meeting of council - town of cambridge...and alterations to existing dwelling (rear garage and...

Council Minutes

26 MARCH 2013

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 26 MARCH 2013

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\13 MINUTES\March 2013\A Council Front.docx i

MEETING OF COUNCIL

26 MARCH 2013 INDEX OF MINUTES

1. Opening ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Attendance ...................................................................................................................... 1 3. Public Question Time...................................................................................................... 2 4. Petitions ......................................................................................................................... 15 5. Deputations ................................................................................................................... 15 6. Applications for Leave of Absence .............................................................................. 16 7. Confirmation of Minutes ............................................................................................... 16 8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion .................................................... 16 9. Committee Reports ....................................................................................................... 16

Development Committee 17

DV13.24 Lot 116 (No. 4) Dupont Avenue, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling With Undercroft Garage 19

DV13.25 Lot 915 (No. 16) North Banff Road, Floreat - Single Storey Dwelling and Shed 24

DV13.26 Lot 65 (No. 21) Winmarley Street, Floreat - Single Storey Dwelling 27 DV13.27 Lot 2 (No. 41A) Simper Street, Wembley - Single Storey Dwelling 31 DV13.28 Lot 809 (No. 1) Turriff Road Cnr Pearson Place, Floreat - Two Storey

Addition and Alterations to Existing Dwelling 34 DV13.29 Lot 69 (No.32) Hovea Crescent, City Beach - Second Storey Addition

and Alterations including New Undercroft Garage to Existing Dwelling 37 DV13.30 Lot 1 (No. 2A) Reserve Street, Wembley - Second Storey Addition

and Alterations to Grouped Dwelling 42 DV13.31 Lot 55 (No. 86a) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Additions

and Alterations to Existing Dwelling (Rear Garage and Alfresco Kitchen) 46

DV13.32 Lot 80 (No. 15) Frinton Avenue, City Beach - Additions and Alterations - Garage, Decking, Bedroom Conversion to Study 50

DV13.33 Lot 270 (No 152) Jersey Street and Part Lot 1000 (No 322-326) Cambridge Street - Scheme Amendment from 'Residential R20' to 'Local Centre' 54

DV13.34 190 Cambridge Street -Temporary Suspension of Parking Restrictions in Elverd Lane and Station Street for Construction Management 58

DV13.35 Proposed Parking Restrictions - Wembley Community Centre 62 DV13.36 Authorisation of Officers - Development and Sustainability 65 DV13.37 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for February 2013 67 DV13.38 Building Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority 69


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\13 MINUTES\March 2013\A Council Front.docx ii

Community and Resources Committee 70 CR13.15 Ecozone Implementation Program 74 CR13.16 City Beach BioLINC Project - Community Comment 83 CR13.17 Challenger Park Ecozone Trial 101 CR13.18 Administration and Civic Centre Air Conditioning System

Replacement 105 CR13.19 Bus Shelter Management Program 115 CR13.20 Parking Issues - McKenzie Street, Alexander Street 120 CR13.21 Kerbside Parking Restrictions - Minor Amendments Cambridge Street 124 CR13.22 Oban Road - Traffic Management Proposal 127 CR13.23 Community Sporting Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) - Small

Grant Applications 2013/2014 130 CR13.24 Alderbury Reserve Change Rooms/Men's Shed - Feasibility Study 135 CR13.25 State Netball Centre - Design Approval 139 CR13.26 Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development - Preferred Building

Layout 144 CR13.27 Documents Sealed - March 2013 147 CR13.28 Review of Legislation: Tamala Park Land Transfer Act 2001 and

Ocean Gardens (Inc) Act 2004 150 CR13.29 Payment of Accounts - February 2013 153 CR13.30 Investment Schedule - February 2013 155 CR13.31 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - February

2013 160 CR13.32 Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting - February 2013 165 CR13.33 Underground Power Program - Results form a Survey of Property

Owners 171 Audit Committee AU13.1 Internal Audit - Compliance Return, Cash Verification and Completed Audits

Review 181 AU13.2 Provision of External Audit Services 185

10. Council Reports 189

10.1 Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach - Review of Surf Club and Leased Space 189

11. Urgent Business 189

11.1 Metropolitan Local Government Review - Potential Local Government Boundaries 197

12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given 189

12.1 Cr Bradley - Birkdale Street Commercial Centre 204

13. Confidential Reports 204

14. Closure 204

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\13 MINUTES\March 2013\A Council Front.docx 1

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 26 MARCH 2013. 1. OPENING The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.02 pm. 2. ATTENDANCE Present:

Mayor: Simon Withers Councillors: Rod Bradley Louis Carr Sonia Grinceri Tracey King Alan Langer Corinne MacRae Otto Pelczar

Colin Walker Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Brett Jackson, Director Projects Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Steven Rodic, Manager Development Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance and Contracts Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) Catherine Celenza, Personal Assistant

Apologies: Nil Leave of Absence: Nil Adjournments: Nil



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME WRITTEN QUESTIONS Peter Dawson, 2 Branksome Gardens, City Beach

Question 1 Why do not the Minutes of the Special Electors Meeting held on 5 March 2013 concerning BioLINC provide sufficient information as to allow someone not attending the meeting to understand what took place at that meeting? For Example, no details are recorded regarding details of Duane Cole's presentation, nor reference to Dr Mitchell Ladyman's Feasibility Assessment that was widely circulated to all attendees. Response Council does not record verbatim minutes. It is only a requirement Council considers any decision from Special Electors Meetings as that is the most relevant part of the record, however the Town has recorded a brief sequence of events and names of persons who spoke. Question 2 Regarding Item CR13.16, what guarantees can the Town of Cambridge provide to ensure that with regard to the original BioLINC proposal that….(g) any proposal to close Challenger Parade to traffic not be supported and will be subject to a traffic and parking study for the Surf Club and commercial facilities development at City Beach…….will not proceed if the Town is absorbed into a much larger local government which appears highly likely. Response It is proposed in the recommendation tonight that Challenger Parade be not closed. However the Town cannot commit a future Council to make an alternate decision. Question 3 Regarding Items CR13.16 and CR13.17, given that it will take a number of years before trial native planting results can be obtained, could the clear possibility of the BioLINC proposal being a failure occur and therefore a complete waste of federal funding if it were approved? Response It is not expected to be a failure if the proposal proceeds and meets grant guidelines. Question 4 As you would be aware the Biodiversity Fund Round Two 2013-2014 grant application guidelines on page 6 states "applicants need to declare in writing to the department any actual, apparent or potential existing conflicts of interest which exists or might arise in relation to their application. At no time, did the property owner at 19 Jubillee Crescent declare a pecuniary or conflict of interest. Is the Council proposing to advise the



Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities in writing of this interest? Response As Coastcare are making the grant application it is expected they would comply with all grant guidelines. Question 5 What information was given to sporting groups and other stakeholders to enable them to provide meaningful comment on the proposal currently before Council? Response The information is as detailed in report CR13.16 and the report attachment. This includes the questionnaire and survey pack which were distributed in November 2012. Warren Dean, 2 Marapana Road, City Beach Question 1 According to Council document CR12.138 Coastcare have estimated development costs of between $1.5m and $2.m, but intend to apply for funding from the Federal government of $2.5m. How is the discrepancy explained? Response All estimates are provided by Coastcare. They are expected to obtain more accurate estimates when submitting the grant in the accordance with grant guidelines. Question 2 Has Council been provided with a detailed cost estimate for the project. If this is not the case then why is it considering a recommendation to proceed without a proper assessment costing? Response No. It is part of the application process. Question 3 Does Council have in its records a detailed cost estimate of the project? Response No. Question 4 Is Council aware of any member of Coastcare who will be paid a management fee, consultancy fee, or receive any other form of remuneration, for any duty associated with the BioLINC project?



Response No. Question 5 Council has stated that it does not have the resources to manage the BioLINC project, therefore will any Coastcare members be paid for the management of the BioLINC project? If so, does Council know who will provide oversight in respect to the management and payment of funds to ensure taxpayer money is fully accounted for? Response All grant monies will be paid to Coastcare who will be accountable under the program guidelines for all expenditure. Question 6 CR12.138 August 2012 requires Coastcare to "demonstrate community support" for the BioLINC project. Therefore: (1) In what submission to Council has Coastcare demonstrated community support for the BioLINC project? (2) Will Council provide a copy of the "demonstrated support" to members of the Save Jubilee Park Committee? Response This information is included within the report attachment to CR13.16 via the Creating Communities report summarising public consultation submissions. Steve Apedaile, 1 Jubilee Crescent, City Beach Re: CR13.15 - Ecozone Implementation Program Question 1 On page 3 (top) reference is made to the physical and health benefits to a community of “greenness”, being defined as the amount of grass and trees and that care should be taken to ensure adequate turf areas remain for public recreation. Has the Council considered this when determining that the City Beach Biolinc proposal will be beneficial to the community despite the planned removal of such greenness? Response Yes. Council is considering removing only up to 20% of existing green space and retaining the active area of Jubilee Park.

Question 2 In the Ecozone Development Strategy it is stated (page 3) “In relation to public open space, it is important not to remove areas of turf currently used or have the potential to be used for public recreation“. So why is the council considering approving the City Beach Biolinc proposal which includes the removal of such areas from Jubilee Park.



