 File ReferAppendicLandownApplicantApplicatiDA/BA orMRS ZonTPS ZoniTPS PrecUse ClasUse Perm Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm Appl Non-
prop Cons
‘Com Reco TABLED Appl Plan Appl Cons Phot DETAILSThe appliStreet andoutside of The widthfrontage tin a traditStreet an(Cookham
Meeting of
(Lot 1) G
rence: ces: ner: t: on Date: r WAPC R
ning: ing: cinct: s:
missibility:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –lication for -compliant
posed secosultation u
mmunity Coommended
ITEMS: lication for
ns date stalicants supsultation letographs o
: cation prod secondaf the Resid
h of the loto Cookhamtional mannd Outdoom Road) fro
f Council M
Gallipoli
GANoT De26
Ref: 12UrRePrSi
: ‘P 6 JC.
er: R.nt: Siry: – Approva
r a single st with provondary streundertakenonsultationd that varia
r Planning Amped rece
pporting wretters to adof subject s
poses a sary street fdential Cha
ot frontagem Road (inner with th
or Living Aontage of t
Minutes
Street, L
ALL53 o l Pola evrite Cons6 March 202/0197 rban esidential Rrecinct P7 ngle House’ use
June 2012 Buttle Cruickshample Majo
al torey Singisions of L
eet setbackn for 14 n’ with no sations to se
Approval Feived 25 Mritten statemdjoining ansite.
single storefrontage toaracter Stu
e to Gallipncluding trhe front enArea and the develop
30
Lathlain
structions 012
R20 ‘Lathlain’e
2
ank ority
le House oLocal Plannk. days in a
submissionecondary s
Form datedMay 2012.
ment datedd surround
ey Single o Cookhamdy Area.
poli Street runcation) ntrance and
Garage opment site
– Single
Pty Ltd
on a vacanning Policy
accordancens receivedstreet setb
d 26 March
d 22 Marchding prope
House witm Road. T
is 13.42 is 50.29 md an assocorientated .
House
nt corner loy – Streets
e with Cod. ack be sup
h 2012.
h 2012. rty owners
h primary The subjec
metres anmetres. Th
ciated veratoward th
12 J
ot. scape with
ouncil Pol
pported in
s dated 1 M
frontage tct property
nd the lene house isanda facinhe second
June 2012
11.2
respect to
icy GEN3
part.
May 2012.
to Gallipoliis located
gth of thes designedng Gallipolidary street
2
2
o
3
i d
e d i t
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 31 11.2
The proposed dwelling incorporates variations to the 3.0 metre minimum secondary street (Cookham Road) setback specified in Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape as identified below: (a) 15.37 metre long section of dwelling comprising veranda / retreat / bed 1 / robe /
ensuite – 3.0m minimum setback prescribed – 2.32m setback proposed. (b) 6.2 metre long section of dwelling to alfresco – 3.0m minimum setback prescribed –
2.32m setback proposed. For each of the components of the building referred to above, the roof projects a further 500mm towards the secondary street lot boundary in the case of the veranda / retreat / bed 1 / robe / ensuite and a further 600mm towards the secondary street lot boundary in the case of the alfresco. Legal Compliance: Relevant General Provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 In assessing and determining this application, Council is to have regards to the following general provisions of the Scheme: Clause 36 of the Scheme Text - Determination of Application – General Provisions; Statement of Intent contained in Precinct Plan P7 ‘Lathlain’; and Compliance with Development Requirements TPS 1 Scheme Text, Policy Manual and Precinct Plan; Residential Design Codes (R Codes); and Local Planning Policy – Streetscape (LPPS). The following is a summary of compliance with key development requirements:
Item Relevant Provision
Requirement Proposed Compliance
Primary Street Setback (Gallipoli Street)
Clause 3.2.1 of LPPS
3.0m minimum 3.0m minimum Compliant
6.0m average 6.0m average
Secondary Street Setback (Cookham Road)
Clause 3.2.2 of LPPS
3.0m minimum 2.32m minimum Non-compliant (refer to Comment section below)
Boundary Setbacks (other than street)
Clause 6.3.1 of R-Codes
1.0 & 1.5 metres
1.0 & 1.5 metres Compliant
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 32 11.2
Item Relevant Provision
Requirement Proposed Compliance
Boundary Walls Clause A1 iii. of LPPBW
9.0m max. length 3.0m max. height 2.7m avg. height
8.9m length 2.8m max height 2.8m avg. height
Satisfies Performance Criteria of Policy (no response received from neighbour to consultation and no adverse impact on adjoining property)
Open Space Clause 6.4.1 of R-Codes
50% minimum of site area. (334.5m2)
51% (339m2)
Compliant
Site Works Clause 6.6.1 of R-Codes
Excavation or filling between the street alignment and building or within 3.0m from the street boundary not to exceed 500mm above the natural ground level.
Filling behind
street setback line and within 1.0m of a common property boundary not to exceed 500mm above the corresponding natural ground level.
Filling of 220mm maximum within street alignment (Gallipoli Street)
Filling of
250mm maximum within 1.0m of the southern property boundary
Compliant Compliant
Building Height (measured from the natural ground level)
Clause 6.7.1 of R-Codes
6.0m maximum wall height (2 storeys) and 9.0m maximum for top of pitched roof
Single storey wall height of up to 4.0 metres and ridge height of up to 6.0 metres.
Compliant
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 33 11.2
Item Relevant Provision
Requirement Proposed Compliance
Visual Privacy Clause 6.8.1 of R-Codes
Unscreened major openings & outdoor areas with floor level of 0.5m or more above NGL to be setback a minimum of: 4.5m for bedrooms; 6.0m for living areas; 7.5m for balconies.
No overlooking proposed as floor levels not raised more than 500mm above natural ground level.
Compliant
Street Fences (Primary Street – Gallipoli Street)
Clause 3.2.7 of LPPS
Fencing forward of the building line to be open style.
‘Open style’ fencing to Gallipoli Street. Width and length dimensions of piers on either side of pedestrian gate non-compliant with 460mm maximum specified in LPPS.
Compliant subject to recommended conditions of approval requiring width and length dimensions of piers to not exceed 460mm.
Street Fences (Secondary Street – Cookham Road)
Clause 3.2.7 of LPPS
Masonry fencing incorporating articulation to include vertical elements such as piers or similar.
Solid unarticulated masonry fencing of 1.8 metres in height.
Compliant subject to recommended conditions of approval requiring incorporation of articulation into design of fence.
Submissions: Community Consultation: In accordance with Council’s GEN3 ‘Community Consultation’ Policy, the proposal was the subject of consultation for a 14 day period, with letters being sent to the owners and occupiers of surrounding properties. No responses were received in response to this consultation. Policy Implications: The proposed development has implications with respect to Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape, which are detailed further in the ‘Comment’ section of the report, below.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 34 11.2
Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: No impact Cultural Issues: No impact Environmental Issues: No impact COMMENT: The design of the proposed dwelling satisfactorily addresses the majority of the requirements found within the R-Codes and Council Policy, with the exception of proposed setbacks to the secondary street frontage of the development site. Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape specifies the requirement for a 3.0 metre minimum setback to a secondary street frontage where a property has frontage to more than one street. In this instance, significant portions of the dwelling have setbacks of less than 3.0 metres to Cookham Road, being: A setback of 2.32 metres to a 15.37 metre long section of wall comprising veranda /
retreat / bed 1 / robe / ensuite; and A setback of 2.32 metres to a 6.2 metre long section of wall comprising an alfresco
located under the main roof of the dwelling. A solid masonry wall of 1.8 metres in height is proposed to be constructed along the majority of the Cookham Road frontage of the development site. Notwithstanding the provision of this wall, the dwelling remains highly visible from Cookham Road, having regard to its raised floor to ceiling heights (2.914m) and finished floor level which is raised around 400 - 500mm above existing natural ground level. During the preparation of a design for this site, the designer made contact with the Town’s Urban Planning Unit to discuss design parameters for the site, including requirements related to the secondary street setback of the dwelling. During these discussions, Town staff explained the requirements contained within Local Planning Policy – Streetscape in relation to the provision of a 3.0 metre minimum secondary street setback. During these discussions, Town staff explained that minor variations to portions of the dwelling facing the secondary street may be favourably considered if it could be demonstrated that: the appearance of the dwelling would be improved through increased articulation
(variation to the alignment of the walls on this side of the dwelling) as opposed to a design which incorporated long lengths of building on the same 3.0 metre setback alignment; and
any proposed setback reductions proposed would not adversely impact on the amenities of adjoining properties or the locality generally.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 35 11.2
Following these discussions, draft concept plans were not provided to the Town for comment in advance of the submission of a formal application for planning approval. A subsequent assessment of the submitted formal application for planning approval showed that the preliminary advice provided had not been reflected in the design which had been prepared for the site. Rather than using a 3.0 metre setback as a ‘starting point’ with the possibility of small portions of the building projecting to a lesser setback to add to the visual interest of the building, the design incorporates a 2.32 metre setback with (small) portions of the building then being provided with an increased setback of 3.0 metres. Having regard to the requirements contained within Council Policy, preliminary advice provided during the preparation of the design for this site, and the characteristics of the Lathlain locality (low density development with houses situated on lots with generous setbacks and landscaped surrounds), it is considered appropriate that an increased setback of 3.0 metres minimum be provided to a greater proportion of the secondary street frontage of the dwelling than that which is currently proposed. This position has been conveyed to the applicant who has been reluctant to change the design, and accordingly the matter has now been referred to Council for determination. Possible design options that have been considered include: (a) Reducing the finished floor level (which is currently somewhat elevated above
natural ground level) to reduce the overall impact of the dwelling as viewed from Cookham Road; or
(b) Increasing the setbacks to portions of the wall which runs between the veranda and the ensuite. For example, the setback of the portion of wall comprising the ensuite and the robe could be increased or the setback of the section of wall comprising bed 1 and the robe could be increased.
The most preferable of these alternatives is for an increase in the setback of the section of wall from bed 1 to the robe from 2.32 metres to 3.0 metres as it provides the greatest benefit in terms of increasing the visual articulation and interest of the building as viewed from Cookham Road. Such a design change would result in the ‘stepping’ in and out of the building as follows: Veranda and retreat (5.9 metres in length) – setback of 2.32 metres; then Bed 1 and robe (6.3 metres in length) – setback of 3.0 metres; then Ensuite (3.0 metres in length) – setback of 2.32 metres; then Wine store and Dining Room (6.1 metres in length) – setback of 3.0 metres; then Alfresco (6.1 metres in length) – setback of 2.32 metres. The stepping would occur not only in the wall, but importantly also in the roof form. As shown above, significant portions of the dwelling would still maintain setbacks of less than the 3.0 metre minimum specified within Council Policy, even with the design change that has been advocated. Increasing the setback to bed 1 and the robe would not unduly comprise the functionality of the dwelling, as each of the affected spaces has been designed with very generous proportions.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 36 11.2
CONCLUSION: Having regard to the advice contained within this report, and in particular: Provisions of Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape which specify a 3.0
metre minimum setback to a secondary street frontage; Advice which was provided by the Town’s Officers during the design development
phase of plans for a new dwelling at this site; Improved appearance which would result from a design which incorporated greater
articulation to the secondary street frontage; and Overall compatibility with the surrounding Lathlain locality which is characterised by
a low density of development with dwellings on larger lots situated within landscaped surrounds;
It has been demonstrated that benefit would be achieved by the design being modified. Accordingly, a condition of planning approval has been formulated which requires the setback of the section of the dwelling comprising bed 1 and ensuite to be increased to a 3.0 metre minimum, in accordance with the provisions contained within Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape. While this condition does require a modification to the proposed design, it is considered reasonable for the reasons described above and in view of the setback variations being supported by planning staff to other portions of the building fronting Cookham Road. FURTHER COMMENTS: At the Elected Members Briefing Session on 5 June 2012, comments were made in respect to the lot width (13.42m) being a justification for the reduced setback to Cookham Road. This has been acknowledged by Urban Planning staff and forms the reasoning for support for the majority of the proposed setback variation to Cookham Road. However it is considered that the proposed 15.37m long wall containing veranda/retreat/bed 1/robe/ensuite is excessively long at the reduced setback, and the impact of the reduced setback would be minimised if a portion was to have an increased setback. Therefore notwithstanding condition 1.1, a significant setback variation to separate walls of a combined length of 21.1m, is still being supported by Urban Planning staff given the lot frontage. There was also discussion at the Elected Members Briefing Session in respect to the possibility of portions of the fence along Cookham Road being modified to open style fencing. While this would be preferable from a visual surveillance perspective and would provide greater visual interest than an entirely solid 1.8m high wall to the Cookham Road frontage, this would not resolve the impact of the proposed reduced setback. To the contrary, the modification of portions of the fence from a solid fence to open style fencing would result in the proposed walls at the reduced setback to Cookham Road being more visible and prominent. Even as currently proposed, the walls of the dwelling will project approximately 1.3m above the top of the proposed 1.8m high solid fence, plus the roof above. Therefore it is considered that the wall of the dwelling, even behind a solid 1.8m high fence, would be highly visible, and the impact would be further exacerbated at the reduced setback and excessive wall length proposed.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 37 11.2
It is again drawn to the attention of Elected Members that Urban Planning staff has suggested three different alternatives to the applicant in return for the setback variations being supported to Cookham Road. The applicant has not been prepared to make any compromises to the design of the dwelling, yet seeks support for the full extent of the proposed setback variations. The imposition of condition 1.1, while requiring design modifications, is a reasonable compromise position, and would result in more visual interest in the elevation. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Skinner 1. In accordance with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and
the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by Devrite Constructions Pty Ltd (DA Ref: 12/0197) for a Single House at No. 53 Gallipoli Street, Lathlain as shown on the plans dated 25 May 2012 be Approved subject to the following conditions:
1.1 Modified drawings shall be submitted in conjunction with the application for
a Building Permit, with such drawings incorporating an increased setback to Cookham Road to the approximately 6.2 metre long section of the dwelling comprising Bed 1 and Ensuite from 2.32 metres as proposed to 3.0 metres minimum. The setback of the roof above this portion of the dwelling shall be set back correspondingly.
1.2 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all relevant
Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit:
Urban Planning; and Street Life. Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note).
1.3 The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. (Refer related Advice Note)
1.4 A minimum of 50% of the front setback area is to be softly landscaped.
Landscaping is to be installed prior to occupation of the building and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Park Life Program.
1.5 All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and
all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 38 11.2
1.6 The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as the
required new fencing is to be erected.
1.7 Drawings submitted for a Building Permit to demonstrate compliance with the following fencing requirements:
(i) Primary Street - (a) solid portion of wall or fence to be a maximum height of
600mm above natural ground level; (b) piers to have maximum width and length dimensions of
460mm x 460mm; and (c) upper portion of wall / fence to be of open style.
(ii) Secondary Street - (a) Solid fencing to a height of 1.8 metres above natural
ground level incorporating articulation to include vertical elements such as piers or similar; and
(b) Fencing truncated adjacent to intersection of driveway and property boundary in accordance with condition 1.7, below.
Full detail of infill panels and permeable fencing adjacent to the intersection of the driveway and the property boundary to be provided in conjunction with the application for a Building Permit.
1.8 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5 metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the Cookham Road property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of:
(i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); (ii) wrought iron or similar metal tubing style infill fencing; and/or (iii) pickets or horizontal rails of a maximum width of 80mm, a
maximum thickness of 20mm, and being spaced a minimum gap of 40mm and a maximum gap of 80% of the width of the picket or rail.
1.9 During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent
damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work.
1.10 All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving, liquid
limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning.
1.11 Existing crossovers that are not used as part of the development or
redevelopment shall be removed and the verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program.
1.12 External colours, finishes and materials to be used in the construction of the
building are to be in accordance with the colour schedule date stamped approved 12 June 2012, attached with the approved plans.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 39 11.2
1.13 External fixtures, including but not restricted to airconditioning units,
satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the Primary Street, secondary street or right-of-way.
1.14 A zero lot gutter to be provided for the boundary wall adjoining the common
boundary with No. 51 Gallipoli Street. 1.15 The surface of the boundary walls on the common boundary with No. 51
Gallipoli Street to be the same finish as the approved external wall finish for the remainder of the dwelling, unless otherwise approved.
1.16 External clothes drying facilities are to be screened from view from the
street or any other public place. 1.17 The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated to
the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces.
1.18 All building works to be carried out under this planning approval are
required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot. 1.19 Compliance with Council’s Building, Environmental Health, Street Life and
Park Life requirements.
Advice to Applicant
1.20 With regards to Condition No 1.9, the following are minimum requirements of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone.
1.21 Any modifications to the approved drawings forming part of this planning
approval may require the submission of an application for modification to planning approval and reassessment of the proposal.
1.22 Landscaping of the verge requires approval from Council’s Renew Life
Program (except lawn planting only). The applicant/owner should obtain a copy of Council’s Sustainable Landscaping Guide 1 “Your Street Verge”.
1.23 In regards to Condition No. 1.2, where a Council Building Surveyor is issuing
the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit a separate application (Form TVP2) for the approval of Council Business Units. This form is available on the Town’s website and at the front counter of Council’s Offices.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 40 11.2
1.24 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.
AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Potter The officer's recommendation of approval with condition 1.1 of the officer’s recommendation be deleted, and replaced with a new condition 1.1 to read, “The open style front fence facing Gallipoli Street to be extended, in part, along the Cookham Street frontage, to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning”. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter Reason: To encourage open style fencing and for safety factors along the Cookham Street frontage. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: 1. In accordance with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and
the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by Devrite Constructions Pty Ltd (DA Ref: 12/0197) for a Single House at No. 53 Gallipoli Street, Lathlain as shown on the plans dated 25 May 2012 be Approved subject to the following conditions:
1.1 The open style front fence facing Gallipoli Street to be extended, in part,
along the Cookham Street frontage, to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning.
1.2 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all relevant
Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit: Urban Planning; and Street Life. Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note).
1.3 The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be
landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. (Refer related Advice Note)
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 41 11.2
1.4 A minimum of 50% of the front setback area is to be softly landscaped.
Landscaping is to be installed prior to occupation of the building and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Park Life Program.
1.5 All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and
all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level.
1.6 The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as the
required new fencing is to be erected.
1.7 Drawings submitted for a Building Permit to demonstrate compliance with the following fencing requirements: (i) Primary Street -
(a) solid portion of wall or fence to be a maximum height of 600mm above natural ground level;
(b) piers to have maximum width and length dimensions of 460mm x 460mm; and
(c) upper portion of wall / fence to be of open style. (ii) Secondary Street -
(c) Solid fencing to a height of 1.8 metres above natural ground level incorporating articulation to include vertical elements such as piers or similar; and
(d) Fencing truncated adjacent to intersection of driveway and property boundary in accordance with condition 1.7, below. Full detail of infill panels and permeable fencing adjacent to the intersection of the driveway and the property boundary to be provided in conjunction with the application for a Building Permit.
1.8 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5 metre
visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the Cookham Road property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of:
(i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); (ii) wrought iron or similar metal tubing style infill fencing; and/or (iii) pickets or horizontal rails of a maximum width of 80mm, a
maximum thickness of 20mm, and being spaced a minimum gap of 40mm and a maximum gap of 80% of the width of the picket or rail.
1.9 During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent
damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 42 11.2
1.10 All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving, liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning.
1.11 Existing crossovers that are not used as part of the development or
redevelopment shall be removed and the verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program.
1.12 External colours, finishes and materials to be used in the construction of the
building are to be in accordance with the colour schedule date stamped approved 12 June 2012, attached with the approved plans.
1.13 External fixtures, including but not restricted to airconditioning units,
satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the Primary Street, Secondary Street or right-of-way.
1.14 A zero lot gutter to be provided for the boundary wall adjoining the common
boundary with No. 51 Gallipoli Street. 1.15 The surface of the boundary walls on the common boundary with No. 51
Gallipoli Street to be the same finish as the approved external wall finish for the remainder of the dwelling, unless otherwise approved.
1.16 External clothes drying facilities are to be screened from view from the
street or any other public place. 1.17 The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated to
the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces.
1.18 All building works to be carried out under this planning approval are
required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot. 1.19 Compliance with Council’s Building, Environmental Health, Street Life and
Park Life requirements.
Advice to Applicant
1.20 With regards to Condition No 1.9, the following are minimum requirements of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone.
1.21 Any modifications to the approved drawings forming part of this planning
approval may require the submission of an application for modification to planning approval and reassessment of the proposal.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.2 43 11.2
1.22 Landscaping of the verge requires approval from Council’s Renew Life Program (except lawn planting only). The applicant/owner should obtain a copy of Council’s Sustainable Landscaping Guide 1 “Your Street Verge”.
1.23 In regards to Condition No. 1.2, where a Council Building Surveyor is issuing
the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit a separate application (Form TVP2) for the approval of Council Business Units. This form is available on the Town’s website and at the front counter of Council’s Offices.
1.24 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may
exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.
The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
11.2
Meeting off Council MMinutes
44
12 JJune 2012
11.2
2
2
Ordinary M
11.3
3011.3Dw
File ReferAppendicLandownApplicantApplicatiDA/BA orMRS ZonTPS ZoniTPS PrecUse ClasUse Perm Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm Appl Non-
No. to pway
ConsCou2012were
Conscons“Rap
TABLED Deve Plan Cons Subm
and Corr Resp Minu
Janu Minu Aeria
Meeting of
-34 (Lotwellings
rence: ces: ner: t: on Date: r WAPC R
ning: ing: cinct: s:
missibility:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –lication for -compliant1, Residenlot ratio, bsetback, vsultation wncil Policy2 and close received.sidered thsistent witphael Prec
ITEMS: elopment a
ns and elevsultation wmissions f20 April 2
respondenponse fromutes of theuary 2012 utes of the al photogra
f Council M
t 336) C
CANoSKCa8 M
Ref: 12UrRePrMu
: ‘P 25I. A
er: R.nt: Abry: – Approva
r 15 Multiplt with the pntial Desigbuilding hevisual privawith surrouy GEN3 ‘Cosed on 30 . at the formh the des
cinct” and w
applicationvations datwith adjoinifrom surro2012; ce to Main
m Main Roae Design and 13 FeFormal De
aph of the
Minutes
Canning
ANN30-34o KS Canninampion DeMarch 201
2/0158 rban esidential Rrecinct P5 ultiple Dwe’ use
5 May 2012Ahmad Cruicksha
bsolute Ma
al subject e Dwellingprovisions n Codes a
eight, bounacy and veunding proommunity April 2012
m, quality sired charwill make a
n form dateted receiveng ownersunding ow
n Roads Wads WesteReview Cbruary 201esign Revilocality.
45
Highwa
g Pty Ltdesign Grou2
R60 ‘Raphael Pellings
2
ank ajority
to conditgs;
of Town oand Local Pndary setbehicle acceoperty ownConsultati2. Over th
and apperacter of ta significan
ed 8 Marched 8 Marchs & occupiewners and
Western Ausern AustralCommittee 12; ew Comm
ay, Victo
p
Precinct’
ions
of Victoria Planning P
back, secoss. ners and ion’ for 14
he commen
arance of the area ont and high
h 2012; h 2012; ers dated 1occupiers
stralia dateia dated reMeeting
ittee Meet
oria Park
Park TowPolicy – Strndary stre
occupiers days com
nt period,
the propooutlined inquality str
13 April 20dated rec
ed 5 April 2eceived 18dated 7 D
ing dated 2
12 J
k – 15
wn Planninreetscape
eet setback
in accordmmenced o
three (3)
osed develn Precinctreetscape
12; ceived 19 A
2012; 8 April 2012December
24 April 20
June 2012
11.3
Multiple
g Schemein relation
k, right-of-
dance withon 13 Aprilobjections
lopment ist Plan P5outcome
April 2012
2; 2011; 18
012 and
2
3
e
e n -
h l s
s 5
2
8
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 46 11.3
BACKGROUND: On 12 December 2006, a development application for Seven (7) Multiple Dwellings on the subject property was approved at the Council’s Ordinary Council Meeting. This approval has since expired. It should be noted that the previous approved development of Seven (7) Multiple Dwellings is identical to the current proposal in terms of built form and site planning. The previously approved Seven Multiple Dwellings were based on the previous Residential Design Codes where a residential density control was applied. However, as part of the review of the Residential Design Codes 2010, the density control requirements were removed for Multiple Dwellings, where located in areas coded R30 or greater (the subject site is zoned as R60). As such, an additional eight (8) Multiple Dwellings have been proposed, resulting in a total of 15 Multiple Dwellings on the subject site. The applicant submitted preliminary concept plans which were discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting held on 7 December 2011, 18 January 2012 and 13 February 2012 in order to obtain feedback from Council Officers and Council’s Design Review Committee (DRC). The following points were raised by the DRC members and Council’s officers: Overall, the proposal provides an excellent level of amenity for both prospective
owners, occupiers and the surrounding properties. Notwithstanding that the plot ratio exceeds the 10% permitted variation, the plot ratio
variation can be supported given the design merit of the proposal and that the plot ratio increment will not result in any additional building bulk compared to the previous approved building form.
Notwithstanding that Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape requires vehicular access to be taken from right-of-way; DRC and Council’s officers may consider access via Washington Street given that the subject lot is located at the end of Washington Street where the street is terminated by a cul-de-sac.
The Committee has no reservations on the proposed height of four (4) storeys and stepping down to three (3) storeys towards the adjoining properties at 36 Canning Highway as it provides a smooth transition of building height from the south-western to north-eastern adjoining properties.
The Design Review Committee has considered the application, and at a formal meeting held on 24 April 2012 resolved to recommend support of the application subject to conditions. DETAILS: Council has received a planning application for 15 Multiple Dwellings on the subject property. The subject site has a lot size of 1286m2 and is currently vacant. The subject lot is bounded by Canning Highway (north-west), Washington Street (north-east) and a 5.0m wide right-of-way at the rear of the property. In addition, the site is located at the northern end of Washington Street which is terminated by a cul-de-sac.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 47 11.3
It is particularly worth noting that the subject site is located between a three (3) storey building which is immediately abutting the subject property to the south-west (36 Canning Highway) and a site containing two (2), three (3) and five (5) storey buildings to the north-east (7-11 Heirisson Way), separated by Washington Street. The two storey building at 7-11 Heirisson Way (closest to Washington Street) has a semi-undercroft carpark which is substantially raised above the natural ground level to create the impression of a three storey height whilst the presence of a 5 storey building on this adjoining property creates a streetscape with varying building heights along this portion of Canning Highway. To the south-east of the subject property (adjacent to the right-of-way), there are two storey Grouped Dwellings at 7, 9 & 11 Washington Street. The proposed development is summarised as follows: The proposed building is to accommodate 15 Multiple Dwellings which comprise nine
(9) two bedroom units and six (6) Single Bedroom Dwellings; The proposed building is to have a maximum height of four (4) storeys which is
confined to the eastern portion of the site and stepped down to three (3) storeys towards the south-western property boundary;
In addition, a basement car park is proposed to accommodate 15 car bays for the residents with vehicular access to and from the basement car parking to be taken from Washington Street;
Four (4) visitor car bays are proposed at the rear of the building with vehicular access to be taken from the right-of-way;
Pedestrian access is provided via Canning Highway, Washington Street and right-of-way;
The development also features a lift and staircase secured at ground level for the access of residents to all levels of the building.
The proposed building is configured to maximise the street frontages (Canning Highway, Washington Street and right-of-way) through extensive use of balconies and glazing and orientation of living areas of individual units. In addition, double glazing has also been introduced to alleviate any impact of traffic noise from Canning Highway. The building façade is articulated by a series of projections and recesses and employing a range of different materials and finishes and varying building heights to create visual interest to the building form. The proposed building incorporates redeeming traditional architectural features to reflect the character of existing dwellings predominant within the Raphael Precinct such as Zincalume roof with steep roof pitch, open eaves with exposed rafter ends and red face brickwork. Legal Compliance: Relevant Provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 In assessing and determining this application, Council is to have regard to the following general provisions of the Scheme:
Clause 38 of the Scheme Text; Statement of Intent contained in Precinct Plan P5 ‘Raphael Precinct’; and Policy 4.12 ‘Design Guidelines for Developments with Buildings above 3 Storeys’ of
the Policy Manual.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 48 11.3
Compliance with Development Requirements
TPS 1 Scheme Text, Policy Manual and Precinct Plan; Residential Design Codes; Local Planning Policy – Streetscape; and Local Planning Policy – Boundary Walls.
The following is a summary of compliance with key development requirements: Item Permitted Proposed Compliance
Plot ratio
0.7 maximum (900.20m2)
0.84 (1075.26 m2)
Non-compliant (refer to Comments
section below) Primary Street Setback (Canning Highway)
6.0m average 3.0m minimum
6.2m average 4.1m minimum
Compliant
Secondary Street Setback (Washington Street)
3.0m minimum 1.5m minimum Non-compliant
(refer to Comments section below)
Right-of-way 5.0m from the centreline of the right-of-way
3.6m from the centreline of the right-of-way
Non-compliant (refer to Comments
section below)
Boundary Setback (to south-western boundary)
Ground floor wall – 1.7m minimum setback First floor wall– 2.3m minimum setback Second floor wall – 4.3m minimum setback
Ground floor wall– 4.0m setback First floor wall – 4.0m setback Second floor wall – 4.0m setback
Compliant
Compliant
Non-Compliant (refer to Comments
section below)
Open Space A minimum of 45% of site area (578.70m2 )
47.3%
(608m2) Compliant
On-site car parking for Multiple Dwellings: Small (<75 m2 or 1 bedroom) Medium (75-110 m2)
Parking to be provided at the following rate for Category A: 0.75 per dwelling @ 6 units = 5 bays 1 per dwelling @ 9 units = 9 bays
15 car bays provided for residents
Compliant
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 49 11.3
Visitors Bays Total required = 14 bays required for residents 0.25 bays per unit @ 15 units = 4 bays
4 car bays provided for visitors
Compliant
Bicycle bays 1 bicycle space to each 3 dwellings for residents; and 1 bicycle space to each 10 dwellings for visitors. 5 bays for residents 2 bays for visitors
6 bays provided; shortfall of 1 bay
Non-compliant This can be resolved as a condition of planning approval requiring a minimum of 5 and 2 on-site bicycle bays to be provided for the exclusive use of the residents and visitors respectively.