Response The vegetated area being considered by Council contains only up to 20% of the area which is predominantly road verge on Challenger Parade and Oceanic Drive. Question 3 The main driver for Ecozones is the saving of water. It is noted, last paragraph of page 5, that turning off the irrigation will result in higher plant mortality but it is stated that “this can be managed by increasing planting programs“. However will not these new plantings require irrigation and therefore how can the irrigation then to be turned off as is the plan after the first 2 to 3 years? Response It is expected plant mortality occurs mostly in years 1 and 2. Any plants planted after 3 years will have to survive without irrigation. Question 4 Why is Jubilee Park being included on the Ecozone program when on page 7 of the Agenda papers it is stated “turf areas considered for Ecozoning have to be carefully assessed so as not to remove areas of turf currently used for public relaxation. Response Jubilee Park is just one of many parks being considered for Ecozoning opportunities within the Town of Cambridge. Re: CR13.16 - City Beach BioLINC Project - Community Comment Question 5 Why is this project still referred to as a Biolinc project when there is under the revised proposal no longer any links since Challenger Parade, Jubilee Crescent and Oceanic Drive cut through the various areas of native plantings that are proposed? Response That is the description used by Coastcare. Question 6 Is the Federal Government funding that is apparently available for City Beach Biolinc only available if there is a Bio Link and perhaps not available if the scope is of a native garden and has the relevant federal government department been informed of the change in scope and if they have been informed have they confirmed that federal funding is still available? Response Any proposal submitted must conform with grant guidelines. The funding agency will assess suitability of any project proposal.



Question 7 At the meeting on 18 March Cambridge Coastcare gave a presentation to the Committee meeting and a number of comments/statements were made. Apparently a number of overseas experts regard the City Beach Biolinc project as being a bio diversity hotspot of global significance. A. Were these experts advised of the changed scope of the proposal and its

insignificance in terms of area? B. Dr. Dixon asserted the City Beach Surf Life Saving Club have endorsed this project.

Was a poll conducted of their members to get majority membership consent to this endorsement and when in fact was this endorsement given i.e. was it last year and based on the original proposal and before the Electors meeting (which overwhelmingly rejected the Biolinc proposal) or was it recently and based on the revised proposal and after the Electors meeting?

Response A. It is unknown if any experts were advised. B. The Town is not aware of any poll undertaken by the City Beach Surf Life Saving

Club on how the club formed their opinion on the proposal. A letter of support dated 26 November 2012 has been presented by the City Beach Surf Life Saving Club.

Eric Tucker, 1 Ocean Court, City Beach Question 1 (Ref. CR12 138) It is understood Council has made a decision not to close Challenger Parade. As this severely compromises the original proposal can Council explain how a biodiversity link is now possible from the primary ocean dunes to the Challenger Eco Park? Response The proposal submitted to residents in November 2012 did not propose for Challenger Parade to be closed. It is understood this is still acceptable for a biodiversity link and still needs to satisfy funding guidelines. Question 2 (Ref. CR12 138) The original proposal by Cambridge Coastcare for the Biolinc required Challenger Parade to be closed and revegetated to form a continuous biodiversity corridor linking the northern and southern sand dunes. As this appears fundamental to the scientific benefits of the proposal is it not important to reassess the amended proposal in light of Dr Mitchell Ladyman’s report which clearly states that it is not viable? Response The Council in August 2012 did not support closure of Challenger Parade. Coastcare are satisfied with the revised plan from the August 2012 Council meeting. Coastcare do not agree with Dr Ladyman's opinion and are satisfied a 20 % plan will work.



Question 3 (ref. CR13 17) It is understood a trial project using ratepayer’s funds is to be undertaken ahead of the Biolinc project to determine whether or not the Biolinc proposal will work. Given Dr Dixon’s assertion that narrow biodiversity corridors are viable should this trial be funded as part of the Biolinc grant and not from ratepayer’s funds? Response The Ecozone Trial was not prepared for any BioLINC proposal and now needs to be integrated into any BioLINC proposal. The Ecozone Trial was considered in May 2012 and BioLINC in July/August 2012. Question 4 The community survey literature published by Cambridge Coastcare on November 16th 2012 described the Biolinc as a “Kings Park by the ocean”. Is it likely that any future plan for this area of land would result in it becoming a coastal park extension of the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority and therefore the land having to be ceded at a future time to the Commonwealth for this purpose? Response The Town is not aware of any proposal for land to be ceded to Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority (BGPA). Question 5 What study has been undertaken to estimate annual maintenance and renewal costs of the Biolinc project? If not, why is Council considering a recommendation which will commit Council to meeting significant future costs before understanding what they would be? Response Available plans are at concept phase and detailed in-situ estimates will be assessed when detailed plans are available. Question 6 Will Council be required to fund future maintenance and renewal costs of the Biolinc? Response Yes, as the Town is responsible for all of its infrastructure and can choose the level or standard to maintain to. Question 7 Dr Dixon is the Director of Science at the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority and is the key proponent of the Biolinc. Can Council assure stakeholders that if the Council were to engage an expert ecological assessment of the Biolinc and the function Jubilee Park has in this project, that it is completely independent of any peer influence in favour of the Biolinc and specifically Jubilee Park’s part therein?



Response Council is still to decide if this is required. Question 8 There is no reference in the council officer’s reports to the committee in relation to the report by Dr Mitchell Ladyman that rebukes the viability of Jubilee Park forming a biodiversity corridor in the Biolinc project? Why is the Council considering a recommendation to proceed with this proposal without a proper assessment of Dr Ladyman’s report? Response The report was circulated to Elected Members and the contents have been noted. Dom O'Callaghan, 8 Hornsey Road, Floreat Re:CR13.17 - Challenger Park Ecozone Trial Question 1 Who first proposed this Challenger Park Ecozone to the Council and when was it proposed? Was this trial proposed by representatives of Coast Care and if it was so proposed did these representatives include the owners/residents of 19 Jubilee Crescent, one of only 2 residences which front on to this proposed trial area and if yes was their personal interest in this trial disclosed to the Council ? Response Refer report CR12.58 May 2012. The detailed section of the report indicate that discussions between Manager Infrastructure Parks, City Beach resident Mr Kinglsey Dixon (Member Coastcare) and Mayor Withers had identified a proposal to undertake a Ecozone Trial. Mr Dixon is noted as being an adjacent resident. Question 2 Is this trial designed to be a trial for the Biolinc project and if yes then presumably the Biolinc project could not be committed to until after the trial period has been concluded and deemed a success a period of 2 to 3 years? Response No. It is a trial for Ecozone projects and was supported in May 2012 prior to BioLINC being presented in July/August 2012.

Question 3 Will the existing plants in the trial area that exceed 300mm in height have to be removed to make this trial representative of the Biolinc proposal in respect of Jubilee Park and if they do what would be the cost as this does not appear to be included in the $20,000 budget?



Response The works proposed are detailed in the report attachments to reports CR12.58 May 2012 and report CR13.17 March 2013. Question 4 On page 27 it is stated that the residents of the two residential properties adjacent to the trial area will be advised of the proposed works prior to implementation. This would seem to give the impression that in fact they are unaware of the proposals and presumably not involved in the original proposal. Is this a correct assumption? Response The report presented in May 2012 CR12.58 identified one resident was aware of the proposal. It is normal practice for Council to advise all adjacent property owners of proposed works. QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE FROM COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE HELD ON MONDAY 18 MARCH 2013 Gordon Swingler Questions - Taken On Notice Question 1 Our elected members have been provided with both copies of a Feasibility Assessment by Dr Mitchell Ladyman at the recent Special Electors meeting and the WALGA Planning Guidelines, section 6. Coastcare have provided not one scientific report to support their claim of an increase in biodiversity upon completion of the BioLINC project. Do council acknowledge no significant increase in biodiversity will result upon completion of the project? Response The Mayor advised that since that question was asked, Coastcare has provided a number of scientific reports to support their proposal. Question 2 Would council support a Federal Biodiversity grant application lodged by Coastcare mindful that neither Council nor the wider public have not been provided with any supporting scientific documents whatsoever? Response

The Mayor advised that, as supporting scientific documents have now been received, the question lapses



Duane Cole's Presentation - Responses to Questions he initially raised at the Special Electors Meeting on 5 March 2013 We provided a Feasibility report prepared by Dr Mitchell Ladyman on the CCC BioLINC Project and a copy of my presentation given at the Special Meeting of Electors was provided to the Councillors and staff present and ask why the March 2012 report has no reference or acknowledgement of these? We request both be included (In Full) within the minutes of the meeting 18 March and 26 March 2013? Response These documents will be included as requested along with other documents:- 1. Dr Mitchell Ladyman Feasibility Report 2. Presentation By Brett Jackson - Surf club and Commercial developments. 3. Presentation by Duane Cole 4. Presentation by Matt Huxtable - Newforms / Coastcare Question 1 What is the community benefit from the BioLINC project? Response The Mayor advised that the project will improve the fauna and flora in the area. Question 2 Is the BioLINC the highest and best use of the land? Response The Mayor advised that 'highest and best use of the land' is a concept usually used for vacant lots in City Centres. It is not something that is usually applied to the perimeters of parks, however, if it was used I would say that getting a biological benefit from land, which is not used by a lot of people and costs a lot to maintain, is making best use of the land. Question 3 Is the council prepared to accept the reality and responsibility of recurrent costs? (we request the forecast quantum of maintenance costs be addressed prior to presented considered). Response Yes. The Mayor advised that the Town has a lot of native vegetation that we currently manage and accept the maintenance costs for that on an ongoing basis.