Vehicle Access
Vehicle access to be taken solely from the right-of-way where the lot has legal access to the subject right-of-way
Vehicle access to the basement car park to be taken from Washington Street whilst limited access is provided via right-of-way for the visitor car parking bays located at the rear of the building.
Non-compliant (refer to Comments section below)
Building Height (measured from the natural ground level)
Maximum building height of 3 storeys.
Maximum building height of 4 storeys
Non-compliant (refer to Comments section below)
Visual Privacy
Balconies – 7.5m minimum setback from boundaries within the cone of vision
Unit 5 balcony (1st storey) – 5.7m to south-western boundary Unit 9 balcony (2nd storey) – 5.7m to south-western boundary
Non-compliant (refer to Comments
section below)
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 50 11.3
Solar Access
On adjoining properties coded R60 – 50% of the site area. – 36 Canning Hwy. A maximum of
105m2 shadowing permitted.
Outdoor Living Area – A minimum of 8m2 to be unaffected.
On adjoining properties coded R30 – 35% of the site area. 7 Washington St
– a maximum of 103.60m2 of overshadowing permitted.
33C Armagh St – A maximum of 85.75m2 of overshadowing permitted.
Outdoor Living Area – A minimum of 12m2 to be unaffected.
36 Canning Hwy 96.5m2 of
shadowing on lot.
12m2 + 43m2 of outdoor living area unaffected
7 Washington St 38.5m2 of
shadowing on lot.
Outdoor living area not affected.
33C Armagh St 82.42m2 of
shadowing on lot
Outdoor living area not affected
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Community Consultation As there are several variations proposed to the requirements of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Residential Design Codes, the proposal was the subject of consultation for a 14 day period in accordance with Council Policy GEN3 “Community Consultation”. This included letters to the owners and occupiers of adjoining properties that may be affected by the development. The consultation period commenced on 13 April 2012 and closed on 30 April 2012. Over the comment period, three (3) objections were received as summarised and considered by Council’s Urban Planning Business Unit in the below table. They are also included in full as Tabled Items to this report.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 51 11.3
Consultation Submissions Objection from owner of 44 Canning Highway, Victoria Park
Comments Received Officer’s Comments
Building Height The building height variation will cause significant amount of overshadowing onto the adjoining property.
Secondary Street Setback (Washington Street) The secondary street setback variation will pose a fire risk to the adjoining properties located along Washington Street given that there are existing power poles/lines on the street verge.
Right-of-way setback The variation to the right-of-way setback requirement will result in further reduction of the right-of-way width which in turn, may impinge on vehicular access along the subject right-of-way.
Residential Density 15 Multiple Dwellings are considered to be excessive and will result in traffic and parking issues.
The proposed building will not result in
any overshadowing of south-western adjoining properties or their appurtenant outdoor living areas. The proposal complies with the solar access provision of the Residential Design Codes.
Any development, buildings and structures are to be contained within the property boundaries and are not permitted to encroach into Council’s verge. In addition, the portion of the building that encroaches within the 3.0m setback area of Washington Street is located at least 4.0m away from the nearest power lines. This is consistent with existing two-storey dwellings located south-east of the subject property (7-11 Washington Street) which have building elements of similar reduced setbacks to Washington Street.
The proposed development will not
reduce the width of the existing right-of-way. All development, building and structures are setback at least 0.5m from the right-of-way for the length of the common boundary with the right-of-way to allow for the future widening of the right-of-way and to facilitate access. It should be noted that the primary access to the residential car parking at the basement level is taken from Washington Street instead of the right-of-way whilst limited access has been provided via the right-of-way for the visitor car bays.
The proposal complies with the car
parking provision of the Residential Design Codes.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 52 11.3
Objection from owners of 7 Washington Street, Victoria Park Comments Received Officer’s Comments
Use of Building
There is a potential for the units of the building to be used for specialized forms of accommodation (such as short term accommodation and Serviced Apartments) instead of Multiple Dwellings occupied on a permanent basis. Such alternative forms of accommodation may result in potential conflict between the short term residents and long term residents of the locality due to the transient nature of the accommodation.
Vehicular access and parking The proposed development will result in traffic and car parking issues along the subject right-of-way. The proposed 15 residential car bays and four (4) visitor car bays are deemed to be inadequate.
Building height The overall height of the building is deemed to be excessive.
Noted – A condition of planning
approval will be imposed to restrict the use of the residential units as Multiple Dwellings only and does not include approval for use as serviced apartments. Any other use will require the submission of a new application for planning approval.
The primary vehicular access for the residential car parking is taken from Washington Street instead of the right-of-way. Given that there are only four (4) visitor car bays located at the rear of the building with vehicular access from the right-of-way, it is considered that the proposed development will not result in any significant increase to the traffic utilising this portion of the right-of-way. In relation to the number of car parking bays provided, the proposed development complies with the car parking requirement of the Residential Design Codes.
The proposed four (4) storey high
building component which is stepped down to three (3) storeys towards the south-western property boundary will provide an acceptable transition from the existing buildings located on the north-eastern adjoining property which contains a five (5) storey building and the south-western adjoining property which comprises three (3) storey buildings. In addition, the proposed variation will not result in any overshadowing or overlooking onto the adjoining properties.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 53 11.3
Visual privacy Proposed balconies facing the right-of-way will result in overlooking onto the adjoining property.
Plot ratio and street and boundary setbacks Variations to the plot ratio and street and boundary setback requirements signify that the proposal exceeds the building footprint limit.
The balconies and other major openings facing the right-of-way will not overlook any portion of the south-eastern adjoining property (7 Washington Street).
The proposed development is to be of
a bulk and scale that would reflect the existing or desired built form of the locality and that the intensity of the use on the site would not give rise to conditions that would be detrimental to the surrounding residents.
Objection from owners of 101/ 1-11 Heirisson Way, Victoria Park Comments Received Officer’s Comments
All the proposed variations are deemed to be unacceptable as it will have adverse impacts on the amenity of the surrounding properties.
The proposed plot ratio, setback and building height variations are deemed to satisfy the relevant Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes. The proposed variations will be discussed in greater detail in the Comment section of this Report.
In addition, the application was referred to Main Roads Western Australia for comment given that the development is on land that abuts Canning Highway, which is reserved as a “Primary Regional Road” under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and is classified as a Category 3 road on map SP693/3 “Development Applications – Roads in the MRS under Main Roads Control”. On 18 April 2012, Council received a response from Main Roads indicating no objection to the proposed development subject to relevant conditions of approval being imposed. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: The development provides a mix of single and two bedroom units which are designed to cater for the increasing trend in smaller household sizes namely, for singles and couples who wish to live in close proximity to the city. In addition, the proposed development will result in the completion of development along the majority of this portion of Canning Highway, removing the current void in the streetscape. As such, this will provide increased surveillance of the streets. Cultural Issues: No impact
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 54 11.3
Environmental Issues: No impact COMMENT: The proposal is broadly consistent with the requirements of Council’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Residential Design Codes, and the Design Review Committee has indicated its general agreement regarding the design merit of the proposal. Notwithstanding this, the proposal seeks several variations to the Residential Design Codes and Council’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 as outlined above. The proposed variations will be considered as follows: Plot Ratio Under the provisions of the Residential Design Codes, a maximum plot ratio of 0.7 (900.2m2) is permitted. The development proposes a plot ratio of 0.84 (1075.26m2), which equates to 175.26m2 of excess floor area. It is acknowledged that in recent years, Council’s Planning Services and the Design Review Committee have typically been supportive of a plot ratio variation up to 10% variation where an application demonstrates a high quality of design and provides an excellent level of amenity for both prospective occupants and surrounding properties. However, in this instance, a plot ratio variation of 19% is proposed. Whilst it is acknowledged that this is a significant concession and beyond the extent of variation that has been previously supported for other applications, it is considered that the plot ratio variation is acceptable for the following reasons: The excess plot ratio is partly due to energy efficiency compliance where 300mm wide
external walls have been provided, resulting in an additional 80m2 of plot ratio floor area.
Notwithstanding that this proposal has an additional eight (8) residential units compared to the previous approved development, the plot ratio increment will not result in any additional building bulk compared to the previous approved building form. The applicant has demonstrated via an overlay of the building footprint of the previous approved floor plans over the proposed floor plans that the building envelope is similar to each other.
Given that the site is at a prominent location (in terms of its proximity to the ‘gateway’ from north-east and being a corner lot), the proposed development achieves a high quality design which will raise the benchmark for future developments along Canning Highway. The proposed development incorporates several traditional design elements which are predominant within the Raphael Precinct, whilst still adopting a contemporary approach to the building design which would accord with the quality and form of development envisaged for the site, as outlined in the Precinct Plan P5 ‘Raphael Precinct’.
Each residential unit within the development is of a sufficient size to cater the needs of the residents and have been designed to incorporate generous living areas and balcony space in order to provide an acceptable level of amenity for prospective residents. The development provides a mix of single and two bedroom units which are designed to cater for the increasing trend in smaller household sizes namely, for singles and couples who wish to live in close proximity to the city.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 55 11.3
The proposed development encourages an increase in the residential population of the part of Canning Highway and will ‘add variety and vitality to the area’, consistent with the Statement of Intent for the Raphael Precinct.
Building Height The proposed building has a maximum height of four storeys above a basement car park in lieu of the maximum permitted height of three storeys. The proposed four (4) storey high building component is confined to the eastern portion of the site and stepped down to three (3) storeys towards the south-western property boundary. It should be noted that the subject site is located between a three (3) storey building (south-west) and a site containing a five (5) storey building (north-east). As a result, a four (4) storey high building provides a transition from the three (3) to five (5) storey height recommended under the Council’s Urban Design Study. Given that the existing buildings along this portion of Canning Highway have varying building heights, the proposed four (4) storey high building component is considered to be acceptable. Based upon urban design principles, taller building element at street corners is considered desirable, and therefore it would be appropriate to permit additional building height for sites leading towards a taller building element at the street corner. Furthermore, setting the taller building element away from the common boundaries provides a more appropriate scale, minimising the impact of the new development on the existing dwellings. In addition, a two-storey building element has been introduced adjacent to the right-of-way to provide a transition to the existing two storey properties at 7-11 Washington Street (south-east). In order to reduce the perceived impact of building bulk, building articulation devices such as indentation and projections, varying building heights and extensive use of balconies and glazing have been incorporated to the building façade. Blank walls are minimised on the elevations of the building so as to provide active street frontages. Furthermore, the increased building height will also reinforce the urban character of the locality by providing a defined edge to Canning Highway. It will also allow the development to take best advantage of the views that are available from the subject site, with views to the Perth Central Business District and Swan River to the north-west which will increase the level of amenity for prospective residents. In addition, the additional storey will not result in any additional overshadowing of adjoining properties or their appurtenant outdoor living areas. In its current form, the proposal complies with the solar access provisions of the Residential Design Codes. In view of the above, the proposed building height variation can be supported. Secondary Street Setback With the exception of the porch which is setback at 1.5 metres from Washington Street, the proposed development generally complies with the secondary street setback as the majority of the building achieves a setback of well in excess of 3.0 metres as required under the Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 56 11.3
The porch is proposed at a reduced setback to create a strong residential entry from Washington Street. Given that the porch is unenclosed on at least two sides and integrated into the design of the building in terms of detailing, it is considered that the entry porch will not be visually dominant at the reduced setback proposed. In addition, the existing two-storey dwellings located south-east of the subject property (7-11 Washington Street) have building elements of reduced setbacks to Washington Street and therefore, the proposed variation to the secondary street setback will not interrupt the rhythm of the street setback pattern of Washington Street. In light of this, the proposed secondary street setback variation can be supported. Right-of-Way Setback The building generally complies with the required setback from the centreline of the right-of-way of 5.0 metres minimum as specified under Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape for corner lots with the exception of the bin enclosure which has a setback of 4.0 metres from the centreline of the right-of-way. Given that the bin enclosure has a length of approximately 5.3 metres only (compared to the overall length of the building being in excess of 37 metres) and the main building achieves a setback of well in excess of 5.0 metres, it is considered that the reduced setback will not have any adverse impact on the creation of a new streetscape along the portion of right-of-way. The intent of the relevant Local Planning Policy – Streetscape provisions is to promote the creation of new streetscapes environments through the use of existing rights-of-way. In this instance, the right-of-way serves to provide limited vehicular access to the rear of the property with the building being orientated towards the right-of-way. Additionally, the upper floor units incorporate windows and balconies that front the right-of-way and hence providing excellent surveillance of the right-of-way which would accord with the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. On this basis, the proposed setbacks from the right-of-way are considered appropriate in the context of its surroundings. Boundary Setback The proposed development also seeks variation to the Residential Design Codes in relation to side setback. An assessment of the plans reveals that the reduced setback of the third storey south-western wall (Unit 9) will not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property (36 Canning Highway) in terms of solar access, visual privacy and building bulk. Based on the submitted overshadowing plan, the non-compliance will not unduly restrict direct sun and ventilation into south-western adjoining property and still allow adequate daylight onto the outdoor living areas. In regards to visual privacy, given that the subject south-western wall features no major openings, the subject wall will not result in any direct overlooking into the south-western adjoining property.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 57 11.3
In regards to building bulk, the subject wall has been articulated through detailing and glazing (minor openings) which can positively benefit the amenity of the adjoining property as it will reduce the perceived impact of building bulk. In addition, given that the subject wall is located opposite an existing three-storey dwelling on the adjoining south-western property, the subject wall poses no additional impact on the building bulk. In light of this, the boundary setback variation satisfies the relevant Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes and thus, can be supported. Visual Privacy The proposed development has been designed to alleviate any potential overlooking onto adjoining properties by providing highlight windows and minor openings, in particular, on those walls facing south-western adjoining properties (36 Canning Highway). However, the proposed Unit 5 and 9 balconies which are orientated towards the right-of-way constitute a variation to the visual privacy requirement. Notwithstanding that the proponent has incorporated screening on the south-western side of the subject balconies; the subject balconies still overlook a portion of the south-western adjoining property. However, based on Council’s records, it appears that the subject balconies will not overlook any habitable spaces or outdoor living areas of the south-western adjoining property. Instead, the subject balconies will only overlook a portion of the common property area of 36 Canning Highway located at the rear of the building. In this regard, the proposed visual privacy variation is considered to satisfy the relevant Performance Criteria and therefore, can be supported. Vehicle Access In relation to vehicle access, notwithstanding that Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape requires vehicular access to be taken solely from right-of-way; the proposed development provides vehicle access to the basement car park for the residents via Washington Street whilst limited access is provided via right-of-way for the visitor car parking bays located at the rear of the building. However, DRC and Council’s officers have no reservations on the proposed access via Washington Street given that the subject lot is located at the end of Washington Street where the street is terminated by a cul-de-sac. It is envisaged that there will be few vehicles utilising this portion of Washington Street other than the residents of the subject property. As such, the proposed access via Washington Street is deemed to be acceptable. Town Planning Scheme No. 1 – Clause 38 As the proposed development is non-compliant with the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council must be satisfied that the proposal meets the requirements listed under Clause 38(3) of the Scheme if approval were to be granted.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 58 11.3
Based on the form, quality and appearance of the development, the proposed development will make a significant and high quality streetscape outcome which would accord with the orderly and proper planning of the locality, as outlined in the Precinct Plan P5 ‘Raphael Precinct. The development is of a high standard which will serve as an example for the positive future redevelopment of sites elsewhere along Canning Highway and has been designed to take maximum advantage of the Central Business District and Swan River views whilst maintaining an appropriate and highly articulated frontage to Washington Street and right-of-way. While variations to the development standards are proposed, the variations are considered to be appropriate given its streetscape context and site planning. The items of non-compliance will not adversely effect on the occupants/users of the development, owners/occupiers of adjoining properties and the future development of the locality. CONCLUSION: In regards to the matters raised above, the proposed building is considered to be of a high quality that would accord with the form, quality and appearance of development envisaged for the subject site, as outlined in the Raphael Precinct. The proposed building has been designed in such a way that it will provide a high level of amenity for prospective residents whilst creating an appropriate relationship with the surrounding buildings and streetscape. In view of the above, it is recommended that the application be Approved by Absolute Majority subject to conditions. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Bissett 1. In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning
Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme the application submitted by Campion Design Group on behalf of SKS Canning Pty Ltd (DA Ref: 12/0158) for 15 Multiple Dwellings at 30-34 (Lot 336) Canning Highway, Victoria Park as indicated on the plans dated received 8 March 2012 be Approved by Absolute Majority subject to the following conditions:
1.1 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all
relevant Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit : • Urban Planning; • Street Life; • Park Life; • Environmental Health;
Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note).
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 59 11.3
1.2 All development is to be setback 0.5 metres from the right-of-way for the length of the common boundary with the right-of-way to allow for the future widening of the right-of-way.
1.3 A minimum of 5 bicycle spaces for residents and 2 bicycle spaces for visitors are to be provided on-site for the exclusive use of residents and visitors.
1.4 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, final
detail of external colours, finishes and materials to be used in the construction of the building are to be provided to the satisfaction of Manager Urban Planning prior to submission of a building licence.
1.5 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, full
details of an external drying area for each residential unit shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Manager Urban Planning. The clothes drying facilities shall be fully installed and screened from view from surrounding streets in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the residential units hereby approved.
1.6 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit,
complete details of the fencing to Canning Highway, Washington Street and the right-of-way to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning. This shall include the colour, materials and dimensions of the fencing, which are to be of a high standard and appropriately articulated so as to produce an acceptable streetscape outcome, to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning. The approved fencing is to be installed prior to occupation of the building(s) or strata titling, whichever occurs first.
1.7 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, fencing
to the right-of-way to be open style fencing. Details of fencing to the right-of-way to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning, prior to submission of an application for building licence. The approved fencing is to be installed prior to occupation of the building(s) or strata titling, whichever occurs first.
1.8 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, details
being submitted of all proposed ventilation systems, including the location of plant equipment, vents and air conditioning units. All equipment must be adequately screened to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning.
1.9 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, a
Drainage Management plan including details of the on-site stormwater disposal including soakwell sizes and locations to be submitted to the satisfaction of Executive Manager Street Life.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 60 11.3
1.10 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, an acoustic report shall be prepared by a qualified consultant in accordance with the guidelines of the Western Australian Planning Commission – State Planning Policy 5.4 “Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning” and submitted to and approved in writing by the Manager Urban Planning and Manager Building in consultation with the Design Review Committee. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained.
1.11 An acid sulphate soils self-assessment form and, if required as a result
of the self-assessment, an acid sulphate soils report and an acid sulphate soils management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Environment and Conservation before the development is commenced. Where an acid sulphate soils management plan is required to be submitted, all development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan.
1.12 Prior to the submission of an application for building permit, a
landscaping plan detailing size, location and type of planting to be provided to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Park Life.
1.13 Landscaping is to be completed prior to the occupation or strata titling
of the building(s), whichever occurs first, and thereafter maintained to satisfaction of Executive Manager Park Life.
1.14 Removal, lopping or pruning of any verge tree affected by the
development on the subject site is subject to the written approval of the Executive Manager Park Life at the applicant’s cost.
1.15 The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be
landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation or strata titling of the building(s) whichever occurs first and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Park Life. (Refer related Advice Note)
1.16 This approval is for the use of the residential units as Multiple
Dwellings only and does not include approval for use as serviced apartments. Any other use will require the submission of a new application for planning approval.
1.17 The gym facility is approved as residential amenities for the subject
development only and cannot operate or be used as a separate commercial use(s) or be made available to the general public.
1.18 A separate planning application is required for any fence forward of the
building line. 1.19 The use of sheet fencing, such as colorbond or fibro cement sheeting,
in front of the building line is not permitted.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 61 11.3
1.20 The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as
the required new fencing is to be erected. 1.21 All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act
and all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level.
1.22 Existing crossovers that are not used as part of the development or
redevelopment shall be removed and the verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Street Life.
1.23 Before the subject development is first occupied, all car parking spaces
together with their access aisles to be clearly paved, sealed, marked and drained and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Street Life.
1.24 A minimum of 14 car parking bays to be provided on site for the
exclusive use for residents. These bays shall be marked accordingly. 1.25 A minimum of four (4) car parking bays to be provided on site for the
exclusive use of visitors. These bays shall be marked for the exclusive use of visitors prior to the first occupation or commencement of the development.
1.26 All car parking bays to be paved, drained and line-marked and designed
in accordance with AS2890.1. 1.27 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5
metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the Washington Street property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of: (i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); and/or
(ii) wrought iron infill fencing. 1.28 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.0 metre x 1.0
metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the right-of-way property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of:
(i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); and/or (ii) wrought iron infill fencing. 1.29 During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent
damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 62 11.3
1.30 All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving, liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning.
1.31 No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Canning Highway
reserve. 1.32 No vehicle access shall be permitted onto the Canning Highway
reserve. Vehicle access is permitted from Washington Street and the right-of-way only.
1.33 The ground levels on the Canning Highway boundary are to be
maintained as existing. 1.34 Proposed development complying with setbacks, fencing, driveways,
landscaping and other details and amendments as shown in red on the approved site plan.
1.35 External fixtures, including but not restricted to airconditioning units,
satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the primary street, secondary street, right-of-way and surrounding properties.
1.36 A zero lot gutter to be provided for the boundary walls adjoining the
common boundary with 36 Canning Highway, Victoria Park. 1.37 The surfaces of the boundary walls on the common boundary with 36
Canning Highway, Victoria Park to be the same finish as the approved external wall finish for the remainder of the dwelling, unless otherwise approved.
1.38 Lighting to illuminate that portion of the right-of-way adjacent the
subject land is to be provided at vehicle and pedestrian entry points. 1.39 The owner or occupier is required to display the street number
allocated to the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces.
1.40 This approval does not include the approval of any signage. Any
signage for the development to be the subject of a separate sign licence application.
1.41 All building works to be carried out under this planning approval are
required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 63 11.3
1.42 During building operations, the right-of-way to be maintained clear of
obstructions & building materials, and in a trafficable condition at all times. If the surface of the right-of-way is disturbed or damaged, it is the responsibility of the owner/builder to reinstate the right-of-way to its original condition.
1.43 Compliance with Council’s Building, Environmental Health, Street Life
and Park Life requirements. 1.44 This approval is valid for a period of twenty four months only. If
development is not commenced within this period, a fresh approval must be obtained before commencing or continuing the development.
Advice to Applicant:
1.45 In regards to Condition No. 1.1, where a Council Building Surveyor is issuing the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit separate applications (Form TVP2 and Form TVP3) for the approval of Council Business Units. These forms are available on the Town’s website and at the front counter of Council’s Offices.
1.46 With regards to Condition No. 1.30 the following are minimum
requirements of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone.
1.47 Failure to maintain the verge by current or future owners or occupiers
will render the offender liable to infringement under Section 2.9 of the Activities on Thoroughfares and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law – Modified penalty $100.
1.48 Landscaping of the verge requires approval from Council’s Renew Life
Program (except lawn planting only). The applicant/owner should obtain a copy of Council’s Sustainable Landscaping Guide 1 “Your Street Verge”.
1.49 Any modifications to the approved drawings forming part of this
planning approval may require the submission of an application for modification to planning approval and reassessment of the proposal.
1.50 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal
may exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.3 64 11.3
2. Those persons who lodged the submission regarding the application be
advised of Council’s decision.
The Motion was Put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
11.3
Meeting off Council MMinutes
65
12 JJune 2012
11.3
2
3
Ordinary M
11.4
Am11.4ReVicRe
File ReferAppendicLandownMRS ZonTPS ZoniTPS Prec Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommmodificat Ame
Reseinclu
Publpetit
Publ Reco
the p TABLED Amend Conce Letter
consul Submi Email Letter Consu Counc Letter Letter
Meeting of
mendmeneclassificctoria Pecreation
rence: ces: ner: ning: ing: cinct:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation tions and endment perve” to “O
ude the sitelicly advertion. lic Informaommendedproposed D
ITEMS: dment No.
eptual built inviting
ltation. issions (4 ifrom Mainfrom Wate
ultation lettcil Report dfrom EPA from WAP
f Council M
nt No. cation ofPark fron” to “Of
PLNoToUrPaPr 6 JH.
er: R.nt: Siry: – Councrequest th
proposed tOffice/Reside within thertised for a
ation Sessiod that CouDevelopme
54 Plan aform drawresidents
including 1 Roads da
er Corporater with pla
dated 20 Sdated 22 N
PC dated 1
Minutes
54 to f 31 (Loom “Loffice/Res
LA0003/54o own of Victrban & Primarks and Rrecinct Plan
June 2012 Gleeson Cruickshample Majo
cil resolvhe Hon. Mto reclassifdential” zoe Causewaa period of
on held onncil adopts
ent Standa
nd documewings base
to Inform
1 petition). ated 26 Mation dated n showingeptember November 0 Novemb
66
Town ots 62, 6ocal Schidential”
4
toria Parkmary Regio
Recreation n P6 ‘Victo
2
ank ority
ve to adoMinister for
fy the Vicone, realignay Precinctf 42 days w
n 31 May 2s Amendm
ards in resp
entation. d on Devemation Se
arch 2012.
14 March g extend of 2011.
r 2011. ber 2011.
Plannin63, 64 anheme R” zone –
onal Roads& Primary
oria Park P
opt Amenr Planning
ctoria Parknment of tht and Devewith 4 sub
012. ment No. 54ponse to th
elopment Session wi
2012. f consultati
ng Schnd 100) Reserve Final Ap
s Regional R
Precinct’
ndment Ng to grant k Croquet he precincelopment Sbmissions
4 subject the public co
Standards. ith plan
on.
12 J
eme NoRushton
– Parpproval
Roads
No. 54 wifinal apprClub from
ct plan bouStandards.received in
to modifyincomments r
showing
June 2012
11.4
o. 1 –n Street,rks and
ith minorroval.
m a “Localundaries to ncluding a
ng some ofreceived.
extent of
2
4
– ,
d
r
l o
a
f
f
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.4 67 11.4
BACKGROUND: The Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 20 September 2011 resolved to initiate Amendment No. 54 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 as follows:
“1.1 Reclassify 31 (Lots 62, 63, 64 and 100) Rushton Street, Victoria Park from Local Scheme Reserve “Parks and Recreation” to “Office/Residential” zone.
1.2 Amend Precinct Plan P6 Victoria Park Precinct and Precinct Plan P3 Causeway Precinct to realign the boundary and include Lots 62, 63, 64 and 100 within Precinct Plan P3 Causeway Precinct.
1.3 Amend Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Policy Manual Policy 4.14 ‘Development Standards for Causeway Precinct’…”
A letter dated 22 November 2011 was received from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) advising the Town that the proposed Scheme Amendment No. 54 “should not be assessed under Part IV Division 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) and that is not necessary to provide any advice or recommendations.” Following this advice, Amendment No. 54 was advertised for a period of 42 days commencing on 30 January 2012 and ending on 13 March 2012. DETAILS: The proposed Amendment involves reclassification of the land from Local Scheme Reserve “Parks and Recreation” to “Office/Residential” zone, realigning the Precinct Plan boundaries to excise the site from the Victoria Park Precinct and include it within the Causeway Precinct and with specific development standards in order to respect the residential streetscape of Rushton Street and the neighbours amenities. Amendment No. 54 was advertised for a period of 42 days commencing on 30 January 2012 and ending on 13 March 2012 with letters being sent to surrounding owners and occupants, signs being installed on site and advertisements being place in the Southern Gazette newspaper. Three responses and one petition were received in addition to two responses from State Government agencies which are summarised and responded to as follows: Property Address/ Agency
Summary of Submission Officer’s Comment
Petition Proposal changes the character of the area;
Properties along Shepperton Road to the west of Harvey Street are commercial and a commercial use on the subject site adjacent to Shepperton Road would be appropriate. However after further consideration it is now proposed that Offices not be permitted to
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.4 68 11.4
Additional ‘towers’ inappropriate; 4
storeys to Shepperton Road and 6 storeys to Rushton Street inappropriate; Visual barrier; Similar to Monadelphous; Causeway Precinct Review states buildings adjacent to residential properties be no higher than 2 storeys;
Loss of privacy;
Lack of open space around building;
Residents wary of future rezoning proposal if this is approved;
Traffic increase; Increase risk of
accidents at corner; Already parking problems due to commuters, customers and residents;
Devalue property; and
Croquet Club is locally listed and
future rezoning should be recreational.
occur on Lots 64 and 100, and that these lots be permitted for residential use only.
Maximum 4 storey limit proposed to corner lots with three storey limit (within recession plane) on Rushton Street and a maximum of 2 storeys adjacent to No. 33; Staggered bulk would minimise visual impact; Development would not be of the scale of the Monadelphous building.