Question 4 Could funding be better spent elsewhere? Response The Mayor advised that it possibly could, however, this is funding from the Federal Government and I would prefer to see it spent in Cambridge than elsewhere. Question 5 In relation to the final request in my deputation notes, it was not evident to me that the Committee or the community received an adequate explanation for the shift in the proposed coverage of Jubilee Park. We would appreciate a further explanation of this. Response The Mayor advised that at the commencement of the Special Electors Meeting he said that community consultation was not a referendum. It is a process whereby issues are identified and addressed. One of the issues identified early in the process was that the project was taking up too much of Jubilee Park. Coastcare has addressed that issue by reducing the amount of land that the project took up. Through the process, a number of other issues have been identified and will be addressed as part of the process. VERBAL QUESTIONS David Foresham, Boscombe Avenue, City Beach Question Any sand blown from the beach during a storm will blow from the west over the grassed area of Jubilee Park. The strip designated as native planting will therefore rapidly grow unless it is stabilised. Has Council considered this? Response The Mayor advised that there appears to be a misconception amongst residents that the planting will involve piles of sand. The focus should be on vegetation. Also, immediately to the south of Jubilee Park is approximately a kilometre of similar vegetation in Challenger Park and decades of storms have not eroded that park. John Campbell, Secretary Cambridge Coastcare Question At the Special Electors meeting a lot of comment was made about the BioLINC project and about Coastcare in general. A lot of it was negative in nature. The structure of the meeting did not allow us to present formally our plans. We are a community based organisation reliant on volunteers. When considering the project tonight, will Council consider making some public statement about the merits of the plan and try to address the misconceptions of the project. Also would Council consider endorsing the work of Coastcare generally.



Response The Mayor advised that the matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting at Item CR13.16. Dr Anita Adams Question 1 The Chairperson of Coastcare, Ms Jessica Stingemore is a Phd student. Will the Jubilee Park project form part of her Phd thesis? Response The Mayor advised that Dr Adams would have to address that question to Ms Stingemore. Question 2 Would Council uphold the principles of democracy as shown by the ratepayers? Response The Mayor advised that the matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting at Item CR13.16. Phil Orr, 17 Jubilee Crescent, City Beach Question 1 Will an independent audit of the community responses received to the survey in November 2012 be undertaken as I believe the 50/50 for and against figure is inaccurate. Response The Mayor advised that an independent review has been undertaken. The Director Infrastructure advised that he initially reviewed all responses and made the 50/50 comment based on the tick box assessment of all forms. Question 2 At a recent Special Meeting of Electors, residents voted 109 for the BioLINC project and 14 against. I believe that WALGA needs to intervene and tell the Town of Cambridge that the residents do not want the project and it should be abandoned. How many projects of this nature do we need? Response The Mayor advised that the matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting at Item CR13.16.



Eric Tucker, 1 Ocean Court, City Beach Question 1 Will Council be assessing the scientific reports provided by Coastcare and will Council be accepting other scientific reports from members of the community?

Response The Mayor advised that the matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting at Item CR13.16. Question 2 Will Council adhere to the WALGA report on biodiversity? Response The Mayor advised that he has received correspondence from WALGA indicating that the report referred to was written for the Cities of Mandurah, Bunbury, Busseleton, Shires of Serpentine Jarradale, Murray, Harvey, Waroona, Dardinup, Donnybrook, Balinup, Bridgetown Greenbushes, Augusta Margaret River and Manjimup respectively. It was written to deal more specifically with ecological issues pertaining to these local governments rather than local governments in Metropolitan Perth particularly as written to deal with jarrah forests. There is a metropolitan report which says, as quoted by Executive Manager of Environmental Waste at WALGA, that the importance of ecological linkages particularly in highly constrained urban cannot be underestimated in terms of increasing the resilience and viability of existing remnant parcels eg to recover from weed invasion, pest fauna species, pathogens etc. Any contributions from ecological linkages be they stepping stones of continuous linkages between existing remnants are of critical importance to the urban landscape. In essence any improvement to regional local ecological linkages within the metropolitan region can only assist in the retention of our unique biodiversity for current and future generations. Question 3 Are you prepared to accept other scientific reports and look at them objectively? Response The Mayor advised that the matter will discussed at tonight's meeting at Item CR13.16 but it is not a contest with respect to who has the most scientific reports. Lloyd Tucker, 1 Ocean Court, City Beach Question Where is the money coming from for the Coastcare project? There is no plan for any Council contribution. Response The Mayor advised that it is coming from the Federal Government's Biodiversity funding.



Dom O'Callaghan, 8 Hornsey Road, Floreat Question 1 Some years ago a significant amount of Rottnest Island Tea Trees were removed on the foreshore. Why were they removed as it was on the basis of biodiversity? Were they removed by Coastcare or on the advice of Coastcare? Response The Director Infrastructure advised that the project was completed in 2006 (the works actually happened in 2009). At that point in time, Coastcare were doing a lot of works along the coast and asked Council if the trees could be removed. Coastcare used their own contractors and funds to remove the trees. Question 2 Is there not a conflict of interest when a member of Coastcare's views were improved by the removal of the trees? Response The Mayor advised that the BioLINC project and the removal of the Rottnest Island Tea Trees are not related. The BioLINC project will be discussed at tonight's meeting at Item CR13.16. Kaye Tucker, 1 Ocean Court, City Beach Question We want the park to remain as is. When do we people count? Response The Mayor advised that the matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting at Item CR13.16. Margaret Robson, 7 Launceston Avenue, City Beach Question Have you already made your mind up on the BioLINC project or are you going to listen to what we want? Response Refer below Question 2 At the Special Electors meeting, 109 residents opposed the project. Isn't that enough? Response The Mayor advised that this project has been through an extensive review and consultation process and the project will be judged on its merits.



Pam Buckhorn, Branksome Gardens, City Beach Question Will Council consider bringing Item CR13.16 - City Beach BioLINC Project forward so that item can be discussed first? Response The Mayor advised that a councillor will have to move a motion to do that when the Committee reports are to be discussed. Stuart Lange, 25 Hovea Crescent, City Beach Re: Item DV13.29 - Lot 69 (No.32) Hovea Crescent, City Beach Question 1 Are Councillors aware that we have provided a compromise to the extent that the upper floor projects out and and a slight reduction in the roof height? Response Yes Question 2 Are you aware that the recommendation to the Development Committee on that matter was predicated on our support for the plans that were submitted and that our support was retracted on the basis that information provided by the Architect was not quite correct? Response The Mayor advised that under the R Codes, residents do not approve or reject developments. Their views are taken into consideration, however, a development has to be assessed on whether it meets the R Codes. Question 3 Do you consider under the R Codes which lists matters to consider under the performance criteria, the loss of significant views. Response The Mayor advised that he was not prepared to answer the question but that has been debated at Council and some people have very strong views on it. This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting at Item DV13.29.

4. PETITIONS Nil

5. DEPUTATIONS

Nil



6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Walker requested leave of absence from 1 September 2013 to 13 October 2013 inclusive. Cr Pelczar requested leave of absence from 20 to 29 April 2013 inclusive. Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Grinceri That in accordance with Clause 3.7 of the Standing Orders, approval be given for the following Leave of Absence to be taken: • Cr Walker from 1 September 2013 to 13 October 2013 inclusive; • Cr Pelczar from 20 to 29 April 2013 inclusive.

Carried 9/0

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Walker That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 26 February 2013 be confirmed. Carried 9/0

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Nil

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS

Prior to consideration of the following reports, members of the public present at the meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification of Council’s position. They were advised to wait for written advice from the Council before taking any action on any matter that they may have before the Council. Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted en bloc, with the exception of the following items which were nominated for individual debate. Development: Items DV13.27 and 29 Community and Resources: Items CR13.16, 20, 21 and 28 Declarations of Interest: Item DV13.27 - Cr Carr - Financial Interest Item CR13.16 - Mayor Withers, Cr Walker and

Cr Grinceri - Impartiality Interest Item CR13.21 - Cr Grinceri - Proximity Interest Item CR13.28 - Mayor Withers and Cr Langer -

Impartiality Interest Note: Item CR13.16 was brought forward in the meeting and was discussed prior to the Development Committee meeting.