Standards include privacy provisions so development on Lot 100 would have to comply with R-Code standards.
Any future development of the site will be assessed for compliance with the relevant open space/landscaping requirements of the R-Codes or Scheme.
There are no other rezoning’s currently proposed for this locality.
Future development will have to
comply with the on-site parking provisions of the Scheme and incorporate adequate sightline truncations. Existing parking pressures in the street are to be considered as part of the Town’s Parking Hotspots Study.
Whilst not a material planning
consideration there are design provisions in place to protect the residential amenities of surrounding occupants.
The site is currently only used by
members of the Croquet Club which total approximately 25 in number and the site cannot be freely used by the general public.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.4 69 11.4
There are other Regional and Local “Parks and Recreation” reserves in the locality which provide for the passive and active recreation needs of residents.
44B Rushton Street
Poor communication regarding proposal; and
Most residents unaware of
Development Standards.
Consultation was conducted in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967 including signs on site and mail notices.
Development Standards were included in the advertisements as also being part of the Amendment.
Address not given
Vehemently protest any moves by Council to make this change;
Object to 6 storeys; Long family history with Rushton
Street; Vibrant and mixed community; Street will be clouded by shadow of
a building; Will not fit local character; and
Do not replace Croquet Club with
something that will upset the community life on our street.
Objection noted.
Building height discussed above.
Family history noted.
This Amendment will allow for an increased variety of dwelling types on Rushton Street which may increase the diversity of the local community.
Building bulk discussed above;
there would be no adverse overshadowing impact to surrounding properties.
Character discussed above.
Objection noted.
39 Rushton Street
Traffic concerns; and
Recommend a public meeting to discuss with residents.
Traffic impact discussed above;
Consultation and Amendment process has been conducted in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and the residents were invited to attend an Information Session held on 31 May 2012;
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.4 70 11.4
Main Roads
Current MRS road reserve provides for 3m verge width;
WAPC-ICC recently endorsed a design requiring a 5.1m verge width to Shepperton Road; and
Support Amendment subject to
setback requirement of 2m from Shepperton Road.
Comments noted.
A modification to the Development Standards is proposed to provide for a 2m setback from Shepperton Road unless it can be demonstrated that all future public utilities and pedestrian infrastructure can be accommodated within the existing Road Reserve.
Water Corporation
Future development may require developer to upgrade infrastructure; and
Piped drain along Shepperton Rd frontage may require pile foundations.
These matters will be dealt with as part of any future Subdivision Application, Development Application or Building Permit Application for the site.
In addition to the consultation conducted in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967, Council’s Urban Planning Business Unit also held a Public Information Session inviting all those who were previously consulted or who submitted comments. Following consideration of public submissions received during both the statutory advertising period and at the Public Information Session, modifications are proposed to the development standards contained within this Amendment. Legal Compliance: Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Clause 47 (1) of the Town Planning Scheme Text states that: “Council may only amend or revoke a Scheme Document with the exception of a Council Register in accordance with the procedures applying to a Town Planning Scheme Amendment set out in Section 7 of the Act.” Town Planning Regulations 1967 Under regulations 17(1) & (2) and 25(fb) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, the Council must consider all submissions received on the amendment and resolve whether the amendment will be adopted with or without modifications or whether it does not wish to proceed with the amendment within 42 days of the end of the advertising period or such longer period as the Minister may approve. Under regulation 18(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, the Council must forward the amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission for a decision on final approval within 28 days of passing a resolution under regulation 17(2).
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.4 71 11.4
The Western Australian Planning Commission will consider the Amendment and any submissions received and make a recommendation to the Hon Minister for Planning concerning determination. Upon receipt of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s recommendation the Hon Minister will consider the matter then make a determination on the outcome of the Amendment, which may include finalisation of the Amendment, modifications to the Amendment that may or may not require readvertising or refusal to finalise the Amendment. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: No impact Cultural Issues: No impact Environmental Issues: No impact COMMENT: The Amendment as advertised for public comments, proposes to rezone the site to Office/Residential. Whilst an Office/Residential zoning would permit the use of any of the lots forming part of the site for office or residential purposes, specific development standards were proposed to not permit retail uses (Shops, Restaurants etc) on any part of the site, and to only enable office uses on Lots 64 and 100 on the ground floor only, and only in conjunction with a residential use where the residential use is the predominant use. Public comments received express concern that the encroachment of commercial uses into Rushton Street may affect the character of this residential street. In view of the concerns received, it is now proposed to modify the proposed development standards to restrict the use of both Lots 64 and 100 to purposes only permitted under a Residential zoning. The as-advertised provisions for Lots 62 and 63 are not proposed to be altered in respect to the issue of land uses. The effect of these modifications is that Lots 62 and 63, being the lots closest to Shepperton Road could be used for offices and/or residential purposes; however offices would not be permitted on Lots 64 and 100. A number of objections received expressed concern regarding the proposed building height limit, on the misunderstanding that a 6 storey height limit was proposed. However this is not the case and the maximum proposed height limit as advertised was 4 storeys adjacent to Shepperton Road, 4 storeys within a recession plane facing Rushton Street on Lots 62, 63 and 64, and 2 storeys on Lot 100. These building height limits were proposed on the basis that the adjacent sites to the west could accommodate building heights between 4 to 6 storeys and in this future context it was considered that a maximum 4 storey limit on the subject site would not appear unduly obtrusive or overbearing.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.4 72 11.4
However, following consideration of public submissions it is proposed to retain the as-advertised building height limits with the exception of reducing the maximum building height to Rushton Street on Lot 64 from 4 storeys within a recession plane to 3 storeys within a recession plane. This would result in development of these lots being of a more compatible scale to better reflect the permissible building heights of the residential properties in Rushton Street (being 2 storeys). Therefore modifications are proposed to the Amendment documents to reflect this. In addition, the Amendment as-advertised proposes prescribed front setbacks from street boundaries as follows : a front setback of 6m is proposed along Rushton Street adjacent to Nos. 33 & 33A Rushton Street (Lot 100) stepping down to 4m (Lot 64) and then 3m closer to Shepperton Road in order to respect the established building line of the streetscape. In view of the use of Lot 64 now being proposed to be restricted to purposes permitted under a Residential zoning, it is appropriate that a standard residential setback (being 6m) also apply to this lot rather than the 4m setback as-advertised. Previously a nil setback to the Shepperton Road Reserve was proposed, however, this has been modified to include a 2m setback at the request of Main Roads given that the current road design for Shepperton Road will require an additional 2m width of land to be reserved for widening. At the Public Information Session, a comment was raised by a resident regarding possible vehicle access to the site via the right-of-way that runs between the Teddington Road and Rushton Street properties. While the right-of-way frontage to Lot 100 is only 3.0m, there may be a possibility of vehicle access between the site and right-of-way, in which case the Amendment is to be modified to note that any development of the site may have an opportunity for vehicle access via the right-of-way. CONCLUSION: In view of the above it is recommended that Council resolve to adopt Amendment No. 54 to the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 for Final Approval, with modifications from that advertised, being:
Prohibiting Offices on Lots 64 and 100; Reducing the applicable density coding on Lot 100 from R80 to R60. Reducing the maximum building height limit on Lot 64 from 4 storeys within a
recession plane to 3 storeys within a recession plane. Increasing the minimum setback to development on Lot 64 from a minimum of 4m
to minimum of 6m. Noting that alternative vehicle access may be available from the right-of-way to the
north; Increasing the setback to Shepperton Road from nil to a minimum of 2m.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.4 73 11.4
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Skinner 1. Council resolve pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act
2005 to adopt Amendment No. 54 to amend the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 for final approval with modifications as follows:
1.1 Reclassify 31 (Lots 62, 63, 64 and 100) Rushton Street, Victoria Park
from Local Scheme Reserve “Parks and Recreation” to “Office/Residential” zone.
1.2 Amend Precinct Plan P6 Victoria Park Precinct and Precinct Plan P3
Causeway Precinct to realign the boundary and include Lots 62, 63, 64 and 100 within Precinct Plan P3 Causeway Precinct.
1.3 Amend Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Policy Manual Policy 4.14
‘Development Standards for Causeway Precinct’ as follows:
At Clause 4.14.2 ‘Development Provisions for Designated Areas’ add the words “Area 6B. Croquet Club Site” after “Area 6. Low Rise Mixed Use’
At Figure A2.1 ‘Designated Areas’ modify the Figure to include the subject sites within the Precinct, to include the area “6B Croquet Club Site” in the legend, and to identify the subject sites as being part of Area 6B.
To insert the following provisions after ‘Figure A2.8:
Development Provisions for Area 6’ and before the provisions for ‘g) Area 7 Commercial Core’: “g) AREA 6B CROQUET CLUB SITE (i) Desired future character: The area is to act as an interface
between the Commercial Core and medium density residential area of the Victoria Precinct whilst providing an attractive entry statement to the Causeway Precinct.
(ii) Land use: Residential and/or commercial uses, but not
retail uses such as Shops, Restaurants etc. On Lots 64 and 100 only uses that would otherwise be permitted within a Residential zone.
(iii): Density: R80 for Lots 62, 63 and 64; R60 for Lot 100. (iv) Plot Ratio: Maximum 1.0 for Lots 62 and 63; As per R-
Codes for Lots 64 and 100.
Ordinary M
11.4
Meeting off Council M
(v) Buildi
Minutes
ng height
74
t and formm: For d63, (maxiSheppadjacemaximrequirmaxim15m) follow
For maximmaximsetbamaxim11.25mas fol
evelopmemaximu
mum 15perton Roent to Rumum of 2red front mum of 4 within a r
ws :
developmmum of mum) atck to Rus
mum 3 sm) within lows :
12 J
ent on Lotum 4 5m) adjaoad, with
ushton Str2 storeys t setbackstoreys (m
recession
ment on 2 storey
t requireshton Strestoreys (m
a recess
June 2012
11.4
ts 62 andstoreys
acent to building
reet to be(7.5m) at
k, with amaximum plane as
Lot 64,ys (7.5med fronteet, with amaximumion plane
2
4
d s o g e t a
m s
,
m t a
m e
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.4 75 11.4
For development on Lot 100, maximum 2 storeys (max 7.5m).
Development to incorporate vertical stepping. Building form to enable cross ventilation and natural light while maintaining appropriate street frontages.
(vi) Setbacks: Buildings to be setback in accordance with the side setback standards of the R-Codes from the northern boundary shared with Nos. 33 & 33A Rushton Street.
Development on Lots 64 and 100 to be setback a minimum of 6m from Rushton Street. Development on Lots 62 & 63 to be setback 3m from Rushton Street. Development to be setback minimum 2m from the Shepperton Road Reserve. Nil setback permitted to western boundary.
(vii) Access and parking: No vehicle access off Shepperton Road.
Vehicle access to retain existing street trees where possible. All car parking screened from street view. Possible vehicle access available from right-of-way to the north.
(viii) Other: Development on Lot 100 to comply with privacy standards of the R-Codes in relation to Nos. 33 & 33A Rushton Street.
Provide separate clearly identifiable entries for residential and commercial uses with adequate pedestrian weather protection at entries.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.4 76 11.4
Development must present an articulated frontage to both the Shepperton Road and Rushton Street frontages and also provide a high standard of landscaping to both frontages, particularly the Rushton Street frontage.”
At ‘i) AREA 9 SHEPPERTON ROAD STREETSCAPE OVERLAY’, (ii) Lot size and development controls’ insert the words “, Area 6B Croquet Club Site” after ‘either Area 2 Asquith St Mixed Use’ in the first sentence only.
Amend ‘g) AREA 7 COMMERCIAL CORE’ to “h) AREA 7 COMMERICAL CORE”
Amend ‘h) AREA 8 RETAIL HUB OVERLAY’ to “i) AREA 8 RETAIL
HUB OVERLAY”
Amend ‘i) AREA 9 SHEPPERTON STREETSCAPE OVERLAY’ to “j) AREA 9 SHEPPERTON STREETSCAPE OVERLAY”
Amend the contents page and page numbers of the following
pages as required. 2. The Chief Executive Officer and Mayor be authorised to execute the Town
Planning Scheme No. 1 Amendment No. 54 documents and to have the Common Seal affixed.
3 Amendment No. 54 be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning
Commission for final approval. 4. Those persons who lodged a submission regarding the proposal be advised of
Council’s decision. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
11.4
Meeting off Council M
Minutes
77
12 JJune 2012
11.4
2
4
Ordinary M
11.5
Re11.5 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommadvertise The
mod The
TowCode
In rland
The the areaLoca
The thenfinal
TABLED
Loc Fee Co
BACKGRThe Locaand was the Town LPPS is a In responsregarding commencfrom thossubmissio
Mo Bro Mo
Meeting of
eview of
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation
ed for pubLocal Pla
dification mLocal Plan
wn and repes. response owners in draft revisTown’s ch
as, the draal Planningdraft revis
n be preserevised Po
ITEMS: cal Planninedback rec
opy of Powe
ROUND: al Planninglast modifiand replac
a consolida
se to concsome of
ced by the se personsons were reore design oader rangore variety
f Council M
Council’
PLYe 6 JR.
er: R.nt: Siry: – The d
lic commeanning Pol
made in Junnning Policlaces the ‘
to concerelation to
sed Policy haracter aaft revised g Scheme sed Policy ented to Colicy.
ng Policy –ceived in 2erpoint Pre
g Policy – ied in Juneces the ‘St
ation of 12
cerns exprethe proviUrban Pla
s who lodeceived, wflexibility n
ge of colouin streetsc
Minutes
’s Local
LA0001 es
June 2012 Cruicksha Cruickshample Majo
draft revisents. icy – Stre
ne 2008. cy – Street‘Streetscap
rns raisedthe provis
proposes greas. In Policy is
No. 2. is recomm
ouncil for
– Streetsca2011 from aesentation
Streetscape 2008. TtreetscapeCouncil po
essed by ssions contanning Undged a pl
with generaneeded, pars and mat
capes is de
78
Planning
2 ank ank ority
sed Local
etscape w
tscape apppe’ provisi
d by somsions of thegreater derespect toto largely
mended toconsidera
ape 2008.applicants to Elected
pe (LPPS)The LPPS e’ provisionolicies that
some Electtained in
nit. Part oanning ap
al commentarticularly interials sho
esirable.
g Policy
l Plannin
was adopte
plies to all ons conta
me Electee Policy, a sign flexib
o developmreflect the
o be adveration of su
on Local Pd Members
) was adoapplies to
ns in the Rt existed pr
ted Membethe LPPSf this proc
pplication ts being: n non-charuld be ava
- Streets
g Policy
ed in May
residentiained in the
d Membereview hasility for devment in the proposal
tised for pbmissions
Planning Ps Workshop
pted by Call residen
esidential rior to May
ers, applica, a review
cess involvwith the T
racter areaailable.
12 J
scape
– Streets
2005, wit
l developme Resident
ers, applics been undvelopment he Town’s ls containe
public com prior to a
Policy – Strp.
ouncil in Mntial develDesign Co
y 2005.
ants and law of the Lved seeingTown in 2
as.
June 2012
11.5
scape be
th a minor
ment in thetial Design
cants anddertaken.outside ofcharacter
ed in draft
ment, andadopting a
reetscape.
May 2005,lopment inodes. The
andownersLPPS wasg feedback2010. 25
2
5
e
r
e n
d
f r t
d a
n e
s s k 5
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.5 79 11.5
Full details of the submissions received were forwarded to Elected Members in a memorandum dated 8 March 2011. The review has also involved:
Identifying recurring issues for applications that have been assessed by Council’s Urban Planning Unit.
“A good, the bad, and the ugly” tour of completed developments in the Town, City of Belmont and the City of South Perth.
Considering the provisions contained in draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2. Staff meetings. An Elected Members Workshop.
DETAILS: The LPPS currently comprises:
Explanatory Section; General Provisions that apply throughout the Town; Standards for Outside Specified Areas; Standards for Development within Weatherboard Precincts and Weatherboard
Streetscapes; Standards for Development within the Residential Character Study Area but not
within Weatherboard Precincts, Streetscapes or the Raphael Residential Precinct; Standards for Development in the Raphael Residential Precinct; Standards for Development Abutting Rights-of-Way; Definitions.
The draft revised LPPS is proposed to restructured as follows:
Explanatory Section; Standards for Development Outside Specified Areas; Standards for Development within the Residential Character Study Area,
Weatherboard Precincts, Weatherboard Streetscapes and the Raphael Residential precinct;
Standards for Development Abutting Rights-of-Way; Definitions.
Some key principles have been identified as part of the review:
• Greater flexibility in design standards to apply to development outside character areas;
• Only development in the ‘streetscape zone’ affects the streetscape – the ‘streetscape zone’ to be 6m or more behind the front façade of the dwelling – development in the ‘streetscape zone’ is to match the existing dwelling.
• Remove St James from Character Study Area and add relevant houses on western side of Berwick Street and southern side of Oats Street;
• For development abutting right-of-way, exercise greater design flexibility as these dwellings are forming part of a new streetscape with a distinguishable character from the dwellings facing the primary street. Roof form is the most important element in ensuring compatibility between the dwellings facing the street and the dwellings facing the right-of-way and some greater flexibility can be exercised in relation to other design standards for the right-of-way facing dwellings i.e. window shapes, wall heights, eaves style etc.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.5 80 11.5
• Sustainable design and streetscape are of equal importance – sustainable design should still respect the street – applicant’s to provide justification as to why variations to design standards are required to achieve sustainable design; demonstrate how the variations contribute to the sustainability outcome; also demonstrate how other alternatives wouldn’t achieve the same sustainability outcome;
The review has focussed primarily on the LPPS provisions that apply for development outside of the character areas (i.e. Outside of the Residential Character Study Area, Weatherboard Precincts, Weatherboard Streetscapes and Raphael Precinct). For development in the character areas, new provisions have previously been discussed and workshopped with Elected Members as part of the preparation of draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2, and therefore it was determined that rather than further reviewing the provisions for these areas as part of the LPPS review, it would be more appropriate to largely (with some minor modifications) incorporate the provisions contained in draft LPS 2 into the draft revised LPPS. Legal Compliance: The following extract from the Residential Design Codes 2010, refers to local planning policies: “The Codes aim to obviate the need for the use of Local Planning Policies which generate generic provisions, such as those designed to protect privacy and to design for streetscape, by incorporating of these aspects within the Codes. However the Codes recognise that local differences of character must be accommodated. The Codes enable local councils to vary certain code provisions by the adoption of local planning policies properly advertised and adopted as set out in the Model Scheme Text or by similar provisions where local councils have not yet incorporated the provisions of the Model Scheme Text. Only policies made in accordance with these provisions will have effect as a local planning policy.” The requirements for advertising a Local Planning Policy under the Model Scheme Text are as follows: 1. Publish a notice of the proposed Policy once a week for 2 consecutive weeks in a
newspaper circulated in the Scheme area giving details of: (i) where the draft policy may be inspected; (ii) the subject and nature of the draft policy; and (iii) in what form and during what period (being not less than 21 days from the
day the notice is published) submission may be made. 2. May publish a Notice of the proposed Policy in such other manner and carry out
such other consultation as the local government considers appropriate. 3. After the expiry of the advertising period the local government is required to review
the policy in light of the submission made and resolve to adopt the Policy with or without modification, or not to proceed with the Policy.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.5 81 11.5
4. If the local government resolves to adopt the Policy, the following must be undertaken: (i) publish notice of the policy once in a newspaper circulated in the Scheme
area; and (ii) if, in the opinion of the local government, the Policy affects the interests of
the Commission, forward a copy of the Policy to the Commission. The Policy has effect on publication of a notice under 3(i) above. Given the wording of the clause under the Model Scheme Text, it is considered that a revised LPPS will not affect the interest of the Commission and therefore would not need to be forwarded to the Commission. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: No impact Cultural Issues: No impact Environmental Issues: No impact COMMENT: A copy of the draft revised LPPS is contained in the Appendices. The following table summarises some of the proposed changes for development outside the character areas (referred to as ‘Development Outside Specified Areas’):
Item Current provision Summary of proposed change
Front setback
Minimum 6m front setback average (includes verandas)
Exclude verandas from front setback average to encourage this traditional building feature
Secondary street setback
Minimum 3m setback Discretion to permit a reduced setback for a porch, architectural feature or limited portions of wall which provide some visual relief to the elevation.
Garage projection forward of dwelling
Garages not to project more than 1m forward of facade
Minor variations can sometimes be acceptable depending upon design and factors such as • lot and dwelling frontage; • location of upper floor; • location of adjoining dwellings; • variations in roof height and form; Variations to be considered based upon these
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.5 82 11.5
Item Current provision Summary of proposed change
factors;
Width of garage
Garage width to not exceed 57% of lot frontage
Minor variations to the requirement will be considered based upon acceptable design solutions which minimise dominance of garages.
Front fences
Open style fencing generally; Solid front fence to 1.8m high permitted for higher order roads.
No solid fences permitted – contrary to CPTED, security principles. Front fencing on higher order roads to be at least 25% visually permeable above 1.2m height. Will still allow some of the fence to be solid.
Demolition of dwellings
Existing dwellings to be retained. Demolition of existing dwellings will be considered where : • Dwelling is
structurally unsound;
• Dwelling is wholly clad in fibro sheeting;
• Dwelling constructed after 1945 and is outside RCSA or WB Streetscape.
• Dwelling is in RCSA, but is not an ‘original dwelling’.
• Approval has been issued for the subsequent development of the site in the case of pre-1945 dwellings or an ‘original dwelling’ in the RCSA.
Non-character areas (Carlisle, Lathlain, St James, part of East Victoria Park) are ideally placed to accommodate new, more modern development. Draft LPS 2, which has been endorsed by Council, does not seek the retention of pre-1945 dwelling outside character areas, other than some character streetscapes. It is recommended that this position be reflected in the LPPS. Note – relevance of pre 1945 was that after 1945 the architectural style was “post-war austerity” due to lack of materials after WWII construction was more modest and of a lesser quality.
Standards for St James and part of East Victoria Park
• St James and part of East Victoria Park contain predominantly post-war modest homes – significant redevelopment likely. Accordingly, reasonable for much design flexibility including alternative roof forms i.e. skillion roofs, curved roofs; window shapes, colours and materials.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.5 83 11.5
Item Current provision Summary of proposed change
• Lathlain – contains more substantial homes, meaning some of the existing character will remain, therefore still a case for compatible design.
Roof form and mass
Roof shape matching housing in street; minimum 25 degree pitch, or match the existing dwelling.
St James and part of East Victoria Park – no restrictions on roof form and pitch. Lathlain and Carlisle • Alternative roof forms and pitches where
not visible from the street; • Roof forms visible from street, of same
dwelling, to be consistent pitch. • Roof forms visible from street, to be
consistent with roof pitches predominant in street, with minimum 25 degrees.
• Prescribe a maximum roof pitch – 35 degrees or more is inconsistent.
• Permit porches with non-pitched roof. • Permit minor feature elements without
pitched roof, where pitched roof is the dominant character of the dwelling.
Scale and bulk of 2 storey dwellings
Address building bulk through stepping of facade, balconies and variation of materials
Other design solutions will be considered which may provide visual relief such as cantilevered elements, canopies/awnings.
Blank walls
No blank walls facing the street
Sections of blank wall will be considered where they are minor relative to the dwelling frontage
Window shape and size
Windows facing the street to be of traditional size and shape (meaning having a vertical emphasis)
Emerging building trend incorporating modern design elements, including different window shapes. This can often add some greater visual interest to elevations, provided they are not too ‘busy’. Recommended provisions that : • Windows visible from street to have
primarily vertical emphasis. • Windows facing street not be obscure
glass. • Grouping of small or highlight windows OK
as minor element in total façade. • No floor-to-ceiling windows. • Overall elevation to read as one with
primarily vertical orientated windows.
Colours and materials (walls)
Walls – no restriction on colours; no restriction on materials other than colorbond
Considered that colorbond sheeting when combined with other materials, adds visual interest to elevations. Recommended that colorbond sheeting (not zincalume) be
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.5 84 11.5
Item Current provision Summary of proposed change
sheeting or imitation weatherboard can only be used as a minor feature where visible from the street.
permitted that is different to the roof colour, and where visible from the street is no more than 50% of the façade. Also suggested to permit flat profile sheeting only where it is a minor feature or has a rendered finish.
Colour and materials (Roof)
Roof – in Lathlain and Carlisle, generally only brown, red, orange and grey colours, and zincalume, are permitted. No restrictions in St James and East Vic Park (outside RCSA).
Lathlain and Carlisle - This requirement has been restrictive and the subject of disputes from applicants desiring modern design. Recommended that the range of acceptable colours be expanded to again create some more interesting and varied streetscapes. Roof colours of light cream, green, black and dark grey not permitted. St James and part of East Victoria Park – no changes.
Design of garages and carports
Garages to be integrated into design of dwelling in terms of roof and materials.
Flat/parapet roof form will be considered where there is a portion of upper floor above (occupying at least 2/3 of the width of the garage), and the flat/parapet roof form does not read as a dominant structure.
In respect to development within the Residential Character Study Area, Weatherboard Precinct, Weatherboard Streetscapes, or Raphael Precinct, the provisions contained in the draft revised LPPS largely reflect the provisions contained in draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2, as these provisions have been previously supported by Elected Members. Only minor modifications have been made including:
The addition of Performance Criteria for consideration where variations are proposed;
Assessing some additional matters which were not covered; Including a Performance Criteria allowing for variations based upon sustainable
design. Providing scope for portions of dwellings not visible from a street to be of an
alternative form and design CONCLUSION: A review of the LPPS has now been completed, and it is recommended that the draft revised LPPS be advertised for public comments. Following the public consultation period, Council will be required to consider the submissions received prior to adopting a final revised LPPS.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
11.5 85 11.5
Further Comments: At the Elected Members Briefing Session on 5 May 2012, a query was raised in regard to the possible use of colorbond roof sheeting in addition to the permitted use of zincalume roof sheeting within the Town’s character areas. It was suggested that this item could be the subject of a Workshop prior to the Policy being advertised. Should Elected Members believe that there is merit in modifying the draft Policy in this manner, it would be appropriate that this modification be incorporated into the revised Policy that is to be the subject of community consultation, and that the submissions received in relation to the entire Policy be the subject of a Workshop prior to any final adoption of the Policy. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Ashton Seconded: Councillor Potter 1. The draft revised Local Planning Policy – Streetscape dated May 2012,
contained in Appendix 11.5, be advertised in accordance with the procedures set out in the Model Scheme Text including a 28 day advertising period.
2. The advertising and consultation process, for the draft revised Local Planning
Policy – Streetscape dated May 2012, be as follows: 2.1 A formal notice be published in newspaper circulated in the district for
two consecutive weeks at the commencement of the advertising period, and placed on Council’s Website at the commencement of the advertising period.
2.2 A full copy of the draft revised Policy being placed on the Council’s
website for the duration of the advertising period.
The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
12.1
12 RE
Ca12.1 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveHighway Depa
Revithe r
The mea
The to th
TABLED Can BACKGRThe Depcomprehestudy exaand Kwina Canning Has an “Otand was isouthern impact onhighway, encompas The studyintersectinHighway a
Meeting of
ENEW LI
anning H
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarreservatioartment ofiew – Finarelevant sta
study coasures wou
Canning Hhe Elected
ITEMS: ning Highw
ROUND: partment oensive planamined theana Freew
Highway wther Regioncorporateside of th
n adjoiningextending
ssed within
y area of thng streets and Canni
f Council M
FE PROG
ighway R
ADNo 27 M.
er: A. Vnt: Simry: Recomon requiref Transportal Planningakeholdersncluded th
uld generalHighway RMembers
way Road
of Transpn for road e section oway (South
was reservonal Highwed in the Me highway
g propertieg well beyn the reser
his project between Eng Highwa
Minutes
GRAM R
Road Re
DM0164
April 2012Chou Vuleta
mple Majormmendatioements prt (DoT) haReport no
s. hat four gly cater for
Road Reseron 17 Apri
Reserve R
port (DoT)requiremef Canning Perth).
ed in the Pway”. The eMRS in 198y with a ws. A signifyond the rvation. A
relevant tEllam Streeay is exclud
86
REPORTS
eservatio
2
rity on – Endoresented bs undertak
ow release
general trar the futurerve Reviewil 2012 by t
Review Fina
) commisents for a 5
Highway b
Perth Metrexisting MR80. The mawidth of abficant amoapproximasignificant
o the Towet and Albded within
S
on Review
rse in prinby the Depken the Caed seeking
affic lanese transportw study repthe DoT.
al Planning
sioned W5.5km secbetween A
ropolitan RRS reservajority of thbout 18 mount of private 20 met portion of
n of Victorany Highwthe scope
w
nciple the partment oanning High
endorsem
and pubdemand in
port and p
g Report –
WorleyParsotion of Ca
Albany Hig
Region Schation is ab
he reservatetres, whic
vate land oetre wide this is Cro
ria is Cannway. The in
of this stu
12 J
proposedof Transpohway Roa
ment in prin
lic transpon the studylans were
– 10 Janua
ons to panning Highhway (Vict
heme (MRSbout 40 metion is locach has a on either s
dedicatedown land.
ning Highwntersectionudy.
June 2012
12.1
d Canningort. d Reserve
nciple from
ort priorityy area. presented
ry 2012.
produce ahway. Thetoria Park)
S) in 1963etres wide
ated on thesignificant
side of thed road, is
way and its of Albany
2
g
e m
y
d
a e )
3 e e t e s
s y
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.1 87 12.1
DETAILS: The purpose of the study is to produce a single comprehensive plan for road requirements for Canning Highway. The study comprises several inter-related outcomes, namely;
Preparation of a road design concept with accompanying land reservation plans that considers how adjacent land uses interact with the future Canning Highway and accommodates the requirements of an urban corridor;
Ensuring that the future needs of the transport users are adequately catered for in the widened road corridor, including pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.
Preparation of an access strategy which minimises frontage access onto Canning Highway and reviews connectivity of local roads to the highway; and
Preparation of a road design concept with accompanying land reservation plans that accommodate the requirements of an urban corridor.
The findings of the Canning Highway Planning Study indicate that future traffic volumes of Canning Highway are expected to increase over the next 20 years. However, sections of the highway will continue to experience safety problems, traffic congestion at some intersections during peak periods and reduced public transport efficiency. The findings of the study support the need to plan for the future provision for a central median, intersection improvements, improved pedestrian/cyclist facilities and public transport priority measures. A small increase in the reservation area is proposed as some enlarged truncations are considered necessary to improve vehicle turning movements. The study concluded that four general traffic lanes and public transport (bus) priority measures would generally cater for the future transport demand on this section of the highway. Cycling will be permitted within bus lanes. The findings and recommendations of the study have been accepted in principle by the study Project Working Group and are generally supported by the community. The proposed Canning Highway reservation plans contained in the Final Report are now submitted for formal consideration by Council and endorsement in principle. Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Plan for the Future - Renew Life Program – Objective 3 – being to manage, maintain and renew the Town’s assets. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.1 88 12.1
Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Noise from traffic will continue to be an issue on major roadways but the improvements proposed will include Public Transport, safety and aesthetics. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The Canning Highway Road Reserve Review study report and plans were presented to the Elected Members on 17 April 2012. No objections were received from Elected Members and officers regarding the outcomes of this study. No further issues were raised after the presentation. CONCLUSION: Subject to endorsement in principle by the Town of Victoria Park, City of South Perth, Main Roads WA, Department of Planning and Public Transport Authority the reservation plans will be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for approval to initiate an amendment to the MRS to reflect the proposed minor reservation requirements along Canning Highway. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Nairn That Council: 1. Endorses in principle the proposed Canning Highway reservation
requirements.
2. Advises the Department of Transport of its decision. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
12.2
Te12.2 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutivesubmitted Tend
Towwith
TABLED Nil BACKGRThe Townspecialiseeffectively The Town The TownAustralian Tenders wsupply an DETAILSFive (5) sServices, All submis Evaluationtender doCoordinat Attributes range of 0(W% or Etenderer. panel for engage ot
Meeting of
ender No
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summad by Asphder evalua
wn of Victoran option
ITEMS:
ROUND: n of Victoried operatioy undertake
n had a pan
n has adven on 28th A
were invited laying of
: submission
as per the
ssions are
n has beencuments btor and Exe
or Assess0-5. This sEvaluation The tendeeach of thther contra
f Council M
. 12/04 T
ToVNo 24 E S
er: A Vnt: Simary: Recohaltech foration for thria Park forof two (2)
ia Park coons for whe.
nel contrac
ertised for April 2012 a
d from prof Asphalt w
ns were rece Schedule
exclusive
n undertakby a panel ecutive Ma
sment Critscore was
Criteria) aerer having
he item of actors on th
Minutes
ToVP – S
VP12/04
May 2012Setzinger Vuleta mple Majorommendatr the items
he provisior a period ox 12 mont
ntracts outhich the T
ct 06/09 wh
tenders fand closed
ofessional owithin the T
ceived for es of Rates
of GST.
ken accordof three st
anager Ren
eria (P) wethen multipand divideg the higheservice ashe panel a
89
upply an
2
rity tion – Res specifien of Suppof two (2) h extensio
t the suppown does
hich is due
for the sup at 2pm on
organisatioTown of Vic
tender TVs provided
ding to the taff membenew Life.
ere determplied by th
ed by 100 est score w
ssessed. Has it so wish
nd laying
ecommend in the te
ply and layyears from
ons.
ly and layinot have
e to expire
pply and lan the 15th M
ons accredctoria Park
VP/12/04 –herewith.
tender evaers, Engine
mined and e previousto obtain would be tHowever, th.
g of Asph
d acceptender docing of Asp
m 2nd July 2
ng of asphthe appro
30th June
aying of AMay 2012.
dited to prok.
Supply an
aluation creering Sup
given a posly determithe Value
the preferrthe Town r
12 J
halt Serv
tance of cument TVphalt Servi2012 to 1st
halt works opriate res
2012.
Asphalt in
ovide servic
nd Laying
riteria inclupervisor, En
oint score ined weigh
e Score (Vred contracreserves t
June 2012
12.2
vices.
the offerVP/12/04.
ces in theJuly 2014
which aresources to
The West
ces for the
of Asphalt
uded in thengineering
within thehting factorV) for eachctor on thehe right to
2
2
r
e 4
e o
t
e
t
e g
e r h e o
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.2 90 12.2
Description of Selection Criteria Weighting UnitAsphalt
SurfacesAsphaltech Boral
Fulton Hogan
Roads 2000
Capability/competence ofTenderer to perform the workrequired Qualifications, skills andexperience of key personnel Plant, equipment and staffresources available 15 15 15 15 15 Percentage of operationalcapacity represented by this work Quality systems
Experience of Tenderer insupplying similar goods orcompleting similar projects Relevant industry experience(including public sector), includingdetails of similar work undertaken The Tenderer’s involvement inthese projects, including details ofoutcomes produced 15 15 15 15 15 Past record of performance andachievement References from past andpresent clients Occupational safety and healthtrack record
Understanding of Requirement Level of understanding of Tenderdocuments Level of understanding of workrequired
Ability to meet delivery dates inregard to overall work commitments.
15 15 15 15 15
Warranties offered
Added value items offered
Special conditions included inTender
Tendered Price/s The price to supply the goods orservices in accordance with theRequest 30.63 40.00 29.24 27.23 39.96
Rates or prices for variations
TOTAL 100% 75.63 85.00 74.24 72.23 84.96
20%
20%
20%
40%
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.2 91 12.2
TABLE 1 of 2 - Supply, Lay & Consolidate Hotmix Asphalt as Specified1 2 3 4 5
Description UnitAsphalt
SurfacesAsphaltech Boral
Fulton Hogan
Roads 2000
14mm nominal size – granitea) 50 blow Marshall mix tonne $190.00 $137.70 $189.25 $200.00 $137.08b) 75 blow Marshall mix (MRWA intersection mix)
tonne $190.00 $141.90 $195.35 $200.00 $136.86
10mm nominal size – granitea) 35 blow Marshall mix tonne $192.00 $140.50 $196.81 $203.00 $144.60b) 50 blow Marshall mix tonne $191.00 $139.70 $193.63 $200.00 $138.42c) 75 blow Marshall mix (MRWA mix) tonne $191.00 $142.90 $198.22 $200.00 $137.74
7mm nominal size – granitea) 35 blow Marshall mix tonne $193.00 $144.00 $196.82 $204.00 $142.96b) 50 blow Marshall mix tonne $192.00 $143.00 $195.82 $202.00 $139.88
10mm nominal size – laterite hotmix asphalt
a) 35 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) tonne $223.00 $196.00 $212.96 $244.00 $177.78b) 50 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) tonne $223.00 $195.00 $212.96 $240.00 $174.70c) 75 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) (MRWA mix)
tonne $221.00 $199.00 $217.39 $240.00 $174.02
10mm nominal size – laterite/granite asphalt
a) 75 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide)
tonne $223.00 $195.00 $201.71 $240.00 $174.02
7mm nominal size – laterite hotmix asphalt
a) 35 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) tonne $223.00 $196.00 $215.89 $248.00 $177.78b) 50 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) tonne $223.00 $195.00 $215.89 $244.00 $174.70
Stone Mastic Asphalta) 7 SMA tonne $231.00 $169.00 $230.00 $244.00 $173.30b) 10 SMA tonne $233.00 $167.00 $220.99 $240.00 $170.12
Penalties for weekend and after hours work
item $2,400.00 $8,500.00 $5,000.00 $2,250.00
Sat $1,590.00Sun $2,490.00
Pub Holiday $2,940.00Night $2,790.00
TABLE 2 of 2 – Traffic Control
Item Description UnitAsphalt
SurfacesAsphaltech Boral
Fulton Hogan
Roads 2000
1Two traffic controllers, vehicle, signs and radios (normal hours, Monday to Friday, 6am to 6pm)
hr $148.50 $126.50 $135.00 $220.00 $107.80
2Two traffic controllers, vehicle, signs and radios (after hours, 6pm to 6am, weekends and public holidays)
hr $181.50 $141.90 $175.00 $330.00 $147.95
3One traffic controller, vehicle, signs (normal hours, Monday to Friday, 6am to 6pm)
hr $80.30 $74.80 $75.00 $132.00 $67.65
4One traffic controller, vehicle, signs (after hours, 6pm to 6am, weekends and public holidays)
hr $121.00 $86.90 $105.00 $196.00 $87.45
5 Additional traffic controller hr $66.00 $58.30 $55.00 $77.00 $50.05
6 Additional vehicle (Ute) day $66.00 $93.50 $250.00 $275.00 $220.00
7 Trailer mounted Arrow Board day $112.00 $104.50 $150.00 $275.00 $80.85
8 Variable Message Board day $467.00 $429.00 $275.00 $275.00 $330.00
Item
Total Rate
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.2 92 12.2
Legal Compliance: The Town has complied with section 3.57 of the Local Government Act. Policy Implications: The public tendering process undertaken for this contract complied with the Town’s purchasing policy FIN4 in the category of services over $100,000. Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Services will be funded within the constraints of the operational and capital works approved budgets. Total Asset Management: This tender complies and addresses a programmed and systematic approach to maintain the Town’s assets. Sustainability Assessment: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The Town will most benefit from accepting the offer from Asphaltech, who have submitted the best value for money conforming tender. Asphaltech is the current Asphalt supplier for the Town of Victoria Park and have provided a very good service during the term of the 06/09 Tender. Asphaltech have submitted the lowest tender prices for the asphalt mixes predominantly used by the Town of Victoria Park. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the tender, comprising the required price schedule, as submitted by Asphaltech for the period 2nd July 2012 to 1st July 2014 with an option of 2x 12 month incremental extensions be accepted by the Town.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.2 93 12.2
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Potter Council to endorse the acceptance of the offer submitted by Asphaltech for the supply and laying of asphalt in accordance with the contract document TVP/12/04 for the period 2 July 2012 to 1 July 2014 subject to satisfactory performance be accepted by the Town. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
12.3
Ac12.3 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommNetwork Cons Cons Plea
(DoT TABLED Cons Cons BACKGRThe PertGovernmeprovides fAuthoritie Each locasubsequeworks pro Projects t
Oupat
On En Bik Sig
The TownThe Townprojects w
Meeting of
cceptanc
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation Local Govstruction ostruction o
ase note thT) in the ap
ITEMS: struction ostruction o
ROUND: th Bicyle ent prografunding ass (LGAs) f
al governent financiaogram that
hat the Doutstanding ths along r
n/off road bd of trip fac
ke plans; agnage
n submittedn has beenwere appro
f Council M
ce of Pert
ADYE 25 Fra
er: Antnt: Abry: – the To
vernment of Jarrah Rof Great Eae total am
ppendix sh
of Jarrah Rof Great Ea
Network am adminssistance, for approve
ment authal year ancould be e
oT identifiedprojects id
recreationabicycle lanecilities e.g.nd
d a grant an advised
oved for co
Minutes
th Bicyc
DM0170 ES
May 2012ank Squadthony Vulesolute Maj
wn accepGrants Fuoad Bicycl
astern Highount writte
hould read
oad Bicyclastern High
(PBN) Loistered thtypically o
ed cycling
hority wasnd determieligible for
d as potendentified inal routes, ues (particul. bike park
application that it hasnstruction
94
le Netwo
2 rito
eta ority
pts fundinunding Prole Lanes hway Sharen on the c$201,943.
le Lanes; lohway Shar
ocal Govhrough theon a dollaprojects.
s asked tone whethegrant assis
ntial grant rn PBN locupgrading olarly busie
king at publ
to DoT fors secured in the 201
ork Gran
ng provideogram 201
ed Path –cover letter
odged 9 Ded Path; lo
ernment Ge Departmr for dolla
o consideer there astance thro
recipients ical bicycle of existing r ones); lic places;
r 3 projectsgrant fund2/13 financ
t Funds
ed under 12/13
Craig Strer from Depa
ecember 2odged 9 De
Grants Prment of Tr
r basis, to
r its workre cycling ough the P
nclude theroutes (mpaths);
s to be conding totallincial year.
12 J
2012-201
the Pert
eet to Causartment of
2011. ecember 2
rogram isransport (o Local Go
ks programprojects w
PBN grant s
e following:missing sha
nstructed inng $201,94
June 2012
12.3
13
h Bicycle
seway f Transport
2011.
s a StateDoT) thatovernment
m for thewithin thatscheme.
: ared links,
n 2012/13.43. Only 2
2
3
e
t
e t t
e t
. 2
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.3 95 12.3
DETAILS: Construction of Bicycle Lanes along Jarrah Road, Bentley The construction of the project was estimated to cost approximately $217,940 (exc. GST). The Town stands to receive $108,970 (50%) of the total project cost through the PBN Program. This figure is shown in the attached appendix. The bicycle lanes along Jarrah Road will be constructed from Kent Street to Hill View Terrace. The length of the bicycle lane will be 1,840m, 1.2m wide and will be constructed on both sides. The bicycle lane will be constructed with red asphalt as per the current standard. As part of the scope, a full feature survey will be commissioned that will encompass Jarrah Road from Kent Street to Hill View Terrace. Construction of Shared Path on Great Eastern Highway, Victoria Park The construction of the project was estimated to cost approximately $281,000 (exc. GST). The Town stands to receive $92,973 of the total project cost from DoT as shown in the appendix. The Town initially requested $140,973 through the PBN program which includes path construction and lighting component. The DoT has only approved $92,973 which excludes the lighting component. The Town will fund the lighting works as the project is considered of high importance to link the causeway precinct. The dual use path will provide continuity from the existing dual path in Craig Street to Shepperton Road. The length of the dual use path is 509m and 2.5m wide. The dual use path will be constructed with red asphalt as per current standards. As part of the scope, a full feature survey will be commissioned that will encompass Charles Paterson Park. Legal Compliance: All works undertaken will comply with Austroads Guidelines and relevant Australian Standard relating to Bicycle infrastructure Policy Implications: Delegation 560 (Grants) of the Town’s Delegations Register states that the administration can; Make and accept submissions for grants from Lotteries Commission, State and Commonwealth Governments, with a condition that acceptance of successful submissions over $22,000 (incl. GST) to be subjected to Council approval. Strategic Plan Implications: The Strategic Plan includes many statements about sustainability. Improved cycling infrastructure in order to encourage greater uptake of cycling to compliment the Community Wellbeing and Quality Physical Environment are key result areas of the Strategic Plan as well as the sustainability aims of the Plan.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.3 96 12.3
Financial Implications: Internal Budget: The Town will need to fund at least 50% of the nominated project costs to receive the grant funding from DoT which have now been endorsed by DoT. The funding arrangement would be:
Project Funding source Total ToVP DoT
Jarrah Road Bicycle Lanes $108,970 $108,970 $217,940 excluding overheads
GEH – Shepperton Dual Path
$188,973 $92,973 $281,946 excluding overheads
$297,943 $201,943 $499,886 Total Asset Management: The works once completed will be maintained by the Town Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Improved cycling infrastructure is likely to yield results in terms of positive outcomes for cyclists and a corresponding increased use of bikes for transport. It is hoped this will have a positive effect on the businesses and services within the Town as more people view the Town of Victoria Park as a Local Government Authority committed to infrastructure supporting alternative modes of transport. Social Issues: An increase in cycling within the Town will improve the health and wellbeing of community members and assist in developing more people-friendly neighbourhoods. With fewer cars and more people on the streets, a greater sense of community is developed. People on bikes tend to engage with other cyclists and pedestrians in a different way to those in cars. Cycling also provides a cost efficient and sustainable form of transport. Cultural Issues: The close proximity of the Town to the Perth Central Business District and good connectivity to public transport mean that a mode shift is possible from single car occupants to cyclists for many trips. Improved cycling infrastructure is critical to this mode shift. Travel Behaviour change to increase cycling within the Town relies on good cycling infrastructure. Environmental Issues: Continuing to provide safe and efficient cycling facilities will encourage and facilitate more use of bicycles, rather than vehicles, for commuting, transport or recreational journeys. Reducing vehicle dependency will help reduce vehicle emissions and vehicle noise. COMMENT: The aforementioned projects are high use bike routes. Acceptance of the funding totalling $201,943 and return of the contract agreements to the DoT need to be finalised by close of business, Friday 8 June 2012. All works associated with the grants are to be completed by Friday, 10 May 2013. In the event that the project completion date exceeds the deadline, DoT shall be notified 30 days prior to that date.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.3 97 12.3
CONCLUSION: The Town has been successful in securing external funding of $201,943 from DoT to assist the Town to install bike lanes on the two critical bike routes on Jarrah Road and Craig Street. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Ashton The Council accepts grant funding totalling $201,943 from the Perth Bicycle Network Grant program though the Department of Transport and endorses the implementation of these projects which will be allocated in the 2012/2013 financial year budget. The Motion was Put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
12.4
Co12.4Mo
File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommWorking CEW CEW TABLED Nil BACKGRAt the Towthe ComCommuniMeeting oaims and At the Towmembers The inaug DETAILSAt the CEReference That the C
1. Aims
educa2. Meeti3. Mana
docum Legal CoNil
Meeting of
ommunitodificatio
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarended thGroup (CE
WG have mWG have re
ITEMS:
ROUND: wn’s Ordin
mmunity Ety Environ
on 13 Decobjectives
wn’s Ordinof the CEW
gural meeti
: EWG meee and reso
CEWG Ter
and Objecation withinngs – 3.1…
agement –ment”.
mpliance:
f Council M
y Envons to Te
ADNil 28 W.
er: A. Vnt: Simry:
hat the TEWG) be a
meet and reecommend
nary Councnvironmennmental Wcember 20s of the CE
nary CouncWG, with a
ing of the C
eting of 15olved the fo
rms of Refe
ctives – bun the comm… “At least– 6.2 …
:
Minutes
ironmenerms of R
DM0058
May 2012Bow
Vuleta mple Major
erm of Ramended.eviewed thded modific
cil Meetingntal AdvisWorking G11 CounciWG.
cil Meetingan expiry d
CEWG wa
5 March 2ollowing –
erence be
ullet point munity as itt 5 meeting“Members
98
ntal WoReferenc
2
rity
Reference
he Terms ocations to t
g on 8 Novsory CommGroup (CEW
il resolved
g on 14 Fedate of 19 O
s held on 1
2012, the
amended
3 … “Provt relates togs are helds be requ
orking ce
for the
of Referencthe Terms
ember 201mittee (CWG). At t to endors
ebruary 201October 20
15 March 2
Working
to read as
viding inpuo the Work d per year”uested to
Group
Commun
ce. of Referen
11, CounciEAC) andthe Town’se the term
12 Council013.
2012.
Group rev
s per the fo
ut to CouncPlan.” . sign the
12 J
– P
nity Envir
nce
il resolved d to esta’s Ordinarms of refe
l resolved
viewed its
ollowing he
cil on envi
Code of
June 2012
12.4
roposed
ronmental
to abolishablish thery Councilrence and
to appoint
Terms of
eadings:
ironmental
f Conduct
2
4
d
l
h e l
d
t
f
l
t
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.4 99 12.4
Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The strategic focus for the CEWG is aligned to the Plan for the Future and was endorsed by Council at its Ordinary meeting on 13 December 2011. The purpose of the Community Environmental Working Group is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by: Identifying and raising environmental issues of concern to the community as they relate
to the Work Plan. Provide input, from a community perspective, into key environmental policies,
documents, plans, reports and programs developed by the Town as it relates to the Work Plan.
Provide leadership in the role of environmental education within the community. Actively participate in actions resulting from the Work Plan.” Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The proposed amendments to the CEWG Terms of Reference are reflected below – 1. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The strategic focus for the Community Environmental Working Group (CEWG) is aligned to the Plan for the Future. The purpose of the CEWG is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by:
Identifying and raising environmental issues of concern to the community as they relate to the Work Plan.
Providing input, from a community perspective, into key environmental policies, documents, plans, reports and programs developed by the Town as it relates to the Work Plan.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.4 100 12.4
Providing input to Council on environmental education within the community as it relates to the Work Plan
Actively participating in actions resulting from the Work Plan. 2. MEMBERSHIP
2.1 Community Members shall comprise five. 2.2 Places will be available for suitably qualified professionals who can provide expert
advice/information as necessary. 2.3 The term of membership will be for two years commencing on appointment made by
the Council and concluding in October in line with the ordinary Council election cycle.
2.4 Staff will attend meetings to present reports and provide technical advice and secretarial support where required and are not members.
3. MEETINGS
3.1 At least five meetings are held per year. 3.2 A quorum for a meeting shall be no less than three members one of whom shall be
an Elected Member of the Town of Victoria Park. 3.3 All members shall have one vote. The Presiding Member shall also have the right to
a casting vote; simple majority will prevail. 3.4 The Presiding Member will preside at all meetings and is responsible for the proper
conduct of the meetings. In his/her absence the role of Presiding Member will be assumed by any other Elected Member who has been appointed as a member by the Council.
4. AGENDAS
4.1 The Administration will determine the Agenda for each meeting in accordance with the Annual Work Plan endorsed by the Council.
4.2 All meetings shall be confined to the items listed on the Annual Work Plan unless the Council determines that additional matters be considered.
4.3 There will be no General Business – additional items are to be submitted to the Administration further consideration for (a) action administratively or (b) for consideration by the Town/Council in development of the next financial period’s Work Plan.
4.4 Reports outside of the Annual Work Plan or Terms of Reference cannot be called for.
4.5 Work Plans will be developed annually by the Administration and endorsed by the Council taking account of the Town’s Plan for the Future, strategic planning objectives, annual priorities or any other of the Town’s plans or initiatives.
5. NOTES
5.1 The Administration will maintain Action Notes of the items discussed at each meeting and the outcomes from discussions. The notes may be used as the basis for further action by the Town on an item. (Verbatim minutes of discussion will not be taken).
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.4 101 12.4
5.2 Matters requiring action by Council shall be moved and seconded as recommendations to the Council and shall be the subject of specific reports by the Administration to the Council as an agenda item.
6. MANAGEMENT
6.1 The CEWG has no delegated powers or authority to: 6.1.1 Represent the Town of Victoria Park; 6.1.2 Implement recommendations without approval of the Council; and 6.1.3 Commit Council to the expenditure of funds.
6.2 Members are requested to sign the Code of Conduct document Additional Comment At the Elected Members Briefing Session on 5 June 2012 Elected members suggested that clause 4.3 of the terms of reference be amended to allow general business, but it is felt that the Council’s at decision on 8 May 2012 relating to changes to the working groups agenda format which enables matters not included on working group agendas to be discussed has resolved this issue and therefore the recommendation does not require amendment. CONCLUSION: The CEWG chose to re-word the reference to environmental education contained in the Aims and Objectives. The CEWG members felt that the restriction to four meetings per year was not appropriate. The CEWG members felt that signing the Code of Conduct was preferable to the reference to compliance therewith. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Bissett That the Community Environmental Working Group Terms of Reference be amended to read as per the following headings: 1. Aims and Objectives – bullet point 3 … “Providing input to Council on
environmental education within the community as it relates to the Work Plan.” 2. Meetings – 3.1… “At least 5 meetings are held per year”. 3. Management – 6.2 … “Members be requested to sign the Code of Conduct
document”.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.4 102 12.4
AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Skinner That a recommendation 4 be added in relation to the Terms of Reference relating to Item 4 Agendas, clause 4.3 be deleted. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter Reason: To be in accordance with standard ‘Order of Business’ endorsed for all Working Group Agendas, resolved on the 8 May 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: That the Community Environmental Working Group Terms of Reference be amended to read as per the following headings: 1. Aims and Objectives – bullet point 3 … “Providing input to Council on
environmental education within the community as it relates to the Work Plan.” 2. Meetings – 3.1… “At least 5 meetings are held per year”. 3. Management – 6.2 … “Members be requested to sign the Code of Conduct
document”. 4. Terms of Reference relating to Item 4 Agendas, clause 4.3 is deleted. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
12.5
Te12.5an
File ReferAppendicDate: ReportingResponsVoting ReRecommTo awardExecutive 8 te
Mov The
iden TABLED Req
Prep BACKGRThe Towprogram, Parking SStrategy. traffic anddeliver a min the Tow A project State GoMembers request fo The outco The key ofunding ofbased on be linked State Gov
Meeting of
ender TVn Integrat
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremenendation:
d Tender Te Summar
enders recvement Net
tender etified.
ITEMS: uest for Tepare an Int
ROUND: n’s Plan fStreet Lif
Strategy. TThe PfF s
d parking nmulti-modawn.
brief for thovernment
and Counor tender b
omes soug
outcome frf an integraan objectito the To
vernment’s
f Council M
VP/12/03 ted Move
TENo31 J.W
er: A.Vnt: Sim
TVP/12/03 ry: ceived in twork Strat
evaluation
ender – Teegrated M
for the Fufe being Chis projectstates. Wneeds for bal approac
e project wtransport
ncil’s Integreing adver
ght from the
from the IMated moveive assessmown’s Strats directions
Minutes
– Provisement Ne
S0549 . May 2012
Wong Vuleta mple Major
to Worley
response tegy for theprocess
ender No. ovement N
uture 201Complete t has since
We will be both the p
ch to shift f
was preparagencies.
rated Movertised.
e IMNS are
MNS will bment netwment of protegic Plan:s for Public
103
sion of Cetwork S
2
rity
yParsons S
to requese Town. has been
TVP/12/03Network St
1-2026 (Pthe Integr
e been rendeveloping
present andfrom motor
red which i. The proement Netw
e outlined
be an agrework infrastrojects usin: Plan for c Transpor
ConsultaStrategy
Services P
st for tend
complete
3 - Provisitrategy (IM
PfF) includrated Tranamed the g a comprd the futurr vehicle to
involved seoject brief work Work
in the Proj
eed plan fotructure ovng triple bothe Future
rt network i
ncy Serv(IMNS)
Pty Ltd
der to pre
ed and a
on of ConsNS).
des a projnsport ManIntegrated
rehensive re. The trao other mo
eeking comwas refer
king Group
ect Brief a
or the planver the nexottom line me 2011 – 2in Perth by
12 J
vices to
epare an
preferred
sultancy S
ject undernagement
d Movemenplan to ad
ansport plaodes of tran
mments frorred to th
p for review
s follows:
nning, proxt 20 yearsmethodolog2026 as w
y 2031.
June 2012
12.5
Prepare
Integrated
d tenderer
Services to
r the SubPlan and
nt Networkddress thean will alsonsport use
om the keyhe Electedw prior to a
vision and. It is to begy and will
well as the
2
5
e
d
r
o
b d k e o e
y d a
d e l
e
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.5 104 12.5
The IMNS needs to: Define the regional movement framework as it relates to the Town including
defining what are givens and what can and/or should be changed; Develop a local framework that responds to the regional framework and provides for
local needs and aspirations; Focus the Town and the community towards the key issues and strategies to be
addressed over the next 20 years; and Provide a basis for the Council and the community to prioritise and guide the
investment of Council resources and lobby/ partner with other agencies for delivery of other components identified in the Strategy.
The IMNS requires the preparation of an Implementation Action Plan which will identify the drivers and triggers for projects, programs, and works together with a series of short, medium and long-term infrastructure and projects with indicative costs, jurisdiction, partnership, and funding options and responsibilities. DETAILS: A request for tender for the IMNS project was advertised in the West Australian on 14 April 2012 with a closing date of 15 May 2012. The selection criteria and weighting of the criteria for the tender were as follows: Description of Selection Criteria Weighting Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required Qualifications, skills and experience of key personnel Plant, equipment and staff resources available Percentage of operational capacity represented by this work Quality systems
25%
Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects Relevant industry experience (including public sector), including details
of similar work undertaken The Tenderer’s involvement in these projects, including details of
outcomes produced Past record of performance and achievement References from past and present clients Occupational safety and health track record
25%
Understanding of Requirement Level of understanding of Tender documents Level of understanding of work required Ability to meet delivery dates in regard to overall work commitments. Warranties offered Added value items offered Special conditions included in Tender
35%
Tendered Price/s The price to supply the goods or services in accordance with the
Request Rates or prices for variations
15%
TOTAL 100%
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.5 105 12.5
8 tender submissions were received in response and each tender was assessed by a three person tender evaluation panel in accordance with the criteria set out in the tender. The tenders were first assessed against the compliance criteria to ensure that they satisfied the requirements of the request for tender. Some tenders did not provide all of the detailed information requested. It was considered that the non-conformances were non-material to the solution or price tendered and that the additional information could be requested from the short-listed tenderer/s after the evaluation process. In the case of one tender, additional copies of the tender document were requested and received after the tender closing, but this was also considered non-material to the solution or the price tendered. All submissions were processed through to the qualitative/price evaluation on this basis. In addition a number of the tenders sought variations to the standard Conditions of Contract which formed part of the request for tender document. Each of the 8 tenders was scored a value from 0-5 for each of the qualitative criteria:
Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects Understanding of Requirement
A table of the total scores of the three evaluation panel members for the criteria for each tender is outlined below.