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\MARCH 2013\B DV.DOCX 17

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The report of the Development Committee meeting held on Tuesday 19 March 2013 was submitted as under:

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.01 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.01 pm 7.13 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.01 pm 7.13 pm Cr Otto Pelczar 6.01 pm 7.13 pm Cr Louis Carr (Deputy) 6.01 pm 7.13 pm Observers: Cr Colin Walker Officers: Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability Stevan Rodic, Manager Development Lee Rowley, Manager Compliance Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 7.13 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Cr Tracey King

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil



4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item DV13.27 Ted Anthony, neighbour Ken Wibberley, applicant Item DV13.29 Nena Snooks, neighbour Stuart Langer, neighbour Steve Dixon, applicant Item DV13.30 Jill Clarke, neighbour Ms Marchesani, applicant Item DV13.33 Vernon Butterley, applicant


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 19 February 2013 as contained in the February 2013 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Nil

7. REPORTS



DV13.24 LOT 116 (NO. 4) DUPONT AVENUE, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage and roof deck at No. 4 Dupont Avenue. The plans show a flat roof dwelling with a roof deck towards the centre of the lot with glass balustrade surrounds. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the primary street, side setback and rear setback and visual privacy setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and objections have been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the dwelling provides a variety of setbacks and materials to its façade as well as a

number of major openings, verandahs and terraces that allow for street surveillance and therefore contributes to the streetscape;

• the articulation to the walls and the different setbacks between ground and upper storeys assists in ameliorating the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property to the south; and

• the majority of the dwelling is set back 8.5 metres at ground level and 10 metres at the upper level from the rear boundary.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to a condition for privacy.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 341DA-2012 Owner: S Ong and B Tan Applicant: Studio di Architettura Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 860 m² This application was originally submitted in August 2012 with plans showing three levels plus a covered roof deck. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration, amended plans were submitted in December 2012. These plans were advertised to neighbours and then, to address concerns raised regarding the proposed height of the dwelling, revised again in March 2013. The latter set of plans, which were amended so that the overall height of the dwelling now meets the acceptable development criteria, are the subject of the following report.



DETAILS:

Development description • The site is on the eastern side of Dupont Avenue and is elevated above the road with a

slope of approximately 2.5 metres up from the front boundary to the rear boundary. • The proposed dwelling has an undercroft garage and store/workshop, a ground floor

comprising living areas, swimming pool and rear cabana, an upper floor comprising five bedrooms and a study and an uncovered roof deck which is set in towards the centre of the dwelling.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to setbacks and privacy. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the five properties surrounding the subject site, being Nos. 2 and 6 Dupont Avenue, Nos. 3 and 5 Grasmere Avenue and No. 326 The Boulevard, City Beach. Two submissions were received from; the owners of No. 2 Dupont Avenue and No. 3 Grasmere Avenue objecting to the bulk and scale of the development and associated setback and privacy issues. Performance criteria assessment Setbacks of buildings generally Proposed Acceptable development provision Primary Street 5.5 metres to

architectural feature wall 7.5 metres (6.5 metres if garage is integral with dwelling)

Performance criteria: Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they: • contribute to the desired streetscape • provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and • allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. The main part of the dwelling set back 6.5 metres to 9.5 metres from the front boundary with the undercroft garage set back 7.5 metres. An architectural feature wall at the same height as the balustrade for the front balcony is proposed to protrude out in front of the dwelling with a setback of 5.5 metres from the front boundary. The wall is 0.49 metres wide and 1.29 metres long with an open balcony behind. It is considered that the feature wall is not overly bulky and does not intrude significantly into the streetscape. The dwelling contributes to the streetscape by providing open verandahs/balconies at the front of the dwelling which provide for street surveillance. No solid fencing within the front setback area, other than the architectural feature wall, is proposed.



Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the primary street boundary satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the proposed dwelling provides a variety of setbacks and materials to its façade as well

as a number of major openings, verandahs and terraces that allow for street surveillance and therefore contributes to the streetscape.

Buildings setback from the boundary Proposed Acceptable development provision Ground floor side setback (right/south) Upper floor side setback (right/south) Rear Setback (east)

1.3 metres at closest point 1.3 metres at closest point 1.03 metres to cabana

1.5 metres 1.5 metres 6.0 metres

Performance criteria: Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; • ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; • assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; • assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and • assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. With regard to the side setback variations, it is noted that the southern boundary is angled so there are two walls of the dwelling that are set back less than the acceptable development requirement at the closest point with the remainder of the walls setback further. The majority of the upper storey is set back further from the ground floor and, once again ranges in setback from 1.3 metres at the closest point with the remainder of the walls set back further. The articulation to the walls and the different setbacks between ground and upper storeys assists in ameliorating the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property. There are no major openings proposed facing the side boundary which will assist in protecting privacy between the dwellings. The proposed dwelling is set back further than required from the rear boundary, with the exception of the pool cabana which is located behind the pool. The applicant has lowered the proposed finished floor level of the cabana in line with the dwelling so that the proposed cabana will sit approximately 1.2 metres lower than an existing shed in the same location. The cabana will be approximately 2.9 metres high as viewed from the neighbouring properties and is 4.29 metres wide. The cabana is proposed to be constructed in feature brick work and the roof will be recessed behind the rear wall. The majority of the dwelling is set back 8.5 metres at ground level and 10 metres at the upper level from the rear boundary.



Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of the development from the side and rear boundary satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the articulation to the walls and the different setbacks between ground and upper storeys

assists in ameliorating the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property to the south; and

• the majority of the dwelling is set back 8.5 metres at ground level and 10 metres at the upper level from the rear boundary.

Visual privacy Proposed Acceptable development provision Study 3.8 metres to southern

side boundary 4.5 metres

Performance criteria: Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings is minimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness. Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking is preferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass. Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity. Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, the distance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows. The upper storey contains an open study area with a window facing the southern side boundary. As this window has the potential to directly overlook active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the adjoining property, it is not considered to satisfy the performance criteria. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed study window facing the southern boundary does not satisfy the performance criteria for the following reason:- • allows direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas. Accordingly, it is recommended that a condition be placed on any approval requiring this window be screened in accordance with the visual privacy provisions of the R Codes. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications related to this report.



STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Applicant's justification and neighbour's submissions COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft and roof deck as submitted by Studio di Architettura at Lot 116 (No. 4) Dupont Avenue, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 5 March 2013 subject to the following condition:- (i) the upper floor study window facing the southern boundary to be m odified to

comply with the acceptable development provisions of part 6.8.1 Visual Privacy of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.

Carried 9/0



DV13.25 LOT 915 ( NO. 16) NORTH BANFF ROAD, FLOREAT - SINGLE STOREY DWELLING AND SHED

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a single storey dwelling and shed at No. 16 North Banff Road, Floreat. A garage and shed are proposed on the south-eastern boundary. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the side boundary setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reason:- • the garage abuts the driveway of the adjoining property to the south and the shed will not

impact upon direct sun to outdoor living areas or habitable rooms. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

PURPOSE:

To consider an application for a single storey dwelling and shed requiring assessment under the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to side boundary setbacks. BACKGROUND: Application: 566DA-2012 Owner: Bruce M & Kate A Swan Applicant: Qest Holdings Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 873 m² The original plans showed a primary street garage setback of 8 metres. The plans were subsequently amended in February 2013 to show a 9 metre setback, which satisfies the Town's acceptable development criteria.

DETAILS:

Development description • The single storey dwelling contains a garage which is set back 9 metres from the primary

street and positioned along the side/south-eastern boundary. The wall is 8.9 metres long and 2.7 metres high.

• The proposal also includes a garden shed set back 0.2 metres to both the rear/north-eastern and side/south-eastern boundaries. The structure is 4 metres long, 2.5 metres wide, has a wall height of 2.4 metres and Colorbond roof to 3.2 metres. The neighbours to the rear/north-east have no objections to this structure.



• It is noted that the dwelling itself contains a small portion that is setback 5 metres from the rear in lieu of the required 6 metres. Both neighbours to the rear/north-east and side/south-east have no objections to this variation.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to the side setback. A copy of the applicant’s justification is available for viewing by Elected Members and a summary is available as an attachment to this report. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the properties directly adjoining the rear/north-eastern and side/south-eastern boundaries of the subject site, being No. 55 Pearson Street and No. 14 North Banff Road, Floreat. The owner to the south-east provided a submission objecting to the garage and shed boundary setbacks. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Performance criteria assessment Buildings setback from the boundary Proposed Acceptable development provision Garage side setback (south-east)

Nil 1 metre

Shed side setback (south-east)

0.2 metres 1 metre

Performance criteria: Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to: • make effective use of space; or • enhance privacy; or • otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; • not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and • ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of

adjoining properties is not restricted. The proposed garage abuts the driveway of the adjoining property to the south-east. The dwelling on the south-eastern property is set back approximately 5 metres from the side boundary. These points will ensure that the new wall will have minimal impact upon the amenity of the adjoining property. In addition, the relatively low height of the garage wall combined with the orientation of the subject site will ensure that there will be negligible impact regarding overshadowing and sun access. It is also noted that the majority of the proposed dwelling is well set back from the side/south-eastern boundary and open space provision on the subject site is at 65 percent (55 percent allowed). In respect to the rear shed, the side setback variation is considered minor given the relatively low wall height of 2.4 metres. There are also no buildings or active outdoor areas within the rear setback area of the neighbouring south-eastern property that the shed could have any negative impact upon. Vegetation on the side property and an existing dividing fence will also assist in partially screening the shed from view.



Overall in view of the above comments, and notwithstanding neighbour concerns, it is considered that the reduced side boundary setbacks of the garage and shed are acceptable and satisfy the performance criteria for the following reason:- • the garage abuts the driveway of the adjoining property to the south and the shed will not

impact upon direct sun to outdoor living areas or habitable rooms

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:








ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's justification. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling and shed submitted by Qest Holdings Pty Ltd at Lot 915 (No. 16) North Banff Road, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 20 February 2013 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the south-east

to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond. Footnote: The applicant be ad vised that all works within the road reserve, such as vehicle crossovers, verge paving and landscaping require a separate application and approval by the Town’s Infrastructure Services. These works must conform to the Town’s specifications.