Tenderer Total Score Capability
/competence
Total Score Experience
Total Score Understanding
Aurecon Australia Pty. Ltd 9 9 6 Cardno WA 9 8 4 Donald Veal Consultants Pty. Ltd. 9 6 9 GHD Pty. Ltd. 9 9 6 Hyder Consulting Pty. Ltd 9 7 6 Parsons Brinkerhoff 10 10 11 Sinclair Knight Merz 9 8 7 WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. 10 11 12 The total scores for each qualitative criteria were then averaged and applied the relevant weighting to generate a weighted score for each criteria. The weighted score for each criteria were then added to provide a final weighted score for each tender, which is outlined in the table below.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.5 106 12.5
Tenderer Qualitative Criteria
Total Weighted Score
Aurecon Australia Pty. Ltd 2.20 Cardno WA 1.88 Donald Veal Consultants Pty. Ltd. 2.30 GHD Pty. Ltd. 2.20 Hyder Consulting Pty. Ltd 2.03 Parsons Brinkerhoff 2.94 Sinclair Knight Merz 2.47 WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. 3.15 The tender price for each tender was weighted and then added to the weighted score for the qualitative criteria to provide a total score for each of the tenders, as shown in the table below.
Tenderer
Qualitative Criteria
Total Weighted Score
Weighted Price Score
Total Score
Aurecon Australia Pty. Ltd 2.20 0.30 2.50 Cardno WA 1.88 0.75 2.63 Donald Veal Consultants Pty. Ltd.
2.30 0.33 2.63
GHD Pty. Ltd. 2.20 0.36 2.56 Hyder Consulting Pty. Ltd 2.03 0.43 2.46 Parsons Brinkerhoff 2.94 0.26 3.20 Sinclair Knight Merz 2.47 0.46 2.93 WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd.
3.15 0.35 3.50
The tenderer with the highest total score is the preferred tenderer. The Evaluation Report for the tender has been signed off by the three evaluation panel members and the Chief Executive Officer. An email to the Mayor and Councillor’s dated 31 May 2012 advises that the Evaluation Report, copies of the 8 tender documents. Can be viewed by the Elected Members by contacting the Executive Manager Street Life. Legal Compliance: Local Government Act 1995 Section 3.57. Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 Division 2 Part 4. Policy Implications: Council Policy FIN4 – Purchase of Goods and Services has been complied with as an open tender process was used for this project.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.5 107 12.5
Strategic Plan Implications: The Town’s Plan for the Future 2011-2026 (PfF) includes a project under the Sub program, Street Life being Complete the Integrated Transport Management Plan and Parking Strategy. This project is now known as the Integrated Movement Network Strategy. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: The shortlisted tenderer submitted a lump sum tender price of $180,937.80 plus GST. There is sufficient funds in the current budget to fund this contract. Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: The following assessment is based on the report relating to the administrative process of awarding a tender rather that the sustainability assessment of the actual project, which will have economic, social and environmental implications. External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The evaluation process established that the highest qualitative scores for each of the three criteria were achieved by the tender submitted by WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. The price evaluation determined that this tender was within the average price range of the tenders received. When the price was weighted and added to the total qualitative score, the tender submitted by WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. still achieved the highest overall total score of all tenders. As the tender from WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. was the short-listed tender selected by the evaluation panel, some additional but not critical information was sought which was not included in the original tender submission and this is anticipated to be received in writing during the week of the June 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting. As this was one of the tenders that proposed minor variations to the Conditions of Contract which form part of the request for tender document, legal advice has been sought from Council’s Solicitors to consider these matters.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.5 108 12.5
ADDITIONAL OFFICER’S COMMENTS The tender from Worley Parsons Pty Ltd was one of the tenders that proposed minor variations to the Conditions of Contract which form part of the request for tender document. Consequently, legal advice has been sought from Council’s Solicitors to consider these matters. The two main clauses that staff are seeking to retain in the General Conditions of Contract that form the basis of the agreement between the Town and the successful tenderer are: 11.1 The Contractor shall indemnify and keep indemnified the Principal and the Principal’s
Personnel from and against all Loss and other liabilities of any kind arising directly or indirectly from:
(a) any breach of any warranty or any of the other terms and conditions of this
Contract by the Contractor or the Contractor’s Personnel; (b) any Wilful Misconduct or a negligent act or omission of the Contractor or the
Contractor’s Personnel; and (c) any claim made by a third party against the Principal or the Principal’s
Personnel, to the extent that the claim arose out of the act or omission of the Contractor or the Contractor’s Personnel, except to the extent of liability which is caused by the Wilful Misconduct or a negligent act or omission of the Principal or the Principal’s Personnel.
11.2 The Principal need not incur any cost or make any payment before enforcing any
right of indemnity under this Clause 10. Schedule 1 Contract Specifics, contained in Tender TVP/12/03 contains the following information regarding the level of indemnity and professional liability –
Minimum level of Public Liability Insurance Cover required: AUD$10,000,000 for one claim; and AUD$10,000,000 in the aggregate.
Minimum level of Professional Indemnity Cover Required: AUD$5,000,000 for one claim; and AUD$5,000,000 in the aggregate.
WorleyParsons Pty Ltd has sought to limit the extent of liability afforded by the above mentioned insurances. Legal advice has confirmed the Town’s position on this matter. However, officers will negotiate in good faith to secure a suitable outcome. CONCLUSION: The tender submitted by Worley Parsons Services Pty Ltd is considered to provide the best value for money given that it achieved the highest qualitative weighted score of all eight tenders and is within the average price range of the tenders received.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.5 109 12.5
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Bissett 1. That Tender TVP/12/03 for the Provision of Consultancy Services to Prepare an
Integrated Movement Network Strategy submitted by Worley Parsons Services Pty. Ltd. dated 14 May 2012 at a cost of $199,031.58 (Including GST) be accepted, subject to Director of Renew Life approving the indemnification clauses in the General Conditions of Contract to the satisfaction of the Town.
2. Approval be given to the Director of Renew Life to negotiate with the tenderer
Worley Parsons Services Pty. Ltd. mentioned in clause 1. above, amendments proposed to modify the General Conditions of Contract in relation to clauses 11.1 and 11.2 dealing with Indemnity.
3. Subject to the negotiations to the clauses in the General Conditions of
Contract mentioned in clause 2. above not being to the satisfaction of the Town, approval be given to the Director of Renew Life to accept the tender submitted by the second preferred tenderer being Parsons Brinkerhoff Australia Pty. Ltd for the Provision of Consultancy Services to Prepare an Integrated Movement Network Strategy (TVP/12/03) at a cost of $271,818.94 (including GST) .
The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
12.6
Mo12.6OcPla
File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveformer La Mov
the s Shor TABLED Nil BACKGRAt the Orduse of torganisatiApril 2012 A requestto enable season of This freehreport onprovisionson 27 Jan DETAILSMovies byformer La Legal CoDiscussiostorage pPlanning S
Meeting of
ovies byccupy Aanet Stre
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarathlain Pre
vies by Bursite. rt term, inte
ITEMS:
ROUND: dinary Couhe formerion, via a 2 at $1.00
t from Movcontinued
f their cine
hold propen this mats of the Tonuary 2012
: y Burswoo
athlain Pre-
mpliance:on with Buiurposes isScheme, a
f Council M
y BurswAgreemeneet, Lath
PRNo 25 W.
er: A. nt: Simry: Recome-Primaryrswood has
erim appro
uncil meetr Lathlain licence to rental.
vies by Bur occupatioma activitie
erty is owntter, the laown Planni2, rezoning
od operate-Primary S
: lt Life staff
s afforded and as suc
Minutes
wood –nt – forlain
RO1054
May 2012Bow Vuleta
mple Majormmendati
y School ss requeste
oval is reco
ing of 20 SPre-Prim
occupy ag
rswood hason of the sites.
ed in fee sand was zing Schem it to “Resi
ed from 8 chool site
f indicate tnon-confo
ch can be a
110
Requestrmer La
2
rity on – Couite by Mov
ed an exten
ommended
Septembemary Schogreement,
s been recte, effectiv
simple by zoned “Ci
me, howeveidential R-3
Decembefor office,
that the prorming use
approved b
t for Exathlain P
ncil endorvies by Bunsion to its
d.
r 2011, Coool site b
for the pe
ceived seevely for stor
the Town.ivic Use –er a rezon30”.
er 2011 totraining an
oposed corights und
by Council.
xtensionPre-Prim
rse the courswood. s existing a
ouncil resoy the Mo
eriod 30 Se
king an exrage purpo
. As indic– Public Ping of the
14 April nd storage
ntinued usder the pro
12 J
n of Licmary Sch
ontinued u
agreement
olved to enovies by eptember 2
xtension ofoses prior t
cated in thePurpose” land was
2012 andpurposes.
se of the povisions of
June 2012
12.6
ence tohool 6-8
use of the
to occupy
ndorse theBurswood2011 – 30
f the termsto the next
e previousunder thecompleted
used the
roperty forf the Town
2
6
o 8
e
y
e d 0
s t
s e d
e
r n
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.6 111 12.6
Notwithstanding that the licence to occupy the site comprises a disposal of land under the Local Government Act 1995, such disposal is exempt under the provisions of clause 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 because the land is to be disposed to a body, whether incorporated or not, the objects of which are of a charitable nature. Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The Plan for the Future identifies the management, maintenance and renewal of the Town’s assets as a key objective of the Renew Life Program. Furthermore, the Plan for the Future identifies the development of asset management plans to ultimately maximise return on the Town’s assets. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Council’s resolution of September 2011 provided an “in kind” contribution and increased the Town’s sponsorship level with Movies by Burswood allowing for additional cross promotional opportunities, in lieu of applying a commercial or subsidised rental for the proposed seven month occupancy. Over the term of the occupancy September 2011 to April 2012, the Town has continued to allocate resources for both grounds and minor building maintenance and operations at the site. Total Asset Management: The completion of the rezoning of the property to “Residential R-30” has substantially increased the development and/or disposal value of the four separately titled properties which comprise the site. It is estimated that the undeveloped value of the four titles would be a minimum $3,000,000. The property has been identified as a possible interim accommodation facility for community and other purposes during the Town Centre development. A market appraisal of the site to determine potential commercial rental value of the building was undertaken which indicated that an annual rental of $16,000 could be obtained. This is based on the floor area of the building being 160m2, with such attracting a rate of $100/m2/year. The unit rate would likely be higher in the event of a long (20-30 year) term lease agreement, possibly in the vicinity of $30,000 per annum. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.6 112 12.6
Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: With respect to the proposed Town Centre project, staff considers the retention of the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School site as critical. The site affords the Town the ability to relocate and accommodate community groups and/or commercial organisations from the Town Centre area within the building. Further, the grounds may accommodate any necessary temporary accommodation buildings and the like. The feasibility of the Town Centre project is currently under review and yet to be finalised. Linked to the Town Centre project is the construction of the Multi-Purpose Sports Facility (MPSF) identified on the site of the former Carlisle Lathlain Bowling Club, located across Planet Street immediately adjacent to the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School. It has been suggested that should neither the Town Centre project or the MPSF proceed, then a development incorporating both the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School and the former Carlisle Lathlain Bowling Club would potentially afford the best return to the Town. CONCLUSION: Staff have concluded that permitting the Movies by Burswood organisation to continue to occupy the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School site as a short term interim arrangement is appropriate as it provides the greatest flexibility to the Town whilst fulfilling a community purpose. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: That Council: 1. Endorses the continued use of the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School by the Movies
by Burswood organisation, via a licence to occupy agreement, for an indefinite period, at a $1.00 per annum with all outgoings to be covered by Movies by Burswood in accordance with the pre-existing licence agreement, but subject to the inclusion of a 30 day termination clause in favour of the Town of Victoria Park.
2. Delegate’s authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant
documentation.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.6 113 12.6
NEW MOTION: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Skinner 1. That the application by Movies by Burswood to extend the lease of the former
Lathlain Pre Primary School not be approved. 2. Council Administration be advised to give priority to preparing the site for sale. 3. That the revenue from the land sale be used to support the Lathlain Park
redevelopment. The Motion was Put and LOST: (3-4) In favour of the Motion: Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Bissett Against the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Ashton; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter AMENDED ORIGINAL MOTION: Moved: Mayor Vaughan Seconded: Councillor Nairn That Council: 1. That in recommendation No. 1 the words “for an indefinite period” be removed
and replaced with the words “until the 31 October 2012”. 2. A new recommendation No. 3 be added to read “That Council Administration
be advised to give priority to preparing the site for sale by the 31 October 2012 and to have a business case prepared to present to Council.
3. A new recommendation No. 4 be added to read “That Movies by Burswood and
administration be advised that there will be no extensions given”. Reason: Give Council a chance to progress with another use of the site. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: That Council: 1. Endorses the continued use of the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School by the
Movies by Burswood organisation, via a licence to occupy agreement, until the 31 October 2012, at a $1.00 per annum with all outgoings to be covered by Movies by Burswood in accordance with the pre-existing licence agreement, but subject to the inclusion of a 30 day termination clause in favour of the Town of Victoria Park.
2. Delegate’s authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant
documentation.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.6 114 12.6
3. That Council Administration be advised to give priority to preparing the site for sale by the 31 October 2012 and to have a business case prepared to present to Council.
4. That Movies by Burswood and administration be advised that there will be no
extensions given”. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
12.7
Te12.7En
File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutivespecified
TenTowext
TABLED Nil BACKGRThe TowServices undertakeroad consthe TownTenders w2.00pm on Tenders wroad conswithin the DETAILS7 submisMaintenan All submis Evaluationtender doCoordinat Attributesrange of 0(W% or E
Meeting of
ender Nongineerin
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summa
d in the tennder evaluwn for a ptensions.
ITEMS:
ROUND: n of Victofor which
e these tasstruction, gn carries owere advern Monday
were invitestruction, Town of V
: ssions wence Servic
ssions are
n has beencuments btor and Exe
, or Asses0-5. This sEvaluation
f Council M
o. TVP ng Mainte
ToVNo 24 J W
er: A Vnt: Simry: – Reconder docuuation for eriod of tw
oria Park the Tow
sks. The prgeneral maout to comrtised in th2nd July 20
ed from prgeneral m
Victoria Pa
ere receivces, as per
exclusive
n undertakby a panel ecutive Ma
ssment Critscore was
Criteria) a
Minutes
12/05 –enance S
VP12/05
May 2012Wong / E SVuleta mple Majorommend ment to fothe provis
wo years fr
currently n does norovision ofaintenance
mplete annhe West Au012.
rofessionamaintenanc
rk.
ved for tthe Sched
of GST.
ken accordof three st
anager Ren
teria (P) wthen multipand divide
115
– PanelServices
2 Setzinger
rity acceptancorm a Pansion of Enrom 2 July
utilises coot have thf Engineerie and assoual mainteustralian o
al organisace and ass
tender TVdules of Ra
ding to the taff membenew Life.
were determplied by th
ed by 100
l Contras
ce of all onel of Contngineering
2012 to 3
ontractors he approping Mainteociated openance ann Saturday
ations accrsociated w
VP/12/05 ates detaile
tender evaers, Engine
mined and e previousto obtain
act for
offers recetractors. Maintenan
30 June 20
for Enginepriate resoenance Serperational wnd capital y 28th April
redited to works on
– Provisied.
aluation creering Sup
given a psly determithe Value
12 J
the Su
eived for
nce Servic014 plus 2x
eering Maources to rvices is reworks on works prol 2012 and
provide seroads and
on of En
riteria inclupervisor, En
point score ined weigh
e Score (V
June 2012
12.7
upply of
the items
ces in thex12 month
aintenanceeffectively
equired forroads that
ogrammes.d closed at
ervices ford reserves
ngineering
uded in thengineering
within thehting factorV) for each
2
7
f
s
e h
e y r t . t
r s
g
e g
e r h
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.7 116 12.7
tenderer. The tenderer having the highest score would be the preferred tenderer for each of the item of service assessed.
Tender Evaluation Outcome – ToVP 12/05 (non price criteria) Provision of Engineering Maintenance Services
Description of criteria: Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required
Organisation profile Qualifications, skills and experience of key personnel Plant, equipment and staff resources available Insurance coverage
Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects
Relevant industry experience (including public sector), including details of similar work undertaken
Ability to meet delivery dates References from past and present clients
Referee names and contact numbers Tendered Price/s
The price to supply the goods or services in accordance with the Request
Wei
ghte
d FA
CTO
R
Out
of 5
Wei
ghte
d Sc
ore
Out
of 5
Wei
ghte
d Sc
ore
Out
of 5
Wei
ghte
d Sc
ore
Out
of 5
Wei
ghte
d Sc
ore
Out
of 5
Wei
ghte
d Sc
ore
Out
of 5
Wei
ghte
d Sc
ore
Out
of 5
Wei
ghte
d Sc
ore
Capability/competence ofTenderer to perform the workrequired and quoted on
20% 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0
Experience of Tenderer insupplying similar goods orcompleting similar projects
20% 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0
References from past and present clients
20% 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0
Tender Bid Price 40% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Western Road
Systems
3.0
MMM (WA)
3.0
WA Profiling
3.0
Kerb-Fix
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
FrazzconDowner EDI Works
Jackson Paving
3.0 3.0 3.03.0Total Score
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.7 117 12.7
* The evaluation on Price was not applicable for this tender because all contractors are recommended to be appointed to form the panel contract. The Town will have the discretion to appoint a contractor from the panel for each job task required based on case by case analysis of each contractor’s overall job costs, service quality and associated benefits. For example, quality of road profiling works required, contractor’s response to urgent work requests, durability of work done, etc. Traffic Management Services to support the following services:
Concrete Path Services Contractor 1- MMM
Contractor 2 – Dowsing Concrete
$
Traffic Management complying with AS1742 and MRWA traffic Code of Practice when required by the Town:
UNIT MMM Downsing Con
1 1 accredited traffic controller with traffic mgt devices Hr $67.00 $80.002 2 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices Hr $104.00 $128.003 3 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices Hr $150.00 $198.004 4 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices Hr $208.00 $256.005 Minimum charge for 1 accredited traffic controller with traffic mgt devices day $269.00 $320.006 Minimum charge for 2 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices day $416.00 $512.007 Minimum charge for 3 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices day $599.00 $594.008 Minimum charge for 4 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices day $833.00 $1,024.00
1.2m 1.5m 1.8m 2m 2.4m
wide wide wide wide wide
Pathways (25MPA) less than a total of 20m long within a project:1 Pathways on verges m $60.00 $62.00 $66.00 $70.00 $72.002 Pathways in open areas e.g. reserves m $60.00 $62.00 $66.00 $70.00 $72.003 Public Access Ways between fences m $60.00 $62.00 $66.00 $70.00 $72.00
Pathways (25MPA) of a total length greater than 20m within a project :4 Pathways on verges m $58.00 $60.00 $64.00 $68.00 $70.005 Pathways in open areas e.g. reserves m $58.00 $60.00 $64.00 $68.00 $70.006 Public Access Ways between fences m $58.00 $60.00 $64.00 $68.00 $70.00
Item no
DESCRIPTION MMM UNIT
1.2m 1.5m 1.8m 2m 2.4m
wide wide wide wide wide
Pathways (25MPA) less than a total of 20m long within a project:1 Pathways on verges m $85.00 $85.00 $80.00 $80.00 $75.002 Pathways in open areas e.g. reserves m $85.00 $85.00 $80.00 $80.00 $75.003 Public Access Ways between fences m $85.00 $85.00 $80.00 $80.00 $75.00
Pathways (25MPA) of a total length greater than 20m within a project :4 Pathways on verges m $55.00 $55.00 $45.00 $43.00 $43.005 Pathways in open areas e.g. reserves m $55.00 $55.00 $45.00 $43.00 $43.006 Public Access Ways between fences m $55.00 $55.00 $45.00 $43.00 $43.00
Item no
DESCRIPTION Dowsing Concrete UNIT
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.7 118 12.7
Contractor 2 – MMM and Dowsing Concrete continued. MMM Dowsing Concrete
Brick Paving Services - one contractor only - MMM
UNIT $ $
7 Extra Over for 150mm thick concrete path m2 $11.00 $16.008 Extra over for 100mm thick concrete path (stencilled) m2 $15.00 $36.009 Extra over for one layer F62 mesh m2 $12.00 $8.50
10 Extra over for concrete colour (oxide) m2 $9.00 $25.00
11 Extra over Rapid Hardener per m2 of concrete m2 $5.00 $1.80
12 Extra over for Limecrete (25MPA) m2 $8.00 $35.00
13 m $15.00 $8.00
14 m2 $4.00 $65.00
15 Supply and install lock joints (actual length laid) PVC Key Joint m $15.00 $10.0016 Supply and install approved handrails/grab rails. (900mm x 900mm) each $250.00 $320.0017 Supply and install approved handrails/grab rails. (900mm x 1200mm) each $290.00 $350.00
UNIT $ $
18 each $998.00 $350.00
19 each $1,048.00 $380.00
20 each $1,098.00 $400.00
21 each $1,148.00 $420.00
22 each $1,198.00 $450.00
Removal works UNIT $ $
23 m2 $20.00 $15.50
24 m2 $20.00 $15.50
25 m2 $5.00 $12.00
26 m2 $12.00 $12.00
27 m2 $15.00 $15.00
CONCRETE VEHICLE CROSSOVER (25MPA): UNIT $ $
28 Cut, remove and dispose of existing bitumen crossover m2 $20.00 $17.5029 Cut, remove and dispose of existing insitu concrete crossover m2 $20.00 $20.0030 Construct Residential vehicle crossover 100mm thick m2 $60.00 $60.0031 Construct Commercial vehicle crossover 150mm thick m2 $70.00 $80.0032 Extra over for one layer F62 mesh m2 $12.00 $8.5033 Extra over for concrete colour (oxide) m2 $9.00 $18.00
34 Extra over Rapid Hardener per m2 of concrete m2 $5.00 $1.80
35 Extra over for Limecrete (25MPA) m2 $8.00 $35.00
1800mm wide+ wings+ transitions
2100mm wide+ wings+ transitions
2400mm wide+ wings+ transitions
3000mm wide+ wings+ transitions
Remove 600 x 600 footpath slabs and stack on pallets- 7 pieces high
Remove 600 x 600 footpath slabs, stack on pallets and deliver to the Town’s depot- 7 pieces high
Remove and dispose of broken slabs
Cut, remove and dispose of existing concrete path
Cut, remove and dispose of existing bitumen path
Standard Ramps:
1500mm wide + wings + transitions
Supply and install PVC ducting pipes perpendicular to the alignment of and under the pathway before pouring of concrete. (actual length laid)Verge shaping and blending for areas at 500mm beyond the edge of pathway. This includes hand and machinery works. This operation shall be done before pouring of concrete.
CONCRETE RAMPS (25MPA) complying with AS 1428
Item Description Unit Rate $ per m 2
1Prepare site (box out), supply bedding sand, prepare bedding sand and lay brick pavers in accordance with the specification, dispose of spoil/surplus material
m² 8
2Supply bedding sand, prepare bedding sand and lay brick pavers in accordance with the specification, dispose of surplus material
m² 26
3Prepare bedding sand and lay brick pavers in accordance with the specification, dispose of surplus material
m² 35
4 Remove existing brick paving and stack on pallets supplied by the Principal m² 4
5 Minimum charge per order 500
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.7 119 12.7
Kerbing works – one contractor only- Kerb-Fix
Road Profiling - 2 Contractors- MMM and Westcoast Profilers
Kerb Type Unit Kerb laying0 - 50m 51 - 100m 101 - 200m Over 200m
Mountable-Type "A" Kerba) A-1 (MRWA Profile) m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00b) A-2x (MRWA Profile) Nominal 125mm face 60mm m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00c) A-2x (MRWA Profile) Nominal 125mm face with 2 R16 mild steem - - - -
Semi Mountable-Type "SM" Kerba) SM-1 (MRWA Profile) m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00b) SM-2x (MRWA Profile) Nominal 175mm face 75mm m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00c) SM-5 (MRWA Profile) Nomimal 260mm face m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00Barrier-Type "BX" Kerba) BX-1 (MRWA Profile) m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00b) BX-3 (MRWA Profile) Nominal 175mm face m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00Flush Kerbing300mm x 150mm ( with reinforcing R12's @ 140 CRA full length of m $45.00 $45.00 $45.00 $45.00300mm x 150mm (with no reinforcing) m - - - -150mm x 150mm ( with reinforcing R12's @ full length of beam) m - - - -
Keying in 200mm x75mm key supply & lay - over and above for newm - - - -
Hand Make Ups/Transitions m $16.50
Depth of cut :20mmArea (m2) Min.
Contractor 0-100 Charge
Westcoast profiling 1.77 MIN 4 HOURS
MMM $4.15 $5,600.00
Depth of cut :25mmArea (m2) Min.
Contractor 0-100 Charge
Westcoast profiling 1.88 MIN 4 HOURS
MMM $4.30 $5,600.00
Depth of cut :30mmArea (m2) Min.
Contractor 0-100 Charge
Westcoast profiling 2.15 MIN 4 HOURS
MMM $4.50 $5,600.00
Depth of cut :40mmArea (m2) Min.
Contractor 0-100 Charge
Westcoast profiling 2.26 MIN 4 HOURS
MMM $4.85 $5,600.00
Depth of cut :60mmArea (m2) Min.
Contractor 0-100 Charge
Westcoast profiling 2.38 MIN 4 HOURS
MMM $5.20 $5,600.00
Depth of cut :80mmArea (m2) Min.
Contractor 0-100 Charge
Westcoast profiling 2.62 MIN 4 HOURS
MMM $5.20 $5,600.00
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.7 120 12.7
Asphalt Pavement Reinstatements – one contractor only- MMM
Pavement Marking - 2 Contractors- Western Road Systems and MMM
Sign Installation/Removal including 300mm / dia x 600mm deep concrete footing - one contractor only - MMM
7mm Nominal Mix Granite at
Depths of Rate $ per m2
1 20mm $68.05
2 25mm $69.853 30mm $71.604 Minimum charge per order $1,500.00
10mm Nominal Mix Granite at
Depths of Rate $ per m2
5 20mm $70.056 25mm $71.857 30mm $73.608 Minimum charge per order $1,500.00
WESTERN RD SYS MMM
Road pavement marking Rate $ per m2
1 Longitudinal Lines (as per MRWA Drawing 9931-0198) $3.50 $3.002 Transverse Lines (as per MRWA Drawing 9931-0198) $3.50 $3.003 Medians and chevrons (as per MRWA Drawing 9931-0198) $4.00 $3.004 Sprayed-on stencilling on concrete surface including preparation of the substrate $3.00 $30.005 Sprayed-on stencilling on asphalt surface including preparation of the substrate $3.00 $30.006 Other marking (please specify)7 Minimum charge per order $250.00 $250.00
Car park pavement marking Rate $ per bay1 Standard parking bays $12.00 $10.002 Acrod parking bays $65.00 $75.003 Other marking (please specify) eg - bus bays $4.00 $3.004 Minimum charge per order $250.00 $250.00
Type of Sign Price per item $1 Street name plate (installation on existing post) $40.002 Street name / parking plate & post installation (in brick paving) $95.003 Street name / parking plate & post installation (in concrete paving) $125.004 Street name / parking plate & post installation (in other) asphalt/soil $95.005 Reinstatement of post surrounds $60.006 ards (1.5m exposed above ground) with sleeves in soil (soil that can be dug by $125.007 Supply and install approved adhesive tactile ground indicators $80.008 Minimum charger per order $500.00
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.7 121 12.7
Concrete Grinding- one contractor only - MMM
Dry hiring of traffic management devices including Ute or truck and/or trailers- one contractor only- MMM
Legal Compliance: The Town has complied with section 3.57 of the Local Government Act. Policy Implications: The public tendering process undertaken for this contract complied with the Town’s purchasing policy FIN4 in the category of services over $100,000. Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Services will be funded within the constraints of the operational and capital works approved budgets. Total Asset Management: This tender will facilitate the systematic approach to management of Council assets over their entire life from creation to disposal that results in the provision of an asset at a specified standard for the lowest possible cost.
Concrete Footpath Price per m2Grinding ($)
1 10mm to 15mm $8.202 15mm to 20mm $9.103 20mm to 25mm $9.854 25mm to 30mm $10.705 Over 30mm (please specify) $13.856 Minimum charge per order $300.00
Item Dry Hiring of traffic management devices with vehicle with or without trailer
$ per day
1 One ute with all traffic management devices sufficient to close one traffic lane for a work site of 20m long in accordance with AS1742 and the MRWA traffic Code of Practice
$855.00
2 One vehicle with or without trailer with all traffic management devices sufficient to close one traffic lane for a work site of 50m long in accordance with AS1742 and the MRWA traffic Code of Practice
$890.00
3 One vehicle with or without trailer with all traffic management devices sufficient to close one traffic lane for a work site of 100m long in accordance with AS1742 and the MRWA traffic Code of Practice
$928.00
4 One vehicle with or without trailer with all traffic management devices sufficient to close one traffic lane for a work site of 200m long in accordance with AS1742 and the MRWA traffic Code of Practice
$995.00
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
12.7 122 12.7
Sustainability Assessment: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The Town will benefit from accepting all offers submitted by all of the above mentioned tenderers to form a panel contract to provide the required engineering services. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the tenders, comprising the required price schedule, as submitted by all of the above mentioned tenderers for the period 2nd July 2012 to 1st July 2014 with an option of 2x 12 month incremental extensions be accepted by the Town. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Nairn Council to endorse the acceptance of all offers submitted by MMM, Westcoast Profilers, Dowsing Concrete, Kerb-Fix and Western Road Systems for the engineering construction and maintenance services as detailed in this report and the tender document TVP/12/05 for the period 2 July 2012 to 1 July 2014 with an option of 2x 12 month incremental extension, subject to satisfactory performance, be accepted by the Town. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
13.1
13 CO
Re13.1 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommincluded the AdmVictoria Pthat AustANZAC la Optio
by trepo
The 25 A
TABLED Extra
Team Mem Conc Conc Ursu BACKGRAt the 1recommencomprisinProject Te
To thabee To
Meeting of
OMMUNIT
ecommen
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –in the 20
ministrationPark Sub tralia has anding at ons for thehe Memor
ort. centenary
April 2015.
ITEMS: act from 1m
morial Gardcept Desigcept Desigula Frayne
ROUND: 9 July 20ndation tog Elected eam’s Term
consider at Australiaen killed, b
present op
f Council M
TY LIFE
ndations
RENo 29 T. A
er: T. Ant: Simry: – The Mem12/13 budn liaise wBranch ofserved in
Gallipoli oe potential rial Garde
y of the AN
19 July 20
dens Concgn A – Ecogn B – HistCatholic C
011 Ordin establish Members
ms of Refe
options foa has beebe commem
ptions, incl
Minutes
PROGRA
s from th
ES0024
May 2012AckermanAckerman
mple Major
morial Gadget for cawith the cf the RSL n, includinon 25 Apriredevelopns Project
NZAC land
011 Ordina
ept Designotect Archittoric VictorCollege – C
ary Counthe Memo
s, Communerence whic
or further den involvedmorated.
luding fina
123
AM REP
e Memo
2
rity
rdens Proapital worcommunitto progre
ng progreil 2015.
pment of Mt Team; tw
ing at Gall
ary Counc
n Brief tects ria Park IncConcept De
cil Meetinorial Gardnity Reprech were en
developingd in, and
ncial implic
ORTS
rial Gard
oject Teamrks withinty, local hess projecessing pla
Memorial Gwo of whi
lipoli be co
cil Meeting
corporatedesign Prep
ng, the Edens Projeesentativesndorsed at
g Memorialwhere loc
cations, to
dens Proj
m recommMemoria
high schocts commeans for th
Gardens hach are co
ommemora
– Memor
pared by St
lected Mect Team (
s and Stafthe same
l Gardens cal commu
Council fo
12 J
oject Tea
mends thatl Gardensools and emorating
he centena
ave been considered w
ated by the
rial Garde
tudents
embers en(‘the Projeff. Followinmeeting:
so that aunity mem
or consider
June 2012
13.1
m
t funds bes and that
the Eastg conflictsary of the
consideredwithin this
e Town on
ns Project
ndorsed act Team’),ng are the
all conflictsbers have
ration.
2
e t t s e
d s
n
t
a
e
s e
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.1 124 13.1
DETAILS: The Project Team first met in August 2011 and has since then taken the time to meet with local community members, the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL and the Principals at the two local high schools. The meetings and the consultation resulted in the development of a Concept Design Brief (tabled) which was distributed to architects, artists and landscapers. The Concept Design Brief asked interested parties to submit a rough concept for the potential redevelopment of Memorial Gardens, as well as indicative construction costs. Five Concept Designs were received and were considered by the Project Team at a meeting on 22 March 2012. The Project Team selected two designs which were presented at an Elected Members’ Workshop on 17 April 2012. The presentation at the Elected Members’ Workshop included feedback from the Town’s Park Life team on the Concept Designs which included concerns regarding the placement of water features and a reduction of available parkland which would impact future ANZAC Day ceremonies. The team also advised that some capital works improvements are planned for the garden, pending approval of the 2012/13 Budget. These works are intended to improve the amenity of the garden and could incorporate some design features (e.g. plaques, public art) which would commemorate the conflicts that Australians have served in. Furthermore, it was noted that both designs included structures that listed the names of the local soldiers killed in all conflicts, rather than commemorating the conflicts that they served in, which was an element of the Terms of Reference. Information regarding the costs of the two designs was also presented at the Workshop:
Design A – Ecotect Architects (tabled) $9,900 to further develop the Concept Design and prepare a budget; and $300,000 - $700,000 – indicative cost of the project. TOTAL - $309,900 - $709,900
Design B – Historic Victoria Park Incorporated (tabled)
$24,200 to further develop the Concept Design and prepare a budget; and $250,000 – indicative cost of the project. TOTAL - $274,200.
In addition to an overview of the two Concept Designs, the Workshop presentation included a brief outline of discussions with the Principals at the local high schools, where Kent Street High School expressed interest in exploring the opportunity to develop a program which would lead up to the centenary of the ANZACs landing at Gallipoli – 25 April 2015. Further details of the program are currently being considered by the school. At the time Ursula Frayne Catholic College was not sure how it might like to be involved in the project beyond its regular participation at the Town’s ANZAC Day ceremony. Subsequently (following the March meeting of the Project Team) the school has submitted a Concept Design to the Town (tabled; no costs included).
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.1 125 13.1
Information regarding the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL’s intentions to develop a ‘memorial wall’ commemorating all servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, highlighting those who gave their life in service was also presented at the Workshop. While the design has yet to be finalised, research that will result in a complete list of servicemen and women with links to the Town is well underway. The Town’s Local History Coordinator is liaising with the RSL as the research progresses. In light of the RSL’s intentions to develop a ‘memorial wall’ less than 5km away from Memorial Gardens, the Town’s Park Life team’s concerns regarding the suitability of the Concept Designs and their intentions to undertake some works in the garden, it is the Project Team’s recommendation that a significant redevelopment of Memorial Gardens not be progressed. Rather, there are opportunities:
for the Town’s Park Life team to undertake work to improve the amenity of the gardens; to apply for funding through applicable grants to have plaques made commemorating each
conflict. These would be included in the garden improvements planned by the Parks team; to continue to liaise with the RSL to develop a comprehensive list of servicemen and
women that enlisted in the Town, noting those that were killed in action. The Town could then further develop the list to create an electronic honour roll which would be made available at the Town’s website;
to work with the Kent Street High School, staff, members of the Memorial Gardens Team and the community to develop an ANZAC Day 2015 program; and
to apply for funding through alternative sources to commemorate the centenary of the landing at Gallipoli on ANZAC Day 2015.
Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Community Life – Objective 5 – We will celebrate the rich history and heritage of the Town. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: The Draft 2012/13 Budget includes $15,000 for capital works improvements in Memorial Gardens. There are currently no funds allocated for: the creation of a plaque(s) commemorating each conflict; however grant funding has been
identified; for major capital works improvements in Memorial Gardens. The indicative costs for the two
Concept Designs submitted ranged from approximately $275,000 to $710,000. In light of the RSLs intentions to develop a ‘memorial wall’ less than 5km from Memorial Gardens it is the Officer’s recommendation that a major redevelopment of Memorial Gardens not be progressed.
Total Asset Management: There will be a minor increase in operating costs as a result of the planned capital works improvements. Additional works e.g. plaques would also result in a slight increase in operating costs.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.1 126 13.1
Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Commemorating all conflicts that local residents have served in has the potential to increase the number of visitors to Memorial Gardens. Any development of the garden must be mindful of not reducing the available parkland in order that the Town’s annual ANZAC Day service can be accommodated. Approximately 700 people attended on 25 April 2012. Consideration is already being given to determine how more can be accommodated for the centenary of the ANZAC landing in 2015, as it is anticipated that the number of people attending the Town’s service will increase significantly. Cultural Issues: Conflicts where local community members have fallen while serving their country are not all commemorated in one location within the Town. By commemorating all conflicts in one location there would be the opportunity to acknowledge and reflect upon the sacrifices made by those local community members that served their country. Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: Currently Memorial Gardens has a single plaque acknowledging those that have served their country. The plaque refers to those who served and gave their lives in World War I and World War II only. Commemorating all conflicts that local community members have served in is important in that it provides the opportunity for people today and in to the future to acknowledge and reflect upon the generous actions of those local community members that served their country. In addition, as the centenary of the landing at Gallipoli – ANZAC Day 25 April 2015 – is not far away the Project Team deems it appropriate to establish a cross-functional team, including interested members of the Memorial Gardens Project Team to plan an appropriate service. CONCLUSION: In light of the RSL East Victoria Park Sub Branch’s intentions to develop a ‘memorial wall’ commemorating all servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town less than 5km away from Memorial Gardens, the Town’s Park Life team’s concerns regarding the suitability of the Concept Designs and their intentions to undertake some works in the garden in 2012/13, it is the Project Team’s recommendation that a significant redevelopment of Memorial Gardens not be progressed. Rather, there are opportunities:
for the Town’s Park Life team to undertake work to improve the amenity of the gardens; to apply for funding through applicable grants to have plaques made commemorating each
conflict. These would be included in the garden improvements planned by the Parks team;
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.1 127 13.1
to continue to liaise with the RSL to develop a comprehensive list of servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, noting those that were killed in action. The Town could then further develop the list to create an electronic honour roll which would be made available at the Town’s website;
to work with the Kent Street High School, staff, members of the Memorial Gardens Team and the community to develop an ANZAC Day 2015 program; and
to apply for funding through alternative sources to commemorate the centenary of the landing at Gallipoli on ANZAC Day 2015.
PROJECT TEAM’S RECOMMENDATION/S: 1. Liaise with the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL to develop a list of
servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, indicating those who fell in service, which will be added to the Local History Collection at the Town’s Library.
2. Liaise with the Principal at the Kent Street Senior High School to develop an
ANZAC Day 2015 ‘program’ for students to progress. 3. Write to everyone who submitted Concept Designs for the potential redevelopment
of Memorial Gardens thanking them for their interest and advising them of Council’s decision.
4. $15,000 to be included in the 2012/13 Budget for capital works in Memorial
Gardens. 5. Funding to be sought for the creation of plaques commemorating all conflicts that
Australia has been involved in to be placed in Memorial Gardens. 6. Funding to be sought for the Town’s 2015 ANZAC Day Service. 7. Review the Town’s current set up of the ANZAC Day Service and align more closely
with Government protocols for ANZAC Day Services. 8. A cross-functional team, including interested members of the existing Memorial
Gardens Project Team, to be established to develop a project scope and management plan for the centenary ANZAC Day service in 2015.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER’S COMMENT In addition to the recommendations from the Project Team (listed as 1-8 below) the Responsible Officer recommends that as the Project Team has fulfilled its obligations as set in the Terms of Reference the Team be disbanded and participants thanked for their valuable input (9-10 below).
ADDITIONAL COMMENT At the EMBS on Tuesday the 5 June 2012 questions were raised in relation to the recommendation to disband the Memorial Gardens Project Team. The rationale to disband the Project Team is due to the fact that it has fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the terms of reference.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.1 128 13.1
The recommendation to establish a new Project Team closer to the date of the Towns 2015 Anzac Day Service will enable the development of a project scope and management plan for the centenary ANZAC Day service in 2015, well in advance of this event. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: Moved: Councillor Bissett Seconded: Councillor Potter 1. The Director of Community Life Program be requested to :
1.1 Liaise with the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL to develop a list of servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, indicating those who fell in service, which will be added to the Local History Collection at the Town’s Library.
1.2 Liaise with the Principal’s at High Schools in the Town, to develop an
ANZAC Day 2015 ‘program’ for students to progress.
1.3 Write to everyone who submitted Concept Designs for the potential redevelopment of Memorial Gardens thanking them for their interest and advising them of Council’s decision.
1.4 Seek funding for the creation of plaques commemorating all conflicts that
Australia has been involved in to be placed in Memorial Gardens. 1.5 Seek funding for the Town’s 2015 ANZAC Day Service.
1.6 Review the Town’s current set up of the ANZAC Day Service and align
more closely with Government protocols for ANZAC Day Services. 1.7 Establish a cross-functional team, including interested members of the
existing Memorial Gardens Project Team; be established to develop a project scope and management plan for the centenary ANZAC Day service in 2015.
2. The Council consider allocating in the draft 2012/13 Budget for capital works at
Memorial Gardens. 3. The Memorial Gardens Project Team be disbanded. 4. Letters to be sent to Memorial Gardens Project Team community and
organisation representatives thanking them for their valuable contribution.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.1 129 13.1
AMENDMENT:
Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Skinner
That clause 1.7 of the Motion be deleted and replaced with a new clause, “that the ANZAC Day 2015 Service be referred to the Culture & Local History Working Group”.
The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Reason: Sits within the Cultural History Working Group. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED:
1. The Director of Community Life Program be requested to :
1.1 Liaise with the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL to develop a list of servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, indicating those who fell in service, which will be added to the Local History Collection at the Town’s Library.
1.2 Liaise with the Principal’s at High Schools in the Town, to develop an ANZAC Day 2015 ‘program’ for students to progress.
1.3 Write to everyone who submitted Concept Designs for the potential
redevelopment of Memorial Gardens thanking them for their interest and advising them of Council’s decision.
1.4 Seek funding for the creation of plaques commemorating all conflicts that
Australia has been involved in to be placed in Memorial Gardens.
1.5 Seek funding for the Town’s 2015 ANZAC Day Service.
1.6 Review the Town’s current set up of the ANZAC Day Service and align more closely with Government protocols for ANZAC Day Services.
1.7 The ANZAC Day 2015 Service be referred to the Culture & Local History
Working Group. 2. The Council consider allocating in the draft 2012/13 Budget for capital works at
Memorial Gardens. 3. The Memorial Gardens Project Team be disbanded. 4. Letters to be sent to Memorial Gardens Project Team community and
organisation representatives thanking them for their valuable contribution. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (5-2)
Ordinary M
13.2
Re13.2Ap
File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommGroup as To ens
it wasComstunanim
TABLED 16 Ma
the Co
BACKGRAt the 13Reference
3.2At the 14 three (3) communit On 11 Ainterest in16 May 20Comstive DETAILSIn order foconcerns of commuendorsed represent With the a(5) comm
Meeting of
ecommenppointme
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation
s a ‘Commsure the co
s recommetive be apmously.
ITEMS ay 2012 Coommunity S
ROUND: 3 Decembe for the W
2 CommFebruary communit
ty member
April 2012 n joining th012 Commto the Wo
: or the Comof the resi
unity repreat the 13
ation comp
appointmeunity repre
f Council M
ndation ent of Co
CMNo 29 M.
er: T. Ant: Simry: - Appoint
munity’ Repommunity ended at tppointed to
ommunity Safety Wor
er 2011 OWorking Gro
munity Mem2011 Ord
ty member endorsed
the Townhe Commumunity Saferking Grou
mmunity Sdents of th
esentation 3 Decembprise of five
nt of Ms Cesentatives
Minutes
from thommunity
MS0195
May 2012Owens Ackerman
mple Major
t Ms Marypresentatiplays a larthe 16 Mao the Wor
Safety Working Grou
Ordinary Coups. The
mbers shallinary Counrs to the at the 10 A
n receivedunity Safetyety Workinup was end
Safety Worhe Town ofon the Woer 2011 Oe (5) mem
Comstive ths.
130
e Commy Membe
2
rity
y Comstivive. rge role inay 2012 mrking Grou
orking Grouup
Council MeTerms of R
l comprisencil MeetinCommunitApril 2012
d correspoy Working g Group m
dorsed una
rking Grouf Victoria Porking Gro
Ordinary Cbers.
he Commu
munity Ser
ve to the
communitmeeting ofup. The re
up Report:
eeting, CoReference
e five (5) incng, Councity Safety W Ordinary C
ondence frGroup as
meeting a ranimously.
p to accurPark there oup. The TCouncil me
unity Safety
Safety W
Commun
ty safety af the Workcommenda
: 9.1 Expre
ouncil endostate that:
clusive of eil endorsedWorking GCouncil Me
rom Ms Ca commu
recommend
ately portrshould be
Terms of Reeting inclu
y Working
12 J
Working G
ity Safety
and crime pking Grouation was
ession of I
orsed the :
experts. d the applGroup; witeeting.
Comstive eunity membdation to a
ray the intean approp
Reference ude that c
Group wil
June 2012
13.2
Group –
y Working
preventionp that Msendorsed
nterest for
Terms of
ications ofh a fourth
expressingber. At theappoint Ms
erests andpriate level
that werecommunity
l have five
2
2
–
g
n s d
r
f
f h
g e s
d l
e y
e
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.2 131 13.2
Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Representation from the community will increase the diversity of representation on the Community Safety Working Group. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: Ms Mary Comstive has been a volunteer for many years and has served on many local Committees in various capacities. Ms Comstive’s background is in Business and Office Management, as well as Admissions Officer and ‘Emergency on Call’ at Bentley Park. Ms Comstive will represent the Seniors of the Town with her knowledge of the community and the issues of safety and wellbeing. This knowledge will serve the Community Safety Working Group well. The recommendation that she be appointed to the Working Group was endorsed unanimously. CONCLUSION: To ensure balanced community representation at the Community Safety Working Group, a maximum of five (5) community members are supported by the Terms of Reference. At present there are four (4) community members in the Working Group. Ms Comstive will make five (5).
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.2 132 13.2
RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Nairn Seconded: Councillor Potter Ms Mary Comstive be appointed as a Community Member on the Community Safety Working Group. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
13.3
Re13.3EsWo
File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommendorsed In acc
Annua The C
Annua
TABLED Nil
BACKGRAt the Towthe Termsthe requir
DETAILSAt the 16 an Annua2026 (PFFobjectives
In reviewCommittebe in inclu
Reto e
Deand
Idebe
DeNe
Impcom
Aliginit
Meeting of
ecommenstablishmork Plan
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation
d. cordance wal Work PlaCommunity al Work Pla
ITEMS:
ROUND: wn’s 13 Ds of Refererement to d
: May 2012
al Work PlaF the Wors in the PF
wing the pee the Comuded in theview of theexpire at thvelopmentd Crime Prentify prioricarried ovvelopmentighbourhoplementatimmunity sagnment ofiatives and
f Council M
ndation ment of
CMNo 29 M.
er: T. Ant: Abry: – The Co
with the Can must be
Safety Woan.
ecember 2ence of thdevelop an
2 meeting oan was disking GroupF and ther
past activmmunity Se Annual We current Che end of 2t of a Saferevention Pty initiative
ver to the nt of a comod’s Plan; on of coafety issuef commund funding s
Minutes
from ththe Com
MS1059
May 2012Owens Ackermansolute Maj
ommunity
ommunity e presentedorking Gro
2011 Ordine Commun
n Annual W
of the Comscussed. Ip determinrefore shou
ities of thafety Work
Work Plan:Community2012); er NeighboPlan whiches aligningew Safer Nmmunity c
ommunity es to be adity safety
sources.
133
e Commmmunity
2
ority
Safety W
Safety Wd to Councoup has re
nary Councnity Safety
Work Plan.
mmunity San reviewin
ned that thuld be inclu
he now dking Grou
y Safety a
ourhoods’ h is due to e with the SNeighbourconsultatio
consultatddressed; a
initiatives
munity SSafety
Working G
Working Grocil for conscommende
cil Meetingy Working
afety Workng the Towe followinguded in the
disbanded p determin
nd Crime
Plan (to rexpire at thSouth Easthoods’ Plan and res
ion and/oand with Loc
Safety WWorking
Group Ann
oup’s Termideration. ed projects
g, Council Group (CS
king Groupwn’s Plan fg projects e Annual W
Communned that th
Prevention
replace thehe end of 2t Metropoli
an; search pro
or researc
cal, State
12 J
Working Gg Group
nual Work
ms of Ref
s for inclus
resolved tSWG) whi
p the develfor the Futlinked dire
Work Plan:
ity Safetyhe followin
n Plan (wh
e Commun2012); itan Police
ocess for
ch to ide
and Fede
June 2012
13.3
Group –Annual
k Plan be
erence an
sion in the
to endorsech include
lopment ofture 2011-
ectly to the
y Advisoryng projects
hich is due
nity Safety
District to
the Safer
entify key
eral safety
2
3
– l
e
n
e
e e
f -e
y s
e
y
o
r
y
y
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.3 134 13.3
As per the Terms of Reference for the Community Safety Working Group, Council is to endorse an annual work plan for the Working Group. The process of establishing this work plan will begin with the approval of the strategic framework. Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The strategic focus for the Community Safety Working Group is aligned to the Plan for the Future. The purpose of the Community Safety Working Group is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by:
2.1 Providing advice to the Council on matters relating to the development and implementation of the Town’s Community Safety Plan.
2.2 Assisting the Council to connect people to services, resources, information, facilities and experiences that enhance their physical and social well-being.
2.3 Assisting the Council in developing and implementing a Community Safety Annual Work Plan.
Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: The establishment of the Community Safety Working Group Annual Work Plan will have an impact on the social issues relating to community safety of the Town. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The Community Safety Work Plan will align to the Town’s Plan for the Future 2011-2026 project:
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.3 135 13.3
“Continue to implement and review the Community Safety Plan Initiatives” The Community Safety Working Group will be instrumental to support the research and community consultation processes to develop a new Safer Neighbourhoods Plan that progresses priority initiatives that align to suitable funding sources to be identified which may include and not be limited to:
Graffiti and Vandalism; Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design; Reduction in residential anti-social and criminal behaviour; and Community education and engagement.
Potential funding options to progress initiatives in a timely manner will be aligned to opportunities such as the:
Office of Crime Prevention: State Graffiti Fund; Office of Crime Prevention: Community Crime Prevention Fund; Department of the Attorney General: Safer Suburbs; Department of the Attorney General: Criminal Property Confiscation Grant; and Australian Institute of Criminology - Criminology Research Grant.
CONCLUSION: The framework will allow for the development of the Work Plan to go ahead with the approval of both the Working Group and Council. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Ashton The Community Safety Working Group commence the process for the establishment of the annual work plan by: 1 Reviewing the current Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan; 2 Identifying priority initiatives aligning with the Kensington Police district to be
carried over to the new Safer Neighbourhoods Plan; 3 Developing a community consultation and research process for the Safer
Neighbourhood’s Plan; 4 Implementing a community consultation and/or research to identify key
community safety issues to be addressed; 5 Developing the new Safer Neighbourhoods’ Plan; and 6 Aligning the community safety initiatives with Local, State and Federal funding sources. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
13.4
Te13.4 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommsupply of Ten
Aqu Eva TABLED Tend Tend
TechBody
Asse BACKGRThe Aquavaluable hmanagemspecificatidate, in liquality se The new equipmenexperienchealth clu The TownAqualife C11 March
Meeting of
ender TV
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation f gym equders has alife Centrluation of T
ITEMS: der Numbeders submhnogym, ytastic. essment P
ROUND: alife Centrehealth and
ment schedions. Replne with otrvices.
gymnasiunt which ced by memb it will rem
n has invitCentre. Te2012, with
f Council M
P/12/02–
TVNil 29 K. W
er: T. Ant: Simry: - Fleet C
uipment atbeen requ
re. Tender sub
er TVP/12/mitted by Nordic F
Panel’s Indi
e is a six awellness s
dule, gym acement o
ther servic
um equipmhas beenmbers durimain a very
ted tendernders wereh a closing
Minutes
– Provisio
P/12/02
May 2012WinterbouAckerman
mple Major
ommerciat the Aquauested for
bmissions
/02 - RequeOrbit Fitnitness, F
vidual Sele
nd a half yservice to equipmenof the equ
ce provider
ment will r requesteng peak pey attractive
rs for a coe advertise date of Tu
136
on of Gy
2 rn
rity
al Gymnasalife Centrr the prov
against pr
est for Tenness, Avaleet Com
ection Crite
year old hethe local ct is due to
uipment wirs, and tha
replace soed will reeriods. We and mod
ontractor toed in The Wuesday 27
ymnasium
sium be are. vision of G
rescribed c
nder (RFT)nti Fitnes
mmercial G
eria Score
ealth and fcommunityo be replaill ensure tat it contin
me of theduce the
With the newern gymna
o provide West AustMarch 201
m Equipm
awarded t
Gymnasium
criteria has
) for Gymns, Gym CGymnasium
Sheets
fitness faci. In accordced in linethat the faues to pro
e aging eqwaiting t
w gymnasiuasium for th
gymnasiumtralian new12.
12 J
ment
the Tende
m Equipme
s been com
nasium EquCare, Bluems, Tiger
lity which dance withe with manacility remaovide a hig
quipment. time for eum equipmhe commu
m equipmwspaper on
June 2012
13.4
er for the
ent to the
mpleted.
uipment e Fitness,r Fitness,
provides ah the assetnufacturesains up togh level of
Additionalequipment
ment in thenity.
ent at then Saturday
2
4
e
e
,
a t s o f
l t
e
e y
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.4 137 13.4
DETAILS: The following table provides a list of new gymnasium equipment considered necessary to accommodate members’ needs at the Aqualife Centre:
Gymnasium Equipment Quantity Treadmills 10 Elliptical 2 Spin Cycles 2 Tenderers were asked to complete and submit a schedule of rates for components of the equipment specification. All Tenders were assessed against the selection criteria detailed below, which were included within the ender documentation. Description of Selection Criteria Weighting Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required Qualifications, skills and experience of key personnel Plant, equipment and staff resources available Percentage of operational capacity represented by this work Quality systems
5%
Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects Relevant industry experience (including public sector), including details
of similar work undertaken The Tenderer’s involvement in these projects, including details of
outcomes produced Past record of performance and achievement References from past and present clients Occupational safety and health track record
20%
Servicing / Maintenance Terms of warranty Cost of servicing Frequency of maintenance Response time to servicing / maintenance requests Added value items offered
40%
Tendered Price/s The price to supply the goods or services in accordance with the
Request Rates or prices for variations
35%
TOTAL 100% Nine submissions were received in response to the Request for Tender (RFT) TVP/12/02 -Gymnasium Equipment. The submissions came from Orbit Fitness, Avanti Fitness, Gym Care, Blue Fitness, Technogym, Nordic Fitness, Fleet Commercial Gymnasiums, Tiger Fitness, Bodytastic. Three of the suppliers submitted multiple Tenders, providing different types of equipment. As a result, the assessment panel reviewed twelve Tenders.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.4 138 13.4
Following is a table indicating the cost of each Tender submitted: Supplier Cost $ (inc GST) Supplier Cost $ (inc GST)
Orbit Fitness 74,668 Nordic Fitness 1 103,530 Avanti Fitness 119,020 Nordic Fitness 2 70,024
Gym Care 1 132,044 Fleet Commercial
Gymnasiums 122,837
Gym Care 2 103,224 Tiger Fitness 1 118,283 Blue Fitness 101,519 Tiger Fitness 2 103,758 Technogym 135,428 Bodytastic 95,942
Assessment of each Tender was undertaken using the selection criteria included in the Tender documentation. Members of the assessment panel included two Senior Health and Fitness Officers and the Manager Aqualife. The following two tables show the scores (out of a total value of 10) for each Tender submitted.
Orbit
Fitness Avanti Fitness
Gym Care 1
Gym Care 2
Blue Fitness
Technogym
Capability of Supplier
3.5 7 10 10 8 10
Experience of Supplier in Supplying
Similar
4.5 6.5 10 10 7 10
Servicing / Maintenance
7 7 10 10 5.5 9.5
Tendered Price
9 9 9 9 9 7.5
Nordic
Fitness 1 Nordic
Fitness 2
Fleet Commercial Gymnasium
Tiger Fitness 1
Tiger Fitness 2
Bodytastic
Capability of Supplier
3.5 3.5 10 9.5 9.5 2.5
Experience of Supplier in Supplying
Similar
4.5 4.5 10 9.5 9.5 5
Servicing / Maintenance
7.5 7.5 10 9.5 9.5 6.5
Tendered Price
9 8.5 9.9 9.5 9.5 9
The average weighted value of each Tender assessed against the Selection Criteria is indicated in the following tables (the individual score sheets of each member of the assessment panel are tabled):
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.4 139 13.4
Orbit
Fitness Avanti Fitness
Gym Care 1
Gym Care 2
Blue Fitness
Technogym
Weight
Value Score
Value Score
Value Score
Value Score
Value Score
Value Score
Capability of Supplier
0.05 .18 .23 .50 .50 .39 .50
Experience of Supplier in Supplying Similar
0.20 .86 .86 1.99 2.0 1.43 1.99
Servicing / Maintenance
0.40 2.79 1.85 3.99 4.0 2.12 3.72
Tendered Price 0.30 3.14 3.14 3.08 3.14 3.14 2.56 Total Score Value 6.97 6.08 9.56 9.62 7.08 8.76
Nordic
Fitness 1 Nordic
Fitness 2
Fleet CommercialGymnasium
Tiger Fitness
1
Tiger Fitness 2
Bodytastic
Weight
Value Score
Value Score
Value Score
Value Score
Value Score
Value Score
Capability of Supplier
0.05 .18 .18 .50 .47 .47 .12
Experience of Supplier in Supplying Similar
0.20 .86 .86 1.99 1.89 1.89 .96
Servicing / Maintenance
0.40 2.92 2.92 3.99 3.84 3.84 2.51
Tendered Price
0.30 3.09 3.02 3.45 3.31 3.31 3.14
Total Score Value 7.05 6.98 9.93 9.52 9.52 6.73 The Tenderer with the highest total score value is the preferred supplier; in this case Fleet Commercial Gymnasium. Legal Compliance: Local Government Act 1995 Section 3.57 Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 Division 2 Part 4 Policy Implications: Tender document complies with Council Policy FIN4 Purchase of Goods and Services. Strategic Plan Implications: The delivery of a quality health and fitness service links directly to the Town’s Plan for the Future 2011-2026, Community Life Program Objective 1:
We will connect people to services, resources, information, facilities and experiences that enhance their physical and social wellbeing.
Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Funding of $130,000 has been allocated in the 2011/12 Budget for the purchase of gymnasium equipment for the Aqualife Centre. The Tenderer with the highest overall weighted score, Fleet Commercial Gymnasiums, costs came in under budget at $122,837 (incl GST).
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.4 140 13.4
Total Asset Management: The health and fitness equipment will be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and all associated costs budgeted for each financial year. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Opportunities to increase participation and enhancing health and wellness of the community. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: As a result of the Assessment Panel’s scoring against Selection Criteria it is recommended that the Tender be awarded to Fleet Commercial Gymnasiums. Following is a table summarising the average weighted score for each of the Tenders submitted:
Tenderer Average Weighted
Score Fleet Commercial Gymnasium 9.93 Gym Care 2 9.62 Gym Care 1 9.56 Tiger Fitness 1 9.52 Tiger Fitness 2 9.52 Technogym 8.76 Blue Fitness 7.08 Nordic Fitness 1 7.05 Nordic Fitness 2 6.98 Orbit Fitness 6.97 Bodytastic 6.73 Avanti 6.08
Fleet Commercial Gymnasium has submitted relevant and more than satisfactory industry references verifying their suitability as a contractor to Local Government, which is complimented by past experience in dealing with this company at the Aqualife Centre. CONCLUSION: The Tender submitted by Fleet Commercial Gymnasium presents the best value for money and achieves an average weighted point score of 9.93 out of ten (99%) when assessed against the qualitative criteria contained in Tender TVP/12/02.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.4 141 13.4
Fleet Commercial Gymnasium is the preferred contractor to undertake the supply of Gymnasium Equipment at the Aqualife Centre the subject of Tender TVP/12/02. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Skinner Fleet Commercial Gymnasium be accepted as the preferred contractor to undertake the supply of Gymnasium Equipment at a cost of $122,837 (inc GST) to the Aqualife Centre the subject of Tender TVP/12/02. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
13.5
Re13.5the
File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm In ac
Plan The
Plan TABLED Nil BACKGRAt the Towthe Termsto develop DETAILSAt the 14Work Planthe Workithe PFF a
Re De De De
In reviewithe Arts WWork Plan
An Bie
Vis Co
Legal CoNil
Meeting of
ecommene Arts W
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –ccordance
n must be pArts Work
n.
ITEMS:
ROUND: wn’s 13 Ds of Referep an Annua
: 4 May 201n was discng Group d
and therefoeview and revelopmentevelopmentevelopment
ng the pasWorking Gn: nual Selec
ennial Revsual Art Acontribute to
mpliance:
f Council M
ndation fWorking G
CMNil 29 A.
er: T. Ant: Simry: – The Arts
e with the Apresented king Group
ecember 2ence of theal Work Pl
2 meetingcussed. In determined
ore should relaunch tht of a Maint of a Comt of a Publi
st activitiesroup deter
ction of Art view of thecquisitions the Delive
:
Minutes
from theGroup An
MS0153
May 2012Longford
Ackermanmple Major
s WorkingArts Workto Council has recom
2011 Ordine Arts Woran.
of the Arreviewing
d that the fbe include
he Public Antenance Smunity Artic Art Map
s of the nowrmined tha
Acquisitioe ‘Coffee
ery of the A
142
e Arts Wonnual Wo
2
rity
g Group Aking Group
for considmmended
nary Councrking Grou
rts Working the Townfollowing p
ed in the AnArt Master Schedule fots Plan
w disbandat the follo
ons Table Boo
Annual Vict
orking Gork Plan
nnual Wo’s Terms o
deration. projects fo
cil Meetingup (AWG)
g Group thn’s Plan forprojects linknnual WorPlan
or Public A
ed Arts anowing proje
ok’ Publica
toria Park
Group - E
rk Plan beof Referen
or inclusion
g, Council which inclu
he developr the Futurked directlyk Plan:
Art
nd Culture ects be inc
ation Show
Art Awards
12 J
Establish
e endorsence an An
n in the An
resolved tude the re
pment of are 2011-20y to the ob
Advisory Ccluded in t
wcasing th
s
June 2012
13.5
hment of
d. nual Work
nual Work
to endorseequirement
an Annual026 (PFF),bjectives in
Committeehe Annual
he Town’s
2
5
f
k
k
e t
l ,
n
e l
s
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.5 143 13.5
Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The strategic focus for the Arts Working Group is aligned to the Plan for the Future 2011-2026. The purpose of the Arts Working Group is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by:
Providing advice to the Council on matters relating to the review, development and implementation of the Public Art Master Plan.
Providing advice to the Council regarding the creation of a vibrant Town that is a place of social interaction, creativity and vitality.
Assisting the Council to develop the Town of Victoria Park as a ‘Living Canvas’ through the creation of opportunities for a diverse range of creative endeavours and expressions (including fine arts, music, visual arts, literary arts, performing art) and forms of creative expression.
Assisting the Council in developing and implementing an Arts Annual Work Plan. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Funds have been allocated in the draft 2012/13 Budget for the annual purchase or art works, as well as contributing to the annual Victoria Park Art Awards. No funds have been set aside from the Community Arts Reserve in the 2012/13 Budget; however should the Arts Working Group recommend a public artwork/s be commissioned there is approximately $350,000 available in the Reserve. Total Asset Management: Whilst the establishment of the Arts Working Group Annual Work Plan will have no direct impact on the Town’s total asset management processes in the immediate future, it is anticipated that the long term implementation of strategies, plans and outcomes from the Work Plan will impact on the Town’s total asset management e.g. the development of a maintenance schedule for public artworks. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: The social benefits of art in the public realm include, but are not limited to:
developing a sense of self worth stimulating social interaction encouraging healthier life styles reducing vandalism and cost nurturing grass roots cultures expanding learning and awareness healing the social fabric
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.5 144 13.5
Cultural Issues: The Annual Work Plan will result in enhanced creativity and provide opportunities to showcase the cultural diversity of the Town.
Environmental Issues: Nil
COMMENT: At the 14 May 2012 meeting of the Arts Working Group the development of an Annual Work Plan was discussed. The Working Group determined that the following be included in the Annual Work Plan:
Review and relaunch the Public Art Master Plan Development of a Maintenance Schedule for Public Art Development of a Community Arts Plan Development of a Public Art Map Annual Selection of Art Acquisitions Biennial Review of the ‘Coffee Table Book’ Publication Showcasing the Town’s
Visual Art Acquisitions Contribute to the Delivery of the Annual Victoria Park Art Awards
CONCLUSION: The Arts Working Group has supported the inclusion of projects in the Annual Work Plan that are consistent with the Town’s Plan for the Future 2011-2026 and commitments to existing projects that had been commenced by the now disbanded Arts and Culture Advisory Committee.
RESOLVED:
Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Ashton
The Arts Working Group’s Annual Work Plan comprise the: 1. Review and relaunch the Public Art Master Plan in line with the Town’s
Strategic Plan; 2. Development of a Maintenance Schedule for Public Art; 3. Development of a Community Arts Plan; 4. Development of a Public Art Map; 5. Annual Selection of Art Acquisitions; 6. Biennial Review of the ‘Coffee Table Book’ Publication Showcasing the
Town’s Visual Art Acquisitions; and 7. Contribute to the Delivery of the Annual Victoria Park Art Awards.
The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
13.6
Re13.6EsPla
File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm In ac
Wor The
Annu TABLED Nil BACKGRAt the Towthe Termsrequireme DETAILSAt the 23Annual W(PFF) andthe Workithe PFF a
De
Imp
Supro
Rethro
Legal CoNil
Meeting of
ecommenstablishman
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –ccordance k Plan musHealthy L
ual Work P
ITEMS:
ROUND: wn’s 13 Ds of Referent to deve
: 3 May 201
Work Plan wd past projng Group d
and therefoevelop stron Promo Suppo
prove acce Facilita
plan to Identif
approppport the p
ograms runecognise anough the b
mpliance:
f Council M
ndation ment of
CMNil 29 N.
er: T. Ant: Simry: – The Heawith the H
st be preseLife WorkiPlan.
ecember 2rence of thelop an Ann
2 meetingwas discusjects of thedetermined
ore should nger & cohote Club Deort and actiess and levate the reco develop nfy and fapriate publpromotion n in or servnd promotebiennial ‘Sp
:
Minutes
from the Hea
MS0144
May 2012Annson Ackerman
mple Major
althy Life WHealthy Lifeented to Cong Group
2011 Ordinhe Healthynual Work
of the Hessed. In ree now disbd that the fbe include
hesive comevelopmenively promovels of partcreational new activitacilitate oic events. of sport a
vicing the Te the contrporting Wa
145
the Healthy Life
2
rity
Working Gfe Workingouncil for c has reco
nary Councy Life WoPlan.
ealthy Life eviewing thbanded Spfollowing p
ed in the Anmmunities bnt initiativeote the Kidticipation bneeds of mties; and opportunitie
and recreatTown. ributions ofalk of Fame
althy Le Workin
Group Ann Group’s Tconsideratommended
cil Meetingrking Grou
Working he Town’s port and Rprojects linknnual Worby: s; and
dSport progby: minority gro
es for sp
tional orga
f elite athlee.’
Life Worng Grou
nual WorkTerms of Rion.
d projects
g, Council up (HLWG
Group thePlan for thecreation Aked directlyk Plan:
gram.
oups and
porting clu
anisations a
etes and/r s
12 J
rking Gup Annu
k Plan be eReference
for inclus
resolved tG) which in
e developmhe Future 2Advisory Cy to the ob
implement
ub partici
and physic
sporting co
June 2012
13.6
Group -al Work
endorsed.an Annual
ion in the
to endorsenclude the
ment of an2011-2026Committeebjectives in
t an action
ipation at
cal activity
ontributors
2
6
- k
l
e
e e
n 6 e n
n
t
y
s
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.6 146 13.6
Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The strategic focus for the Healthy Life Working Group is aligned to the Plan for the Future 2011-2026 (PFF). The purpose of the Healthy Life Working Group is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by:
Support Council to connect people to services, resources, information, facilities and experiences that enhance their physical and social well-being.
Provide advice to the Council on matters relating to the development and implementation of the Healthy Life Plan.
Assist the Council to increase and improve opportunities for physical activity through the provision of programs and activities, including active transport initiatives.
Assist the Council in developing and implementing a Healthy Life Annual Work Plan.
Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Whilst the establishment of the HLWG annual work plan will not require the allocation of Council budgetary funds in 2012/2013, it is anticipated that the long-term implementation of strategies, plans and outcomes from the Annual Work Plan will require consideration by Council for allocation in future budgets. Total Asset Management: Whilst the establishment of the HLWG Annual Work Plan will have no direct impact on the Town’s total asset management processes, it is anticipated that the long term implementation of strategies, plans and outcomes from the Annual Work Plan may impact on the Town’s total asset management processes. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: The social benefits of a healthy lifestyle are many and varied including, but not limited to promoting stronger and more cohesive communities, as well as better health outcomes and reducing antisocial behaviour as a result of improving levels of physical activity. Cultural Issues: Enhanced opportunities for different cultures to participate in physical activity results in a strong and cohesive community. Environmental Issues: Nil
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
13.6 147 13.6
COMMENT: At the 23 May 2012 meeting of the Healthy Life Working Group the development of an Annual Work Plan was discussed. In reviewing the Town’s Plan for the Future 2011-2026 (PFF) and past projects of the now disbanded Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee the Working Group determined that the following projects linked directly to the objectives in the PFF and therefore should be included in the Annual Work Plan:
Develop stronger & cohesive communities by: Promote Club Development initiatives; and Support and actively promote the KidSport program.
Improve access and levels of participation by: Facilitate the recreational needs of minority groups and implement an action
plan to develop new activities; and Identify and facilitate opportunities for sporting club participation at
appropriate public events. Support the promotion of sport and recreational organisations and physical activity
programs run in or servicing the Town. Recognise and promote the contributions of elite athletes and/r sporting contributors
through the biennial ‘Sporting Walk of Fame.’
CONCLUSION: The Healthy Life Working Group has supported the inclusion of projects in the Annual Work Plan that are consistent with the Town’s Plan for the Future 2011-2026 and commitments to existing projects that had been commenced by the now disbanded Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee.
RESOLVED:
Moved: Councillor Bissett Seconded: Councillor Skinner
The Healthy Life Working Group’s Annual Work Plan comprises:
1 Developing stronger and cohesive communities by: 1.1 Promoting Club Development initiatives. 1.2 Supporting and actively promote the KidSport program.
2 Improving access and levels of participation by: 2.1 Facilitating the recreational needs of minority groups and
implementing an action plan to develop new activities. 2.2 Identifying and facilitating opportunities for sporting club
participation at appropriate public events.
3 Supporting the promotion of sport and recreational organisations and physical activity programs run in or servicing the Town.
4 Recognising and promoting contributions of elite athletes and/or
sporting contributors through the biennial ‘Sporting Walk of Fame.’
The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
14.1
14 BU
Mu14.1 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm44 Carna In S
dogs In a
beca No o The TABLED Nil BACKGRAn applicSusan La Ms Lake These dooffences o One of MLake wouexemptionCouncil. The Townexemptionyears and DETAILSIn investigStreet, iss
Meeting of
USINESS
ultiple Do
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –rvon Stree
September s. accordanceause one oobjections Town has
ITEMS:
ROUND: ation to keke of 44 C
was previogs were or complai
Ms Lake’s duld like to rn for Ms La
n has just ns to keepd none of th
: gating this sued consu
f Council M
S LIFE PR
og Appli
ADNo 22 A.
er: N. nt: Simry: – The appet, East V2010 the
e with theof the previto this appreceived n
eep more Carnarvon S
ously grantwo Chihunts relating
dogs, whicreplace himake to get
over 2,00 more thanhe exempt
applicationultation lett
Minutes
ROGRAM
cation –
DM0058
May 2012Lantzke
Cain mple Major
plication foictoria Parsame ap
e previousious dogs
plication hano previou
than the pStreet, Eas
nted an exuahua’s ang to Ms La
ch was subm with anoa replacem
00 existingn 2 dogs. etions appro
n, the Towters to neig
148
M REPOR
44 Carn
2
rity
or an exemrk be apprplicant wa
s exemptiohas died a
ave been res complain
prescribed st Victoria
xemption tnd a Pomke or her d
bject to thother Pomement dog s
dog regiseight exemoved have
wn Rangersghbours an
RTS
arvon St
mption to roved subas granted
on a new and the appeceived fronts about d
number oPark.
to keep thmeranian. dogs.
is exemptieranian. Inshe must r
strations amptions hav
been revo
s inspectednd conduct
treet
keep morbject to co an exem
applicatioplicant wouom neighbodogs at this
of dogs wa
ree dogs The Town
ion, has re accordanreapply for
nd currentve been apked.
d the propeted a deskt
12 J
re than twonditions. mption to k
on has beuld like to rours. s property.
as received
in Septemn has no
ecently diece with ther an exemp
tly has 11pproved in
erty at 44 Cktop audit.
June 2012
14.1
wo dogs at
keep three
een madereplace it.
d from Ms
mber 2010.history of
ed and Mse previousption, from
approvedn the last 5
Carnarvon
2
t
e
e
s
. f
s s
m
d 5
n
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.1 149 14.1
The investigation found that the property at 44 Carnarvon Street was well maintained and of a suitable size to keep three dogs. No objections to this application from neighbours were received and no history of offences or complaints are recorded with the Town. Legal Compliance: The following clauses outline the legal framework pertaining to this report. In summary the Town limits the number of dogs that can be kept to two unless an exemption is granted. If an application for an exemption is refused, or if the applicant disagrees with any conditions imposed under an exemption the applicant can ask for the decision to be reviewed by the State Administrative Tribunal. Dog Act 1976 states inter alia: “Part V — The keeping of dogs 26. Limitation as to numbers (1) The provisions of this Part shall not operate to prevent the keeping on any premises of
2 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age. (2) Subject to subsection (1), a local government, pursuant to local laws, may limit the
number of dogs over the age of 3 months, or the number of such dogs of any specified breed or kind, that may be kept on any premises situate in a specified area to which those local laws apply unless those premises are licensed as an approved kennel establishment or are exempt.
(3) Where by a local law under this Act a local government has placed a limit on the
keeping of dogs in any specified area but the local government is satisfied in relation to any particular premises that the provisions of this Act relating to approved kennel establishments need not be applied in the circumstances, the local government may grant an exemption in respect of those premises but any such exemption —
(a) may be made subject to conditions, including a condition that it applies only to the dogs specified therein;
(b) shall not operate to authorise the keeping of more than 6 dogs on those premises; and
(c) may be revoked or varied at any time.
(4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3), a person who keeps on any premises, not being premises licensed as an approved kennel establishment, dogs over the age of 3 months in numbers exceeding any limit imposed in relation to those dogs by a local law made under subsection (2) commits an offence.
Penalty: $1 000 and a daily penalty of $100.
(5) Any person who is aggrieved —
(a) by the conditions imposed in relation to any exemption from the provisions of a local law placing a limitation on the number of dogs that may be kept on any premises; or
(b) by the refusal of a local government to grant such an exemption, or by the revocation of an exemption, may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.1 150 14.1
(6) An application under subsection (5) cannot be made later than the expiry of a period of 28 days after the day on which a notice of the decision is served on the person affected by that decision.”
Dog Local Law 2000 states inter alia: “3.2 Limitation on the number of dogs (1) This clause does not apply to premises which have been—
(a) licensed under Part 4 as an approved kennel establishment; or (b) granted an exemption under section 26(3) of the Act.
(2) The limit on the number of dogs which may be kept on any premises is, for the purpose of section 26(4) of the Act, 2 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age.”
Policy Implications: This recommendation is consistent with the Town’s Plan for the Future. Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The Dog Act 1976 and the Town’s Dog Local Law 2000 clearly limit the number of dogs that can be kept on any property to two unless an exemption is granted. The requirement of getting an exemption ensures that any negative impact or undesirable outcomes that may come about as a result of keeping multiple dogs is able to be avoided.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.1 151 14.1
Ms Lake’s previous history of keeping dogs, and in particular of keeping three dogs, demonstrates a capacity to do so without impacting on other members of the community.
The same conditions that the Town applies to all applications of this type were part of the previous exemption and should be included in this exemption also.
CONCLUSION: Ms Lake is a suitable candidate for an exemption to keep three dogs.
RESOLVED:
Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Nairn
That Council, Pursuant to the Dog Act 1976 and the Town of Victoria Parks Dog Local Law 2000, approves the application for an exemption to the limitation to keep more than two dogs on the property at 44 Carnarvon Street be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Only dogs which are the subject of this exemption are to be kept at this property;
2. All dogs are to be registered in accordance with the Dog Act 1976 and all registrations shall be renewed and maintained as required;
3. Fences are to be maintained in order to effectively confine the dogs within the property;
4. The yard area of the property where the dogs are kept is to be maintained in a clean and tidy condition;
5. Dog faeces are to be disposed of in the weekly refuse service or by other approved means;
6. Dogs kept at the property are not permitted to bark or behave otherwise in a way so as to create a nuisance;
7. If the property is developed so as to reduce the area used to keep the dogs, the exemption provided by Council will no longer be valid. The applicant may seek a further exemption based on the modified condition of the property;
8. The exemption relates to the individual dogs subject to this application only. Those dogs being: Animal number 21866, named Saffie, a female Pomeranian, Animal number 20932, named Tilly, a female Chihuahua, and A currently unregistered female Pomeranian named Pips.
These dogs cannot be replaced without first seeking a further exemption from Council;
9. On receipt of a justifiable complaint, Council may revoke or vary the exemption at any time.
The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
14.2
Fin14.2Be
File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm2012 be r This
Aprilvaria
TABLED Nil BACKGRThe Townto preparefollowing on signific DETAILSA detailedsignificant The Offic 2011-201
OperatingOperatingCapital Ex There are
Meeting of
nancial etween 1
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation received. report prol 2012 idenances over
ITEMS:
ROUND: n is requiree, and prereport concant operat
: d review t variances
ce of the C
2 Budget a
g Income g Expendituxpenditure
e no varian
f Council M
StatemeApril and
FINYe 22 G.
er: N. nt: Simry: – That th
ovides an ntifying negr $1,000.
ed by the Lsent to Cotains theseting and ca
of the mos are detai
Chief Exec
and Year to
BudgAnnu
ure 1
ces to repo
Minutes
ents andd 30 Apr
N0015 s
March 201Pattrick Cain
mple Major
he Financ
analysis ofgative ope
Local Goveouncil mone monthly apital expe
onthly finaled below.
cutive
o Date Res
get ual
0,950,982
Nil
ort on this
152
d Budgril 2012
12
rity
cial Statem
f the finanerating vari
ernment (Fnthly financ
financial senditure va
ancial state
sults
Budget Y
1,782
month for
et Varia
ments for
cial statemances ove
Financial Mcial statemstatementsariances.
ements ha
YTD Act
02,369 1
Nil
the Office
ations F
the perio
ments for tr $10,000
Managemenents of a p, and also
as been u
tual YTD
(15,637) 1,307,637
Nil
of the Chi
12 J
For The
od ending
the period and negat
nt) Regulaprescribed provides
undertaken
$VariancYTD
15,429,
ef Executiv
June 2012
14.2
Period
g 30 April
ending 30tive capital
tions 1996 kind. Thecomments
n and the
ce
,637,365
Nil
ve.
2
2
d
l
0 l
6 e s
e
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.2 153 14.2
Business Life 2011-2012 Budget and Year to Date Results Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD Operating Income 29,174,039 28,752.249 28,172,744 579,505Operating Expenditure 2,802,200 2,401,647 2890,096 488,449Capital Expenditure Nil Nil Nil Nil Variance Type Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 406000: General Purpose Funding
1,679,900 1,000,592 783,037 217,555
The timing of grant funding needs to be reviewed so it better matches when it is receipted. Variance Type Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 411000: Animal Control
46,000 39,970 28,577 11,393
Variance has occurred due to a once off write off of aged debts
Variance Type Budget Annual
Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD
412000: Ranger Services
31,877 26,560 9,280 17,280
Variance is due to a lower that predicted number of identified offences and a once off write off of aged debts Variance Type Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 406000: General Purpose Funding
1,679,900 1,000,592 783,037 217,555
The timing of grant funding needs to be reviewed so it better match when it is receipted. Variance Type Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 474500: Parking 679,972 566,962 294,016 272,946Due to delays in implementing hotspots parking changes expected revenue has not been met. A withdrawal has been made of bulk aging infringements totalling $97,375. Variance Type Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 490600: Business Development
120,000 60,000 0 60,000
This is grant funding that has not yet been received. It is expected to be received prior to the end of the financial year.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.2 154 14.2
Variance Type Budget Annual
Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD
591000: Information Technology
0 2,934 48,705 45,771
Accumulated Depreciation is a ‘non-cash’ transaction and does not influence the year-end position Community Life 2011-2012 Budget and Year to Date Results Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD Operating Income 5,487,842 3,765,637 3,648,295 117,342Operating Expenditure 11,468,356 7,752,452 6,406,702 1,345,750Capital Expenditure Nil Nil Nil Nil Variance Type Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 433300: Recreational Swimming
763,785 700,366 653,063 47,303
This account is offset by a positive variance to single entry attendance. Variance Type Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 433600: Memberships
1,503,160 1,210,700 943,030 267,670
Variance due to over estimation of proposed revenue
Variance Type Budget Annual
Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD
437100: Sporting Life 264,586 223,988 212,209 11,779Variation has occurred due to a mistiming of CPI increases in comparison to the budget estimates. Variance Type Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 439000: Bingo Op Rev
907,705 744,500 717,298 27,202
Variance due to a power outage, variance is also offset, in part, by a positive variance in expenditure.
Variance Type Budget Annual
Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD
535500: Aqualife Café
197,656 168,524 207,669 39,145
Variance comprises of standing order with café suppliers and over estimation of staff requirements during the summer months. A review of casual staff expenditure has been undertaken and rostered hours have been adjusted to ensure minimum spending for the remaining few months.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.2 155 14.2
Built Life/Future Life 2011-2012 Budget and Year to Date Results Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD Operating Income 868,550 579,032 470,156 108,876Operating Expenditure 3,250,984 2,239,248 1,538,389 700,859Capital Expenditure Nil Nil Nil Nil
Variance Type Budget Annual
Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD
457500 : Edward Millen Reserve
73,536 61,280 0 61,280
Variance due to Lottery West Grant not yet received. Variance Type Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 464500: Events Op Rev
75,000 62,510 7,112 55,398
Variance due to a shortfall of estimated revenue of events, variance will be partially of set by Lotterywest in May 2012 Variance Type Budget
Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 664506: Music by Moonlight
102,000 85,000 106,010 21,010
Variance is a timing issue. This project is now complete.
Variance Type Budget Annual
Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD
428000: Urban Planning Op Rev
462,050 3385,040 287,691 97,349
Revenue from planning applications is less than anticipated, which is a direct reflection of the conditions in the property development market
Variance Type Budget Annual
Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD
47800: Building Op Rev
406,500 723,790 589,988 133.802
Revenue from building applications is less than anticipated, which is a direct reflection of the conditions in the property development market
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.2 156 14.2
Renew Life 2011-2012 Budget and Year to Date Results Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD Operating Income 5,623,621 1,242,325 677,036 565,289Operating Expenditure 23,146,589 13,149,276 11,568,774 1,580,502Capital Expenditure Nil Nil Nil Nil Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 442500: Brownes Stadium
46,000 41,000 25,943 15,057
Variance due to timing issues, revenue is expected to equalise before the end of the financial year Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 479000: Underground Power
4,839,609 1,1176,877 342,028 834,849
Not all 7 cells will be processed this financial year and therefore a corresponding change in timing of receipts will occur. Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 487500: Parks Plant 13,636 13,636 807 12,829Variance due to plant disposal funds not yet receipted Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 547500: Macmillan Park
51,167 43,668 57,710 14,042
Variance due to over expenditure on building cleaning and grounds maintenance. Funds to be reallocated from Operating Master Account 555000.670 Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 552000: Patterson Park
38,895 32,660 51,457 18,797
Variance due to the requirement of additional maintenance resources on bollard installation and irrigation upgrade Funding to be reallocated from other areas
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.2 157 14.2
580000: Private Works 23,536 19,912 186,894 166,982City of South Perth has decided to continue with the street sweeping services provided by the Town. Revenue to Private Works Operating Revenue will therefore increase by $60,000.
Legal Compliance: This report satisfies the requirements of Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, pursuant to section 6.4 of Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Amendment Regulations 2005. Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil
Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD
556500: Higgins Park 122,179 103,106 129,539 26,433Variance is due to additional maintenance works. Funding to be reallocated from other areas Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance
YTD 566500: Footpaths 740,293 620,932 725,759 104,827Variance is due to costs related to tree root damage. Funding to be reallocated from other areas
Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD
671001: Contaminated Site Investigate
65,000 32,500 59,000 26,500
Variance is due to timing. This project is complete.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.2 158 14.2
Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: It is recommended that the financial statements for the month ended 30 April 2012 be received. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Potter That Council, pursuant to Regulation 34 of The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1966 (as amended), accepts the Statement of Financial Activity for the period ended 30 April 2012. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
14.3
Sc14.3 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommGovernm The Direc Depo
Loca This
April TABLED Nil BACKGRCouncil hthe muniGovernme Under Re1996, wheof its powfrom the mshowing:
a) b) c) d)
That list sthe prepapresented DETAILSThe list oGovernme
Meeting of
chedule o
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation
ment (FinanList of Accct lodgemeosits and al Governm report prol 2012.
ITEMS:
ROUND: as delegaticipal andent (Financ
egulation 1ere a local
wer to makmunicipal f
The paThe amThe daSuffici
should thearation of d.
: of accountsent (Financ
f Council M
of Accou
FINYe 8 MG.
er: N. nt: Simry:
– That ncial Manacounts Paident of payrwithdrawa
ment. ovides an o
ted to the trust funcial Manag
13(1) of th governme
ke paymenfund or the
ayee’s nammount of thate of the pent inform
n be presethe list, a
s paid by cial Manag
Minutes
unts for t
N0015 s
May 2012Pattrick Cain
mple Major
Council, agement) d for the peroll paymenal, of inves
overview o
Chief Execnds in acgement) Re
he Local Gent has dents from the trust fund
me; he paymenpayment; aation to ide
ented at thand record
the CEO gement) Re
159
the Perio
rity
pursuanRegulatioeriod 1 Apnts to the pstments to
of payment
cutive Officccordance egulations
Governmenelegated tohe municipd is to be
nt and entify the t
he next Oded in the
in accordaegulations
od 1 Apri
nt to Reons 1996 (pril 2012 to personal b
and from
s made by
cer the autwith Re
1996.
nt (Financ the Chief
pal fund or noted on a
ransaction
rdinary Meminutes
ance with 1996 be c
l 2012 to
gulation as amend30 April 20ank accouaccounts
y the Town
thority to mgulation 1
cial ManagExecutivethe trust f
a list comp
eeting of thof the me
Regulationconfirmed.