Carried 9/0



DV13.26 LOT 65 (NO. 21) WINMARLEY STREET, FLOREAT - SINGLE STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a single storey dwelling at No. 21 Winmarley Street, Floreat. The plans show a dwelling with the outdoor living areas on the side facing north-east. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the rear setback and site works performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the rear setback variation does not have any significant impact on adjoining properties in

terms of building bulk, overshadowing or loss of privacy. • the amount of retaining proposed along side and rear boundaries retains the visual

impression of the natural level of the site as viewed from the street. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 549DA-2012 Owner: I McRoberts and J Caunt Applicant: Don Russell Homes Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 726 m² The plans were originally submitted in December 2012 showing a reduced primary street setback. To address some of the concerns raised by the Administration, amended plans were received in January 2013. It is the latter set of the plans that were advertised to neighbours and are the subject of this report. DETAILS:

Development description • Proposed single storey brick and tile dwelling with open space oriented to side of

dwelling. • Site slopes approximately 1.5 metres down from the front right hand corner of the lot

boundary to the rear left hand corner. • The large single storey footprint results in a rear setback variation and retaining wall

height issues on the rear boundary.



Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to the rear setback and fill. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the three properties directly adjoining the boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 19 and 23 Winmarley Road and No. 11 Crosby Street, Floreat. One submission was received from the owners of No. 11 Crosby Street objecting to the rear setback and fill. Performance criteria assessment Buildings setback from the boundary Proposed Acceptable development provision Rear Setback 1.535 - 4.7 metres 6.0 metres Performance criteria: Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; • ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; • assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; • assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and • assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. The house has been designed with outdoor living areas and active habitable spaces on the northern side of the dwelling which provides adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces. The position of the dwelling, being single storey, does not have any significant impact on access to direct sun for the adjoining property to the east (rear). The dwelling is single storey with a wall height of 2.4 metres and roof pitching away from the boundary to a height of 4.2 metres and then with a second pitch to a height of 5.2 metres. The length of wall within the rear setback area is approximately 11.0 metres over a 20.12 metre boundary which represents 55% of the boundary. The remainder of the dwelling is well set back from the rear boundary thereby ameliorating the impact of building bulk on adjoining properties. The section of building falling within the rear setback area contains two bedrooms and a laundry so that the main active habitable spaces of the dwelling are oriented to the side of the house and towards the centre of the lot. As the land falls away towards the rear boundary, the applicant proposes to retain the land to a similar level with the dwelling and that, combined with a dividing fence, will assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.



Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the rear boundary is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the rear setback variation does not have any significant impact on adjoining properties in

terms of building bulk, overshadowing or loss of privacy. Site works Proposed Acceptable development provision Fill to a side or rear boundary Maximum of 0.73 metres 0.5 metres Performance criteria: Development that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from the street or other public place, or from an adjoining property. As stated previously, the proposed dwelling is single storey with a large footprint that retains the same level of 12.4 metres AHD from the front setback line to the rear of the dwelling. As the land falls away towards the rear of the lot, the applicant proposes to construct retaining walls along the side and rear boundaries to a height of 12.3 metres AHD to ensure no overlooking from the rear of the house into adjoining properties. Whilst the majority of these walls are less than half a metre high, at the lowest point along the rear boundary (as measured from the adjoining property side) the retaining wall will be 0.73 metres high. The nominated level for the dwelling is similar to the floor level of the existing dwelling and therefore retains the visual impression of the natural level of the site as viewed from the street. Whilst retaining is provided along the side and rear boundaries, not all of the land behind is proposed to be filled so that the natural level of the site is retained. The retaining mainly ensures that the dividing fencing is of an appropriate height to screen overlooking from windows on the filled area of land. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of fill adjacent to the rear boundary is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • retains the visual impression of the natural level of the site as seen from the street and

retains privacy for adjoining properties.










This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Applicant's justification and neighbour's comments.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling as submitted by Don Russell Homes at Lot 65 (No. 21) Winmarley Street, Floreat, as shown on the amended plans dated 30 January 2013 subject to the following condition:- (i) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond. Committee Meeting 19 March 2013

Amendment Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pelczar That the motion be amended by adding further clauses as follows:- (ii) a replacement street tree to be provided at the applicant's cost; (iii) the existing crossover, which is to be redundant, is to be removed and remediated. Amendment carried 4/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling as submitted by Don Russell Homes at Lot 65 (No. 21) Winmarley Street, Floreat, as shown on the amended plans dated 30 January 2013 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond; (ii) a replacement street tree to be provided at the applicant's cost;

(iii) the existing crossover, which is to be redundant, is to be r emoved and

remediated. Carried 9/0



DV13.27 LOT 2 (NO. 41A) SIMPER STREET, WEMBLEY - SINGLE STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a single storey dwelling at No. 41A Simper Street, Wembley on a rear strata lot. The proposal includes a garage on the internal strata boundary. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the buildings on boundary performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. It is considered that the overall length of the garage boundary wall should be reduced to 6.7 metres and the adjoining store set back a minimum of 1 metre from the eastern/side boundary. Subject to this being met, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reason:- • the garage wall along the internal strata boundary will have minimal impact upon direct

sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of adjoining property to the east.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval with a condition relating to the legth of the garage boundary wall.

PURPOSE:

To consider an application for a single storey dwelling requiring assessment under the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to side boundary setback. BACKGROUND: Application: 551DA-2012 Owner: Pauline Booth & Gregory Stoyles Applicant: Ken Wibberley Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 873 m² The original plans showed a garage wall of 9.2 metres length setback nil, in lieu of 1.5 metres, to the eastern/side boundary. The plans were subsequently amended showing a reduced garage wall length of 8.8 metres set back nil to the eastern/side boundary in lieu of 1.0 metre.

DETAILS:

Development description • The proposed single storey dwelling is sited on a rear strata lot and contains a double

garage setback nil to the side/eastern boundary.



• The boundary wall in question is 8.8 metres long and ranges in height from 3.3 metres to 2.4 metres with an average height of 2.85 metres. The wall height slopes downwards from south to north.

• It is noted that whilst the single storey dwelling contains a skillion roof, the subject site is a rear strata lot and therefore the roof will not be visible from the primary street.

• Aside from the garage side boundary wall, the proposal satisfies all other acceptable development provisions including open space, rear setback and overshadowing.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to the side setback. A copy of the applicant’s justification is available for viewing by Elected Members and a summary is available as an attachment to this report. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owner of the adjoining strata property to the front/east, being No. 41 Simper Street, Wembley. The owner of this property provided a submission objecting to the garage boundary setback. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Performance criteria assessment Buildings on boundary Proposed Acceptable development

provision Garage side setback (East) Nil 1 metre Performance criteria: Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to: • make effective use of space; or • enhance privacy; or • otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; • not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and • ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of

adjoining properties is not restricted. The site is a rear strata lot and the garage on the boundary makes effective use of space. The north-south orientation of the subject site and proposed single storey dwelling will ensure that overshadowing impacts are reduced. It is also noted that there is currently a large shed structure on the subject site positioned close to the side boundary. This shed projects above the fence line of the neighbouring property. Notwithstanding it is considered that the wall length of the garage can be reduced down to 6.7 metres by setting the storeroom portion of the garage back by 1.0 metre. It is recommended that a condition be placed on the approval to this effect. Overall in view of the above comments, and notwithstanding neighbour concerns, it is considered that the garage on the boundary satisfies the performance criteria for the following reason:-



• the garage wall along the internal strata boundary will have minimal impact upon direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of adjoining property to the east.









ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's justification. Council Meeting 26 March 2013 Prior to consideration of this item, Cr Carr, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared an interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.34 pm. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling and out building submitted by Ken Wibberley at Lot 2 (No. 41A) Simper Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 27 February 2013 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the overall length of the garage boundary wall be reduced to 6.7 metres and t he

adjoining store set back a minimum of 1 metre from the eastern/side boundary;

(ii) the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town.

Carried 8/0 Cr Carr returned to the meeting at 7.35 pm.



DV13.28 LOT 809 (NO. 1) TURRIFF ROAD CNR PEARSON PLACE, FLOREAT - TWO STOREY ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at No. 1 Turriff Road, Floreat. The plans show a two storey addition to the side of the existing dwelling incorporating a new kitchen and meals area, two bedrooms and a study. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the street setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes). The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reason:- • the addition is located away from adjoining properties and towards the corner of the lot

with windows and openings to both streets and therefore has no significant detrimental impact on the streetscape.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 541DA-2012 Owner: F Kwa Applicant: F Kwa Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 1054m² DETAILS:

Development description • Existing single storey dwelling on the corner of Turriff Road and Pearson Place, Floreat. • Proposed addition to the north/east side of the existing house is two storey and contains

a kitchen/family room, two bedrooms a study and two ensuites. • The addition is proposed to a have a setback of 9.0 metres to Turriff Road but a setback

of 4.0 metres in lieu of 4.5 metres from Pearson Place. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to the setback variation.