12 J
o 30 Apri
13 of tded), confi012.
unts of empin the na
n during the
make paym12(1) of
gement) Re Officer thfund, eachpiled for ea
he Councieeting at w
n 13(1) of
June 2012
14.3
il 2012
he Localirm;
ployees; ame of the
e month of
ments fromthe Local
Regulationse exerciseh paymentach month
l followingwhich it is
f the Local
2
3
l
e
f
m l
s e t h
g s
l
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.3 160 14.3
FUND CHEQUE NUMBERS /
PAY PERIODS AMOUNTS
$ Municipal Account Recoup Advance Account 18.12Automatic Cheques Drawn 602730 - 602865 502,716.28Creditors 2,223,045.69Payroll 772,984.60Bank Fees 6,406.12Corporate Mastercard 6,576.51 3,511,747.32 Advance Account Bank Fees 18.12 18.12 Trust Account Cheques Drawn 2757 – 2771 15,088.50 15,088.50 Legal Compliance: This report and the attached list are submitted in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.3 161 14.3
Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: It is recommended that the payments made for the month of April 2012 be confirmed. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Skinner That Council, pursuant to Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (as amended), confirm; 1. The List of Accounts Paid for the period 1 April 2012 to 30 April 2012. 2. Direct lodgement of payroll payments to the personal bank accounts of
employees; 3. Deposits and withdrawal, of investments to and from accounts in the name of
the Local Government. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
14.4
Fe14.4 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommAct 1995 and Char Cou
Cha As th
item TABLED Nil BACKGRCouncillorCharges Year. At2012-201Annual BCharges. and Charproposed and repla2012-201 DETAILSA detailedOfficers, i
a) Theb) Thec) The
pro The propo
Meeting of
ees and C
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –(as amen
rges, as atncillors recrges to havhe 2012-20 (this item)
ITEMS:
ROUND: rs, at a r(as prepart the same3 Annual Budget is n A period
rges wouldFees and
ace the cur3 Financia
: d analysisn reviewine cost to pe importane price atovider.
osed Sche
f Council M
Charges
ADYe 30 N C
er: N Cnt: Abry: – That Co
nded), amettached incently indive effect fr013 Annua) is require
recent Cored by Offe workshoBudget wonormally th
of one mod not be d Charges rrent Fees
al Year.
s has beeng the appli
provide the nce of the st which th
dule of Fe
Minutes
– Effecti
DM0058 s
May 2012Cain Cain solute Maj
ouncil, purend the c
n the appecated a drom 1 July al Budget wed to exped
uncil Worficers) propop Councilould not ocche mechanonth wouldin effect. for the 20 and Char
n conducteicable Feeservice or
service or ghe service
es and Ch
162
ive from
2
ority
rsuant to Scurrent Feendices, efesire to h2012.
will not be dite this req
rkshop, acposed to bllors also cur until th
nism by whd therefore This Item
012-2013 Frges with t
ed on thees and Char good; goods to th
e or goods
harges are
1 July 2
Section 6es and Chffective froave the pr
adopted uquest.
cknowledgebe in effecacknowled
he end of Jhich Counoccur whe
m allows fFinancial Ythe propos
e Fees andarges, have
he commus could b
included in
012
.16 of the harges anom 1 July roposed 2
until 31 Jul
ed a Schct for the 2dged that July 2012. cil sets anere the neor the tim
Year and wsed Fees a
d Chargese taken into
nity; and e provided
n the appe
12 J
Local Gond impose
2012. 2012-2013
ly 2012, a
edule of 2012-2013the adopt The adop
nd adopts ew Schedumely adoptwill, in effeand Charg
s levied byo consider
d by an
endices.
June 2012
14.4
overnmente the Fees
Fees and
subsidiary
Fees and3 Financialtion of theption of the
Fees andle of Feesion of the
ect, amendges for the
y Council.ration –
alternative
2
4
t s
d
y
d l
e e d s e d e
.
e
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.4 163 14.4
Legal Compliance: Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) (Imposition of Fees and Charges) states –
(1) A local government may impose* and recover a fee or charge for any goods or service it provides or proposes to provide, other than a service for which a service charge is imposed. * Absolute majority required. (2) A fee or charge may be imposed for the following —
(a) providing the use of, or allowing admission to, any property or facility wholly or partly owned, controlled, managed or maintained by the local government; (b) supplying a service or carrying out work at the request of a person; (c) subject to section 5.94, providing information from local government records; (d) receiving an application for approval, granting an approval, making an inspection and issuing a licence, permit, authorisation or certificate; (e) supplying goods; (f) such other service as may be prescribed.
(3) Fees and charges are to be imposed when adopting the annual budget but may be —
(a) imposed* during a financial year; and (b) amended* from time to time during a financial year.
* Absolute majority required. Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The Town of Victoria Park - Strategic Plan 2004-2013 has, as a strategy under the Good Governance Key Result Area, the need to provide and manage organisational resources and assets. This Item is seen to support this strategy by implementing Fees and Charges designed to ensure sound financial management over Council’s resources. Financial Implications: Fees and Charges encompass approximately 19% of the Operating Funds required to operate Council activities. Due to the fact that the Fees and Charges are, in effect, being set outside the normal process (of adoption via the Annual Budget (which will also need to occur), a period of local public notice is required. This will have a minor cost and two week timeframe associated with it. At the end of that period the amended / new Fees and Charges will apply.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.4 164 14.4
Sustainability Assessment: The Fees and Charges have been amended so as to consider the cost impact of providing those goods and services. This extends across the economic, social, cultural and environment assessment areas. COMMENT AND CONCLUSION Councillor’s request for a timely adoption of Fees and Charges can be met through the application of Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended). The Schedule of Fees and Charges (as proposed) have taken into consideration all requirements as set forth by legislation, are considered fair and reasonable, and will assist in the continued delivery and operation of Council services and activities. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Ashton That Council, pursuant to Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended), amend the current Fees and Charges and impose the Fees and Charges, as attached in the appendices, effective from 1 July 2012. The Motion was Put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
14.5
Bu14.5 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommcommuniJune 201
Theas
Thethe
TABLED Nil BACKGR The CounLife Workhas been Ms DanieGroup MeWorking G DETAILSIn order fthe residerepresentCouncil al With the awill includ Legal CoNil Policy ImNil
Meeting of
usiness L
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation:ity repres2 until thee current mthere are ce recomme
e Working G
ITEMS
ROUND:
ncil at its 1king Groupfilled.
elle Norrisheeting by Group.
: for the Busents of the ation on tllow the ap
appointmee three (3)
mpliance:
mplications
f Council M
Life Wor
ADNo 29 K.
er: N. nt: Simry: That Couentatives e 19 Octobmembershcurrently 4ended appGroup.
3 Decembp to include
h and Ms invitation
siness LifeTown of Vhe Workin
ppointment
ent of Ms N) communi
:
s:
Minutes
king Gro
DM083
May 2012Bel-BachirCain
mple Major
uncil appoon the Bu
ber 2013.ip of the B
4 positions plicants will
ber Ordinae 5 comm
Pat Luptoand have
e Working Victoria Parng Group. t of five (5)
Norrish anty represe
165
oup - Mem
2 r
rity
oints Ms Dusiness Li
Business Livacant. l offer a we
ry Councilmunity repre
on attendee both sinc
Group to rk there muThe Term
) communi
nd Ms Luptntatives, tw
mbershi
Danielle Noife Workin
ife Working
ealth of bu
Meeting hesentative
ed the 13 ce express
represent ust be an a
ms of Refety member
ton to the wo position
p
orrish andng Group f
g Group is
siness skil
have estabs. To dat
March Bused an int
the intereappropriate
erence thatrs as repre
Business ns currently
12 J
d Ms Pat Lfor the pe
s not fully s
lls and exp
blished thete, only on
siness Lifeterest in j
ests and coe level of ct were en
esentatives
Life Worky remain v
June 2012
14.5
Lupton aseriod of 13
subscribed
perience to
e Businessne position
e Workingoining the
oncerns ofcommunitydorsed by
s.
king Groupvacant.
2
5
s 3
d
o
s n
g e
f y y
p
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.5 166 14.5
Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Representation from the community will increase the diversity of representation on the Business Life Working Group. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: Ms Danielle Norrish is a local resident currently employed by the Communications Council of Australia. Her background and experience in Marketing and Communications as well as her passion for the community will be an asset to the Business Life Working Group. Ms Pat Lupton is co-owner of Booksabilia, a local business located in Carlisle. Ms Lupton has an in depth knowledge of the local area as well excellent business skills, her insights as a small business owner will be invaluable to the Business Life Working Group. CONCLUSION: Both Ms Danielle Norrish and Ms Pat Lupton will be welcome additions to the Business Life Working Group as community representatives due to their professional skills and business experience. WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION/S: Moved: Councillor Ashton Seconded: Councillor Potter That Council appoints Ms Danielle Norrish and Ms Pat Lupton as community representatives on the Business Life Working Group for the period of 13 June 2012 until the 19 October 2013.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
14.5 167 14.5
AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Ashton Seconded: Councillor Potter To delete Ms Pat Lupton as a representative on the Business Life Working Group. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter Reason: she no longer can be a Community Representative. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: That Council appoints Ms Danielle Norrish as a community representative on the Business Life Working Group for the period of 13 June 2012 until the 19 October 2013. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
15 AP
Co15.120
Moved: That Cr J2012 incl The Motio In favour oCr Potter
Mi15.2Co
The Counrepresent
“ApOctappapp
Cr Bissett27 July 2period, happointingapproved RESOLVE Moved: The CouRegional absence The Motio In favour oCr Potter
Meeting of
PPLICAT
ouncillor12, inclu
Councill
J (John) Busive.
on was Pu
of the Motio
ndarie ouncillor
ncil at itsative on th
ppoints Cr tober 2013 pointment opointed (prim
t has appl2012 inclusowever, ig Cr Hayeby the Co
ED:
Councill
uncil appoCouncil f
subject to
on was Pu
of the Motio
f Council M
IONS FO
r J (Johnusive
or Nairn
Bissett be
ut and
on: Mayor V
Regionar Bissett’
Special he Mindarie
Bissett to and Cr Ha
of the Deputmary) mem
ied for appsive. Thern case a
es as the uncil.
or Bissett
oints Cr from 23 Jo it being a
ut and
on: Mayor V
Minutes
OR LEAV
n) Bisset
granted
Vaughan; C
al Councs Leave
Meeting he Regional
represent tyes as the ty needs to
mber is not a
proved Leare are no Special Deputy M
t
Hayes asuly 2012 tapproved
Vaughan; C
168
VE OF AB
tt Banksi
leave of a
Cr Bissett; C
cil – Aof Abse
held on 1l Council (M
the Town Deputy Mebe by Cou
available;”
ave of AbsscheduledMeeting iember for
s it Deputo the 27 Jby the Co
Cr Bissett; C
BSENCE
ia Ward,
Secon
absence f
Cr Ashton;
Appointmnce
7 OctobeMRC) reso
on the Minember until ncil resoluti
sence for td meetingsis called r the term
Secon
uty RepreJuly 2012ouncil at It
Cr Ashton;
23 July
ded: Co
rom 23 Ju
Cr Hayes;
ment of
r 2011 wolved as fol
ndarie Regi19 Octoberion for the s
the period s of the Mthe Counthat Cr B
ded: Co
esentativeduring C
tem 15.1 a
Cr Hayes;
12 J
y 2012 to
ouncillor S
uly 2012 t
CARR
Cr Skinner
Deputy
when consllows:
ional Counr 2013, notispecific per
23 July 2MRC during
cil shouldBissett is o
ouncillor S
e on the r Bissett’s
above.
CARR
Cr Skinner
June 2012
o 27 July
Skinner
to 27 July
RIED: (7-0)
r; Cr Nairn;
during
idering its
ncil until 19ing that theriod that the
012 to theg this timed consideron leave if
Skinner
Mindaries leave of
RIED: (7-0)
r; Cr Nairn;
2
y
y
)
;
g
s
9 e e
e e r f
e f
)
;
Ordinary M
16 MO
Cr16.1 “That thetable so t2012, and RESOLVE Moved: That itemTown of V The Motio
In favour oCr Potter
No16.2CoRe
File ReferAppendicDate: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommadvertise1997. Sect
propgove
Couprop
AdmapprBurs
TABLED Letter Letter Drawin
Compl
Meeting of
OTION O
r Hayes w
e matter othat it cand at the su
ED:
Councill
m 16.2 be “Victoria P
on was Pu
of the Motio
otice of omplex eserve
rence: ces:
g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation
ed in acco
tion 58 ofposal be adernment. ncil to con
posed roadministration roved by Cswood Pen
ITEMS: dated 6 Odated 30 A
ng A1.04Alex.
f Council M
OF WHICH
will be M
of Burswon be reconubsequent
or Hayes
“lifted fromark Local
ut and
on: Mayor V
Motion-Car Par
TENo24 T. M
er: A. Vnt: Simry: – That t
ordance w
f the Landdvertised a
nsider, at d closure m
has conceCabinet pr
ninsula Pre
ctober 201April 2012
A of reques
Minutes
H PREVI
oving a
ood Entertnsidered at Ordinary
m the tableLaw relat
Vaughan; C
- Reconrk and
S0273 . May 2012McCarthy /Vuleta / R mple Major
the propowith the
d Adminisand 35 day
a future Omade duringerns that thrior to fina
ecinct.
11 from Bufrom the H
sted road c
169
OUS NO
Notice o
tainment at the Elecy Meeting
e” in accoting to Sta
Cr Bissett; C
sideratioRequest
2 / R CruicksLavery rity
osal to crequireme
tration Acys allowed
Ordinary Mg the 35 dahe construalisation o
urswood EnHon Ministeclosure are
OTICE HA
of Motion
Complex cted Membof Counci
Secon
ordance wanding Ord
Cr Ashton;
on of Bt to Clo
shank
close Gleents of th
ct 1997 re for submi
Meeting, anay submissction of thef the Mas
ntertainmeer for Raciea provide
AS BEEN
car park bers Briefiil 12 June
ded: Co
with Sectioders.
Cr Hayes;
urswoodose Gle
nn Placehe Land A
quires thassions to b
ny submisssion periode multi-levesterplan/Str
nt Compleng and Ga
ed by Burs
12 J
N GIVEN
be raiseding Sessio2012”.
ouncillor S
on 12.7 (3)
CARR
Cr Skinner
d Entertnn Plac
e road reAdministr
at any roabe made to
sions relatd. el car parkructure Pla
ex. aming. swood Ente
June 2012
from theon 5 June
Skinner
of the
RIED: (7-0)
r; Cr Nairn;
tainmentce Road
eserve beration Act
ad closureo the local
ting to the
k has beenan for the
ertainment
2
e e
)
;
t d
e t
e l
e
n e
t
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
16.2 170 16.2
BACKGROUND: At the Ordinary Meeting held 8 November 2011, Council resolved that the motion relating to a request for closure of Glenn Place road reserve lay on the Table, with the stated reason for leaving the motion on the Table being that Council was awaiting the results of discussion between the Burswood Entertainment Complex (BEC) and the State Government. Written advice, dated 30 April 2012, has been received from the Hon Minister for Racing and Gaming that State Cabinet has approved:
the excision of 12,472m² of land from the Burswood Park Reserve 39361 and for that land to be granted to Burswood Nominees Ltd;
a multi- level car park to be constructed in such land; and new roads to be created and existing roads realigned (including related
infrastructure). The Hon Minister for Racing and Gaming has indicated that he has advised the Town of Cabinet’s approval of the proposal in order that the Town can progress with the various applications (such as road closures, building licences etc) necessary to commence the project. BEC submitted to the Town, on 7 September 2011, a building licence application to commence forward works for a proposed multi-storey car park to be located on the southern side of the complex, straddling the Glenn Place road reserve. The proposed multi-storey car park is to be located partially within the area defined as the “Resort Lands” in the Casino (Burswood Island) Agreement Act 1985. Developments within the “Resort Lands” do not require normal Planning Approval, as they are exempt under the aforementioned Act. The road reserve known as Glenn Place is not within the area defined as “Resort Lands”, and as the proposed structure is to be located over the Glenn Place road reserve which is reserved “Parks and Recreation” under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, Planning Approval will be required from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). BEC was advised by the Town that as the proposed multi-storey car park is located over the road reserve, a formal application to Council to consider closure of the road reserve is required to enable Council to determine whether it is appropriate to request the Minister for Lands to close the road. BEC lodged, by letter dated 6 October 2011, a formal request for Council to consider closure of the Glenn Place road reserve. That request was presented to Council at its Ordinary Meeting held 8 November 2011, and the matter was left to lay on the Table. DETAILS: The proposed multi-storey car park is to be located partially on Crown land under the management of the Burswood Park Board (part of Kagoshima Park) and partially on Glenn Place road reserve. The structure is proposed to accommodate 1004 car bays. The height of the structure has not been specified, but drawings supplied appear to indicate that it will be 3 storeys high and additionally have a basement level. Artistic impressions previously provided by representatives of BEC to Council Officers indicate that the façade of the car park will incorporate design treatments and articulation to provide some visual interest,
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
16.2 171 16.2
however the façade will not be activated. Associated modifications will also be made to the existing at grade car park adjacent to Glenn Place. BEC proposes to purchase land from the Crown, close Glenn Place and create a new road reserve on the southern side of the proposed car park to replace the Glenn Place road reserve. The Town was not involved in any of the negotiation between BEC and the Minister for Sport and Recreation; Racing and Gaming in respect to the proposal. Legal Compliance: Council can, if it chooses to do so, request the Minister for Lands to close a road reserve under Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. Section 58 of the Act states: 58. Closure of roads
(1) When a local government wishes a road in its district to be closed permanently, the local government may, subject to subsection (3), request the Minister to close the road.
(2) When a local government resolves to make a request under subsection (1), the local government must in accordance with the regulations prepare and deliver the request to the Minister.
(3) A local government must not resolve to make a request under subsection (1) until a period of 35 days has elapsed from the publication in a newspaper circulating in its district of notice of motion for that resolution, and the local government has considered any objections made to it within that period concerning the proposals set out in that notice.
(4) On receiving a request delivered to him or her under subsection (2), the Minister may, if he or she is satisfied that the relevant local government has complied with the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) — (a) by order grant the request; (b) direct the relevant local government to reconsider the request,
having regard to such matters as he or she thinks fit to mention in that direction; or
(c) refuse the request. (5) If the Minister grants a request under subsection (4) —
(a) the road concerned is closed on and from the day on which the relevant order is registered; and
(b) any rights suspended under section 55(3)(a) cease to be so suspended.
Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The proposal to relocate the road and construct the car park at the location proposed is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework which contained the following relevant statement -
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
16.2 172 16.2
“A new local road link on the southern side of Burswood Entertainment Complex extending from the Swan River in the west to the Burswood station east area via a proposed subway, provides the opportunity to replace the existing casino ‘back of house’ activities with an active public frontage to Great Eastern Highway. The new buildings adjacent to the casino would be multi storey carparks sleeved with commercial frontage.” It should be noted that the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework was advertised and supported by the WAPC, and although not having been approved by Cabinet owing to the intervening announcement of a new sports stadium at Burswood, is a seriously entertained planning proposal in the absence of any other strategic document. Additionally, it is not yet known whether the proposal will be in accordance with the Burswood Station West Masterplan, which has not yet been prepared by the Department of Planning. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Closure of a road reserve and creation of a new road reserve will impact on the Town’s ongoing operational responsibility for roads under the Town’s care, control and management. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: The proposed car park structure would cause a reduction in parkland area available for general public use. The reduced area of available parkland is currently Crown land under the management of the Burswood Park Board. COMMENT: BEC has applied for a building licence for approval to commence forward works for the proposed car park within the road reserve. It is not appropriate for such approval to be issued prior to Council consideration of a request for closure of the road reserve, and no approval has therefore been issued. In addition, as part of the works are contained on land for which the planning approval of the WAPC is required, it would be appropriate that a decision on the road closure request first be made, and if approved, then be followed by an application for planning approval.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
16.2 173 16.2
The process for closure of road reserves is detailed in Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. The Land Administration Act 1997 does not set out any alternate procedure whereby road reserves can be closed. It may be possible, however, that if Council does not agree to consider the proposed closure, the Minister for Lands could, as the controller of Crown land, close the subject road reserve without reference to Council. The Director Future Life and Built Life Programs has been in contact with the Department of Planning in regard to the proposed road closure and car park. The Department of Planning considers that the proposal to relocate Glenn Place road reserve and construct the proposed car park is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework and should not be supported until such time as the future direction for the area is determined through the Masterplan/Structure Plan process. This is in keeping with the view expressed by the Minister for Planning to the Town in respect to an application by EG Custodians for review of Council’s refusal of a variation to the Burswood Lakes Structure Plan pertaining to Lots 9 and 9525 Victoria Park Drive, Burswood, which was also affected by the future Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula, where the Minister indicated that the development under review should not proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed. The following provisions contained in the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Precinct Plan P1 ‘Burswood Peninsula Precinct’ which apply to the BEC are also of relevance -
“Any further expansion of the Complex into existing parkland will not be supported.”
“Use of parkland for Burswood Resort parking on a permanent basis will not be supported. Any additional parking or access to the Resort should be accommodated on-site and not encroach into existing parkland.”
As Cabinet has approved the proposal to build the multi-level car park and the Minister has advised the Town of that approval in order that the road closure may be progressed, it is recommended that Council agree to advertise the proposed road closure in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and consider any submissions received within the specified 35 days after advertisement of the proposal. It is also recommended that Council advise the Minister of its concerns in relation to the proposed multi-level car park, those concerns being: The proposal to construct a multi-storey car park at the nominated location is
inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework. It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the
Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed. It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the
Burswood Station West Masterplan, which is being prepared by the Department of Planning, being completed.
The proposal is inconsistent with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Precinct Plan P1 ‘Burswood Peninsula Precinct’ which states “Any further expansion of the Complex into existing parkland will not be supported” and “Use of parkland for Burswood Resort parking on a permanent basis will not be supported. Any additional parking or access to the Resort should be accommodated on-site and not encroach into existing parkland.”
Approval of the proposed multi-level car park prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed is contrary to the view expressed by the Minister for Planning to the Town in respect to an application by EG Custodians for review of
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
16.2 174 16.2
Council’s refusal of a variation to the Burswood Lakes Structure Plan pertaining to Lots 9 and 9525 Victoria Park Drive, Burswood, which was also affected by the future Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula, where the Minister indicated that the development under review should not proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed.
BEC has not provided a traffic impact assessment for the design and operation of the proposed road layout. The proposed new alignment of Glenn Place appears to have been selected on no basis other than skirting around the new multi-level car park. Little consideration appears to have been given to the efficient movement of traffic in the proposed road layout, and there are several points of potential traffic conflict contained in the layout provided.
CONCLUSION: In acknowledgement of State Cabinet’s approval of the proposed multi-storey car park located partially over Glenn Place road reserve, the proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve be advertised in accordance with the requirements of Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Bissett 1. The proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve, as depicted on drawing A1.04A
provided by Burswood Entertainment Centre, be advertised at the applicant’s cost, in accordance with the requirements of Section 58(3) of the Land Administration Act 1997 and a further report be presented to Council for consideration after the expiry of the period specified for the lodgement of objections.
2. The Hon Minister for Racing and Gaming and the Hon Minister for Planning be
advised of Council’s resolution in respect to the advertising of the proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve, and they also be advised of Council’s concerns in relation to the proposed multi-level car park, those concerns being:
2.1 The proposal to construct a multi-storey car park at the nominated location
is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework. 2.2 It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the
Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed. 2.3 It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the
Burswood Station West Masterplan, which is being prepared by the Department of Planning, being completed.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
16.2 175 16.2
2.4 The proposal is inconsistent with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Precinct Plan P1 ‘Burswood Peninsula Precinct’ which states “Any further expansion of the Complex into existing parkland will not be supported” and “Use of parkland for Burswood Resort parking on a permanent basis will not be supported. Any additional parking or access to the Resort should be accommodated on-site and not encroach into existing parkland.”
2.5 Approval of the proposed multi-level car park prior to the
Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed is contrary to the view expressed by the Minister for Planning to the Town in respect to an application by EG Custodians for review of Council’s refusal of a variation to the Burswood Lakes Structure Plan pertaining to Lots 9 and 9525 Victoria Park Drive, Burswood, which was also affected by the future Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula, where the Minister indicated that the development under review should not proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed.
2.6 Burswood Entertainment Complex has not provided a traffic impact
assessment for the design and operation of the proposed road layout. The proposed new alignment of Glenn Place appears to have been selected on no basis other than skirting around the new multi-level car park. Little consideration appears to have been given to the efficient movement of traffic in the proposed road layout, and there are several points of potential traffic conflict contained in the layout provided.
AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Bissett Seconded: Councillor Skinner That a recommendation No 3 be added to read that, “the report be forwarded to the local Victoria Park Members of Parliament”. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter Reason: for their information. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: 1. The proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve, as depicted on drawing A1.04A
provided by Burswood Entertainment Centre, be advertised at the applicant’s cost, in accordance with the requirements of Section 58(3) of the Land Administration Act 1997 and a further report be presented to Council for consideration after the expiry of the period specified for the lodgement of objections.
Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012
16.2 176 16.2
2. The Hon Minister for Racing and Gaming and the Hon Minister for Planning be
advised of Council’s resolution in respect to the advertising of the proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve, and they also be advised of Council’s concerns in relation to the proposed multi-level car park, those concerns being:
2.1 The proposal to construct a multi-storey car park at the nominated location
is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework. 2.2 It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the
Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed. 2.3 It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the
Burswood Station West Masterplan, which is being prepared by the Department of Planning, being completed.
2.4 The proposal is inconsistent with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning
Scheme No. 1 Precinct Plan P1 ‘Burswood Peninsula Precinct’ which states “Any further expansion of the Complex into existing parkland will not be supported” and “Use of parkland for Burswood Resort parking on a permanent basis will not be supported. Any additional parking or access to the Resort should be accommodated on-site and not encroach into existing parkland.”
2.5 Approval of the proposed multi-level car park prior to the
Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed is contrary to the view expressed by the Minister for Planning to the Town in respect to an application by EG Custodians for review of Council’s refusal of a variation to the Burswood Lakes Structure Plan pertaining to Lots 9 and 9525 Victoria Park Drive, Burswood, which was also affected by the future Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula, where the Minister indicated that the development under review should not proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed.
2.6 Burswood Entertainment Complex has not provided a traffic impact
assessment for the design and operation of the proposed road layout. The proposed new alignment of Glenn Place appears to have been selected on no basis other than skirting around the new multi-level car park. Little consideration appears to have been given to the efficient movement of traffic in the proposed road layout, and there are several points of potential traffic conflict contained in the layout provided.
3. The report be forwarded to the local Victoria Park Members of Parliament. The Amended Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter
Ordinary M
16.2
Meeting off Council MMinutes
177
12 JJune 2012
16.2
2
2
178
17 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS WITHOUT NOTICE Question 1 Cr Nairn asked if Renew Life Program Staff can deal with the asphalt quality issue on some recently maintained roads? Answer Mr Anthony Vuleta advised that nothing can be done at the moment untill the next financial year’s budget and that currently all roads are undergoing a condition audit. Question 2 Cr Nairn asked that local member Mr Ben Wyatt MLA would like Albany Highway to be closed once a month, can Council advise as to the status of this request? Answer Ms Nicole Annson advised that no consultation has taken place with Community Life at this stage. Question 3 Cr Ashton asked who is going to fund and organise the event Mr Ben Wyatt MLA is proposing? Answer Mayor Vaughan advised that it will be on the decision from Council as to whether or not this should occur, and will need to clarify if there is enough funds in the budget. 18 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE Nil 19 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Mr David Crann, 443 Albany Highway, Victoria Park WA 6100 Has the 2015 ANZAC Day Ceremony Project Team actually been disbanded? Answer The Mayor advised that appropriate representation will be needed to attend the Cultural and History Working Group. Mr Peter Lessiter, 40 Oats Street, East Victoria Park WA 6100 Mr Lessiter asked what is the definition now of Light Rail? Answer The Acting Chief Executive Officer Mr Anthony Vuleta advised that the current definition of Light Rail is light rail transit (LRT) is a form of urban rail public transportation that generally has a lower capacity and lower speed than heavy rail and metro systems, it can be from 20-30m long, smaller than a train but bigger than a tram, higher capacity and higher speed than traditional or older style tram systems.
Ordinary M
20 PU Mr Sonja Wanted tresearch a 21 ME
Ma21.1 Nil
Pu21.2 Nil 22 CL There bei I confirm Council. Signed: … Dated this
Meeting of
UBLIC ST
Fels, 78 Pto acknowand listen
EETING C
atters for
ublic Rea
LOSURE
ng no furth
these Mi
……………
s …………
f Council M
TATEMEN
Planet Streewledge and
to complai
CLOSED
r Which t
ading of
her busines
nutes to b
………………
……………
Minutes
NT TIME
et, Carlisled commenints and th
D TO PUB
the Meet
Resoluti
ss the May
be a true
……………
……………
179
e WA 610nd Councieir hard wo
BLIC
ting May
ons Tha
yor declare
and accu
………………
…. Day of
0 llors on thork.
y be Clos
at May be
ed the mee
urate recor
……………
……………
heir time
sed
e Made P
eting closed
rd of the
………………
……………
12 J
and effort
Public
d at 7.55p
proceedin
……………
……………
June 2012
t spent to
m.
gs of this
….. Mayor
…… 2012
2
o
s
r
2