Performance criteria assessment Setbacks of buildings generally Proposed Acceptable development provision Secondary Street 4.0 metres 4.5 metres Performance criteria: Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they: • contribute to the desired streetscape • provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and • allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. The proposed addition is set back over 12 metres from the adjoining property to the rear on Pearson Place and over 18 metres from the adjoining property to the side on Turriff Road. The proposed addition allows for the upgrading of existing housing stock and provides an open and attractive façade to both streets. It is considered that the addition, despite the secondary street setback variation, will contribute to the desired streetscape. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the secondary street boundary is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the addition is located away from adjoining properties and towards the corner of the lot

with windows and openings to both streets and therefore has no significant detrimental impact on the streetscape.











ATTACHMENTS:

Nil. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey addition and alterations to the existing dwelling as submitted by F Kwa at Lot 809 (No. 1) Turriff Road, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 19 February 2013 subject to the following condition:- (i) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white ('Surfmist') Colorbond. Carried 9/0



DV13.29 LOT 69 ( NO.32) HOVEA CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - SECOND STOREY ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS INCLUDING NEW UNDERCROFT GARAGE TO EXISTING DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a second storey addition and alterations including new undercroft garage to an existing dwelling at No. 32 Hovea Crescent, City Beach. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required under the building height performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and objections have been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. After discussion with the neighbours at 25 Hovea Crescent the applicant has agreed to lower the overall height of the dwelling by a further 200mm and reduce the length of roof over the southern side upper terrace. This modification will improve the view corridor to the ocean for these neighbours. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reason:- • the height of the dwelling is consistent with surrounding dwellings and the flat roof design

minimises impacts on views of significance for adjoining properties. Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval subject to the abovementioned modifications.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 565DA-2012 Owner: Rosemary Dixon Applicant: Lyons Architects Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – Permitted Land area: 1315 m² This application was submitted in December 2012 with a maximum roof height of 9.25 metres and 10.25 metres for the chimney. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration and adjoining neighbours, amended plans were submitted in March 2013 showing alterations to the chimney and overall roof height. The height was reduced by 400mm. It is these latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report. Most recently the applicant and the owners of 25 Hovea Crescent have met and have agreed upon further modifications. These amendments proposed to reduce the overall roof height by 200mm bringing the overall roof height to RL 35.03, and a reduction in the length of the southern upper terrace roof by 3 metres. Due to the timing of this meeting it was not possible for the applicant to amend the plans.



DETAILS:

Development description • Subject site is located on the corner of Hovea Crescent and Kingsland Avenue with the

narrower street frontage along Kingsland Avenue being the primary street boundary. • Subject property slopes down approximately 4 metres from north-east to south-west

along the Hovea Crescent frontage. • The existing dwelling is being retained with an upper storey addition and new undercroft

garage. • Existing boundary wall along Hovea Crescent to be retained with the rest of the street

boundaries to remain open. • The existing retaining wall along the driveway is proposed to be increased in height to 1.5

metres above natural ground level to part screen the garage door. • Finished floor level (FFL) of the proposed undercroft garage at 25.53 is lower than the

FFL of the existing undercroft garage at 26.43. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to wall height. A copy of the applicant's justification is available to view for Elected Members. Neighbour submission Two submissions were received during the consultation period from neighbours to the east. One submission from the owners of No. 27 Hovea Crescent objecting to the proposal and one submission from the owners of No. 25 Hovea Crescent objecting to the proposal. The owners of 25 Hovea Crescent have since met the applicant and have agreed to modifications as discussed above. A copy of the submissions are available to view for Elected Members. Performance criteria assessment Building height Proposed Acceptable development provision Wall height for skillion or flat roof

8.85 metres to flat roof 9.85 metres to chimney

Maximum 7.5 metres

Performance criteria: Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:- • adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance. Given the slope of the site from north-east to south-west, a wall height variation occurs on the Kingsland Avenue (south-west) elevation as measured from the natural ground level. The section of the two storey dwelling above the undercroft garage is over the acceptable building height requirement of 7.5 metres, however, the remainder of the dwelling meets the acceptable development provisions for building height. As a result, the residences to the east with views



beyond the existing dwelling and down Kingsland Avenue will be most significantly affected by the proposal. The dwelling is well set back from both street boundaries; 7.5metres to Hovea Crescent and at least 8 metres from the Kingsland Avenue corner arc. In addition, the proposed upper floor terrace area is largely open. This will allow dwellings to the east of the subject site to retain views down Kingsland Avenue to the ocean and Rottnest Island. As the land declines significantly west down Kingsland Avenue and across Hovea Crescent, the properties to the east of the lot have a higher natural ground level than the subject site. It is recommended that the overall roof height be reduced by 200mm to a maximum of RL 35.03 (i.e. maximum 8.65metres wall height in south western corner of the dwelling) to reduce the bulk of the building as viewed from the street and in particular from adjoining properties to the east of the subject site. It is also recommended that the proposed southern balcony roof above the upper floor terrace be reduced in length by 3 metres from the south-west side to further ameliorate some of the impact of the dwelling on views of significance to adjoining properties on the eastern side, across Hovea Crescent. Overall, it is considered that the proposed wall height variation satisfies the performance criteria for the following reason:- • the height of the dwelling is consistent with surrounding dwellings and the flat roof design

minimises impacts on views of significance for adjoining properties.









ATTACHMENTS:

1. Applicant's Justification and Neighbour Comment Summary.



COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a second storey addition and alterations including new undercroft garage to an existing dwelling submitted by Lyons Architects at Lot 69 (No.32) Hovea Crescent, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 1 March 2013 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the height of the roof to be reduced by 200mm to a maximum of RL 35.03; (ii) the southern side upper terrace roof to be reduced in length by 3 metres from the

south-western side to the satisfaction of the Town; (iii) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond; (iv) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of

the Town; (v) the retaining wall along the driveway to the undecroft garage being reduced in

height and not to exceed 750mm above natural ground level; and

(vi) no structures or planting to be pl aced on t he southern upper terrace that would

obstruct views to the ocean for the adjoining properties to the east. Council Meeting 26 March 2013 Members were advised that the applicant submitted amended plans on Monday 25 March 2013 which incorporated two of the Committee's conditions that being the reduction in height of the building by 200 mm and the roof being cut back to the upper southern terrace by 3 metres. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That clauses (i) and (ii) of the motion be deleted. Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a second storey addition and alterations including new undercroft garage to an existing dwelling submitted by Lyons Architects at Lot 69 (No.32) Hovea Crescent, City Beach, as shown on plans dated 25 March 2013 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond; (ii) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of

the Town;



(iii) the retaining wall along the driveway to the undecroft garage being reduced in

height and not to exceed 750mm above natural ground level; and

(iv) no structures or planting to be pl aced on t he southern upper terrace that would

obstruct views to the ocean for the adjoining properties to the east. Carried 9/0



DV13.30 LOT 1 (NO. 2A) RESERVE STREET, WEMBLEY - SECOND STOREY ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO GROUPED DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to a front strata dwelling at No. 2A Reserve Street, Wembley. The plans show extensions to the ground floor and a new first floor. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the rear setback and wall height performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the proposed setback of the ground floor wall is unlikely to negatively impact on the

neighbouring property in relation to access to sun and ventilation and bulk impact, • the wall height is consistent with the height of buildings in the locality, • the upper floor is set back from the neighbouring property further than the minimum

acceptable development requirement, reducing bulk or overshadowing impact. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 31DA-2013 Owner: Mr T and Mrs L Stafford Applicant: Ms H Marchesani Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (grouped) ‘AA’ – use is not permitted unless the Council has

granted planning approval Land area: 549 m² DETAILS:

Development description • The dwelling is an original California bungalow style dwelling. At the rear of the dwelling

is a covered outdoor living area. To the north of the dwelling is a pool area. • No. 2 Reserve Street has been strata titled into two lots. The subject site has a battle axe

lot (2B Reserve Street) at the rear. • The plans show extensions to the ground floor, replacing a patio with a large internal

living space, new ensuite and laundry, and a new first floor. The first floor comprises two bedrooms, rumpus room and bathroom.

• The first floor is proposed to be set back 4 metres from the ground floor front wall of the dwelling.



Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to rear setback and wall height. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the rear (east) and north side boundary of the subject site, being No. 2B and No. 6 Reserve Street respectively. At the time of writing this report, one submission was received from the owners of No. 2B Reserve Street objecting to eastern wall being too close, too long and too high. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Performance criteria assessment Buildings setback from the boundary Proposed Acceptable development provision Rear setback 1.0 metre Minimum 1.5 metres Performance criteria: Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; • ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; • assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; • assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and • assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. The plans show a ground floor extension that is proposed to be 1.0 metre from the rear boundary. The wall parallel to the rear boundary is 11.6 metres long and 3.2 metres high. Assessed against the acceptable development requirements, the setback requirement for walls greater than 9 metres long is 1.5 metres. Whilst the wall is 0.5 metres closer than the acceptable development requirement, the proposed setback is considered to satisfy the performance criteria. There is adequate direct sun and ventilation to the subject site and adjoining property and the building bulk is minimal as the incursion is single storey. There are no privacy issues as the two windows in the subject wall are highlight windows. Furthermore, it should be noted that the wall could be redesigned to comply with the acceptable development requirements, by indenting the southern portion of the rear wall for a length of 2.6 metres so this portion has a rear setback of 1.5 metres and the remaining length of 9 metres has the required setback of 1.0 metre. This would serve no benefit to the adjoining property's amenity as the increase in setback would be adjacent to the garage.



Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the ground floor extension from the rear boundary satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the proposed setback of the ground floor wall is unlikely to negatively impact on the

neighbouring property in relation to access to sun and ventilation and bulk impact.

Building height

Proposed Acceptable development provision Wall height Maximum 6.2 metres Maximum 6.0 metres Performance criteria: Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate: • adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance.

The proposed first floor is to be constructed over an original California bungalow which has a high floor to ceiling height of 3.2 metres. With the addition of the first floor, there is a minor variation to the total wall height of the development. With regard to the performance criteria, the proposed development is two storey and consistent with a number of buildings in the locality. The Town has approved many second storey additions to original California bungalow homes in Wembley where the wall height has been slightly greater than the minimum acceptable development requirement. The setbacks of the upper floor from all boundaries are greater than the minimum acceptable development requirements, thus reducing bulk and overshadowing impacts. Directly to the south is the battle axe driveway to 2B Reserve Street, then the car parking area of the Floreat Towers unit development. There are no views of significance that may be impacted by this wall height variation. The overall height of the development is compliant with the acceptable development requirements. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the wall height is consistent with the height of buildings in the locality, • the upper floor is set back from the neighbouring property further than the minimum

acceptable development requirement, reducing bulk or overshadowing. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:










ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations to a grouped dwelling, including an additional storey, submitted by Ms H Marchesani at Lot 1 (No. 2A) Reserve Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 25 February 2013. Carried 9/0



DV13.31 LOT 55 ( NO. 86A) ST LEONARDS AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING (REAR GARAGE AND ALFRESCO KITCHEN)

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations at No. 86a St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville. The plans show the existing garage to the rear of the lot being extended and an alfresco kitchen being added. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the buildings on boundary performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the length and height of walls proposed on the boundary do not have any significant

effect on the amenity of the adjoining properties and ensures that access to direct sun for outdoor living areas and habitable rooms is not restricted.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 29DA-2013 Owner: J Warburton Applicant: J Warburton Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 324 m² The Council considered a similar application at its meeting in September 2012 (Item DV12.113) which was refused for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not meet the performance criteria of Clause 6.3.2 Building on

Boundary of the Residential Design with regard to the adverse effect on the amenity of adjoining properties and access to direct sun for outdoor living areas; and

(ii) the proposed would have an adverse effect on the amenity of adjoining landowners

through building bulk and restricting access to direct sun for outdoor living areas. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town and the owners of neighbouring properties, the applicant has amended the proposal and submitted a new application for consideration. The height of the wall on the southern boundary has been reduced from 41 courses to 25 courses which equates to a lowering of wall height of approximately 1.3 metres. On the north side boundary, the wall has been reduced from 41 courses to 36 courses equating to 430mm.



DETAILS:

Development description • Existing house with garage off the rear ROW on a lot the subject of an original side by

side subdivision. The adjoining dwelling to the north is a mirror image development. • The site slopes up approximately 3.0 metres from the front boundary to the rear

boundary. • The existing garage is proposed to be extended towards the house approximately

another 3.0 metres to provide a new covered alfresco kitchen area. The wall continues along the same line as the garage with a nil setback to both boundaries. On the northern boundary, the height of the wall ranges from 2.829 metres adjacent to the garage and 3.0 metres adjacent to the alfresco kitchen. On the southern side, the wall for the alfresco kitchen is 1.8 metres high as viewed from the adjoining property. The overall length of wall on both sides is 8.6 metres.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to buildings on the boundary. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the north and south boundaries of the subject site, being No. 84 St Leonards Avenue (south) and No. 86b St Leonards Avenue (north). One submission was received from the owner of No. 86b St Leonards Avenue objecting to the building on the boundary. Performance criteria assessment Buildings on boundary Proposed Acceptable development provision Side Setbacks (north and south)

Nil 1.0 metre

Performance criteria: Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to: • make effective use of space; or • enhance privacy; or • otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; • not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and • ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of adjoining

properties is not restricted. The existing garage is built up to both boundaries, as is the garage to the dwelling to the north. There is an existing store wall built on the northern boundary to a height of 2.829 metres. The applicant proposes to continue this wall forward by an additional 3.5 metres at the same height and then drop the wall down to the lower ground level with a wall on the boundary of 3.5 metres in height for a length of 3.0 metres alongside the proposed new alfresco kitchen. The wall on



the north side boundary is higher to screen the steps from the garage down to the alfresco area. On the southern side boundary, the proposal shows a new 3.0 metre length of wall on the boundary adjacent to the new alfresco kitchen which is 2.229 metres high from ground level and is a maximum of 1.8 metres in height as viewed from the adjoining property. The amended plan also ensures that direct sun to the property to the south is not unduly restricted. The adjoining landowner to the south has viewed the plans and has no objection to the modified proposal. It is noted that the landowner did object to the original proposal. The proposed building to both boundaries makes effective use of space and enhances privacy to the subject site and adjoining properties. The northern wall does not having any significant adverse affect on the amenity of the adjoining property as it abuts the entry/exit point to the rear garage and is not directly abutting outdoor living areas and habitable rooms. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed garage addition and alfresco kitchen walls on the north and south side boundaries satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:- • the length and height of walls proposed on the boundary do not have any significant

effect on the amenity of the adjoining properties and ensures that access to direct sun for outdoor living areas and habitable rooms is not restricted.








This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS:

Nil.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and al terations to existing dwelling (rear garage and alfresco kitchen) submitted by Jack Warburton at Lot 55 (No. 86A) St Leonards Street, West Leederville, as sho wn on the plans dated 24 Januar y 2013, subject to the following condition:- (i) the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining properties to the north

and south to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town. Carried 9/0



DV13.32 LOT 80 ( NO. 15) FRINTON AVENUE, CITY BEACH - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS - GARAGE, DECKING, BEDROOM CONVERSION TO STUDY

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for additions to Lot 80 (No. 15) Frinton Avenue, City Beach including a carport with a parapet wall to replace an existing garage. The application requires a Council determination as assessment under the performance criteria relating to the primary street setback of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) is required. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reason:- • there will be no negative impact upon the streetscape. The carport is set back between 0.5 metre and 2.0 metres from the primary street. The carport is generally open with the section of solid wall located 5.2 metres to 5.4 metres from the street. The proposal also allows for removal of the existing garage and replacement of a large driveway area with landscaping. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND: Application: 486DA-2012 Owner: Peter Alan Stillman and Frances Mary Ryan Stillman Applicant: Nori-Lynn Munoz Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 706 m² The first set of plans for the application proposed a garage adjoining the dwelling to replace a freestanding garage which has a solid wall facing Frinton Avenue. The existing garage had been approved 1994. The originally proposed garage included an open style door, parapet wall along the western boundary for its whole length and wall with windows on the eastern side. The plans were subsequently amended to a more open-style carport structure with part of the parapet wall and the wall with windows replaced with piers and open style infill. A parapet wall along the western boundary remains in the proposal to accommodate a 1.0 metre by 2.5 metre storage area. The inclusion of the parapet wall to the boundary in the proposal requires that the carport be assessed under garage provisions of the Town's Streetscape Policy.



DETAILS:

Development description • The application consists of:-

A carport to replace the existing garage which is adjoined to the dwelling, with open

style sides and door, a boundary parapet wall along part of its western side and a 1.0 metre solid section of wall which connects the parapet wall with the remainder of the carport structure. The parapet wall section is to accommodate a storage area to replace that which is to be lost upon the removal of the existing garage.

Relocation of the existing driveway to be in line with the new carport and landscaping area to replace the existing driveway.

Extension to the dwelling at the front including master bedroom and ensuite. Decking to the eastern side towards the rear of the dwelling.

• The carport is set back between 0.5 metres and 2.0 metres from the primary street and is 6.2 metres (width) by 5.8 metres (depth) by 3.7 metres (in height including roof). The section of solid wall is set back 5.2 metres - 5.5 metres from the front boundary.

• The total length of the proposed parapet wall is 9.0 metres along the western boundary

including a section as part of the carport and the remainder as part of additions to the dwelling. The landowners at 17 Frinton Avenue and 51 Branksome Gardens have no objections to the proposed parapet wall on the boundary.

• The proposal will involve the removal of a street tree to accommodate the relocated driveway. The Town's Infrastructure Services has advised that replacement is acceptable in this instance.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable development provisions relating to the side setback. A copy of the applicant’s justification is available for viewing by Elected Members and a summary is available as an attachment to this report. Performance criteria assessment Setback of buildings generally Proposed Acceptable development provision Primary Street Setback 0.5 metres - 2.0 metres 7.5 metres Performance criteria: Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:- • contribute to the desired streetscape • provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and • allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. It is considered the partial enclosure of the carport on its western boundary, within the front setback area, will not be visually intrusive in the streetscape for the following reasons:- • The solid wall will abut a garage located on No.17 Frinton Avenue (Frinton Avenue is the

secondary street for the next door property) which will screen the proposed solid wall from the street and result in the proposal adding no further visual intrusion to the streetscape.

• The sections of solid wall length are towards the back of the carport structure and towards the side boundary, so the extent to which is these are in view from the street is minimal.



The new structure replaces an existing double garage which has a blank wall facing Frinton Avenue. The garage is accessed via a driveway and crossover which is proposed to be replaced with landscaping. It is considered that the change to a more open style structure to replace the garage and the landscaping in place of the large driveway area will improve the streetscape relative to the existing design.

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the reduced primary street setback is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following reason:- • there will be no negative impact upon the streetscape.









ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's justification. Committee Meeting 19 March 2013 During discussion, the Administration was requested to discuss with the applicant the possibility of redesigning the crossover to accommodate the retention of the street tree prior to the next meeting of Council.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a carport, decking and additions to dwelling submitted by Nori-Lynn Munoz at Lot 80 (No. 15) Frinton Avenue, City Beach, as shown on the amended plans dated 11 March 2013 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the west to be

rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) the carport to remain open apar t from abutting the dwelling and the solid wall

section to the storeroom. No solid door or additional walls or infill panels are to be installed;

(iii) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;

(iv) privacy screens to be provided to the deck (where indicated in red on the approved plans) to restrict views into the adjoining properties to the east in accordance with the acceptable development provisions of part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.

Carried 9/0



DV13.33 LOT 270 ( NO 152) JERSEY STREET AND PART LOT 1000 ( NO 322-326) CAMBRIDGE STREET - SCHEME AMENDMENT FROM 'RESIDENTIAL R20' TO 'LOCAL CENTRE'

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider a Scheme amendment application for Lot 270 (No. 152) Jersey Street and Part Lot 1000 (No. 322-326) Cambridge Street, Wembley, to rezone the sites from 'Residential R20' to 'Local Centre'. SUMMARY: An application has been received for a Scheme amendment for rezoning Lot 270 (No. 152) Jersey Street and Part Lot 1000 (No. 322-326) Cambridge Street from 'Residential R20' to 'Local Centre' which will give the existing parking area a commercial zoning and provide for additional parking and the reconfiguration of the parking area. The proposal is supported for the following reasons:- The site is partly used for car parking already and the 'Local Centre' rezoning will address

an irregularity in the Town Planning Scheme; It will accommodate expansion of the parking site to provide the opportunity to improve

the car park layout and access; and It will provide greater opportunity for long term redevelopment of the sites to take

advantage of their proximity to Wembley Town Centre and public transport along Cambridge Street.

BACKGROUND: LANDOWNERS: Birmingham Properties Pty Ltd, Haran Pty Ltd and Matax Pty Ltd APPLICANT: Whelans Town Planning ZONING: MRS: Urban TPS No.1: Residential R20 LAND AREA: 1882 sqm (combined area of both lots) The sites that are subject to the rezoning include Lot 270 (No. 152) Jersey Street which comprises of an existing single dwelling and the north-east portion of Lot 1000 (No. 322-326) Cambridge Street which consists of car parking which has existed since the 1970's. Lot 1000 (No. 322-326) Cambridge Street is only partly zoned 'Residential R20', with most of the lot zoned 'Local Centre'. The surrounding land uses to the north, east and west are residential, with these properties having access from Jersey Street and Pangbourne Street. To the south, on the remainder of Lot 1000, is Wembley IGA Supermaket, specialty shops and car parking, which forms part of the Wembley Town Centre. The car parking on the portion of the lot proposed to be rezoned provides some of the parking for the shopping centre. Please refer to Attachment 1 for site location map and Attachment 2 for photos of the site and adjacent properties.



DETAILS:

The applicant has applied for a scheme amendment for a rezoning from 'Residential R20' to 'Local Centre' for Lot 270 (No. 152) Jersey Street on the basis that it will be amalgamated with Lot 1000 and that the single residential dwelling will be demolished to provide additional parking for the shopping centre. The rezoning of part of Lot 1000 for commercial purposes is on the basis of rectifying the Scheme as the site is already used for car parking serving the centre. As the applicant has indicated that Lot 270 (No.152) Jersey Street is proposed to be used for the expansion of car parking, the Town requested preliminary drawings to outline how the parking area could be designed to improve accessibility and minimise impacts on adjoining residential properties. With input from the Town's Technical Services, the applicant's preliminary concept drawings show a redesign of the car parking area to integrate the parking area over the two lots and facilitate improved access from Jersey Street (see Attachment 3 for the preliminary concept plans). In addition, details have been provided to show how the boundary of Lot 152 Jersey Street against the residential property to the north would be designed to incorporate a landscaped buffer and wall to reduce potential impacts of the parking area. The preliminary concept plan can be used to guide future planning approval for parking on the sites. The main points of the applicant's justification are summarised as follows:- Applicant's Justification • The intention for the use of the land is to amalgamate Lot 270 into Lot 1000

(neighbourhood centre) for car parking. There is demand for more car parking in the area, as the local IGA shopping centre is highly utilized on a daily basis. Other commercial operations have been built in this locality with concessions given to proponents for car parking. This has impacted on the neighbourhood centre with the car park being used for general car parking outside the neighbourhood centre.

• Vehicle access to the site will remain unchanged with entry to the site from Jersey Street

and Pangbourne Street. The eventual outcome for the site is to be utilised as one lot and no subdivision of the site is intended (Note: At the Town's request, the applicant has since provided a preliminary concept plan for the parking area which shows changes to access from Jersey Street)

• The north east section of Lot 1000 is to be rectified from Residential zone to Local Centre

zone as currently the land is used for car parking purposes for the neighbourhood centre. • In response to population growth, the need for urban infill development has increased to

avoid urban sprawl. In turn pressure is placed upon neighbourhood centres to service larger populations in the communities. It is acknowledged that the Directions 2031 policy for Activity Centres, in relation to the Town of Cambridge, states “neighbourhood centres provide for the main daily shopping and community needs of the neighbourhood. Neighbourhood centres typically include a minor supermarket and possibly ancillary uses”. The policy outlines several objectives for the future of neighbourhood centres;

- A network and hierarchy of centres that provide a more equitable distribution of jobs

and amenity throughout the city; - Developing and revitalising activity centres as attractive places in which to invest,

live and work; - Ensuring that economic development and accessibility to employment inform urban

expansion



• At the same time, it is also acknowledged this amendment will mean a net loss of one or two dwellings. The urban growth target for Town of Cambridge is 1700 dwellings by 2031 (Central Metropolitan Perth, Sub-Regional Strategy, August 2010). This loss of one or two dwellings is considered inconsequential to the gain and reinforcement for the longevity for the neighbourhood centre.

Comment The rezoning proposal has been developed on the basis that the area will be used for parking (and in the case of part of Lot 1000 the continued use of parking) for the adjoining shopping centre. The north-east part of Lot 1000 (No. 322 - 326) Cambridge Street has been used for car park since at least the 1970's. Accordingly, the rezoning of this area to a commercial zone presents no change to the long-term functioning of the area and brings the Town Planning Scheme in to line with the long-standing use of the site. The expansion of the parking area into Lot 270 (No. 152) Jersey Street provides the opportunity to improve the layout of the parking area and upgrade pedestrian refuge areas in the car park area. It will also provide for a separate entry and exit point from Jersey Street into the car park which will help to reduce traffic queuing along Jersey Street into the car park. The 'Local Centre' zone will also allow the site to be used for a range of other commercial uses and developments which are possible in this zone. Whilst it is unlikely that there would be new commercial development in this location in the near future, the rezoning will provide opportunities for further development to capitalise on the site's proximity to public transport and Wembley Town Centre. This is consistent with Council's working Local Planning Strategy which refers to opportunities to expand the Wembley Town Centre and build on the centre's existing commercial focus. As the rezoning only applies to two lots, one of which is already used for parking, the rezoning is only minor and addresses an irregularity in the Scheme. The proposal is therefore considered reasonable without the completion of the review of Town Planning Scheme No.1 or a Centre Plan for the Wembley Town Centre. These steps would otherwise be required for more substantial proposals to expand the existing zone boundary. In relation to the impact on adjoining properties, as that part of Lot 1000 (No. 322-326) Cambridge Street is used for parking already, the impact of the rezoning on the adjoining residential property to the north is considered negligible. To deal with the boundary between Lot 270 (No. 152) Jersey Street and the residential property to the north, the preliminary parking concept plan incorporates elements to mitigate impacts such as a landscaping buffer and masonry wall. The proposed changes to the parking access from Jersey Street should also improve local traffic conditions to the benefit of local residents. As per Policy 6.4: Wembley Precinct Policy, should new commercial development occur on the sites into the future, careful control will be exercised over the nature of uses and their design and layout to ensure minimal impact on any adjacent residential development.


The proposal will involve an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No.1 to rezone 270 (No. 152) Jersey Street and Part Lot 1000 (No. 322-326) Cambridge Street, Wembley from 'Residential R20' to 'Local Centre'.



AMENDMENT PROCESS:

A brief overview of the Scheme Amendment procedure is as follows:- • The Council adopts the initial proposal for a Scheme Amendment; • EPA determines whether the Amendment requires assessment under the Environmental

Protection Act; • The Amendment is advertised by Council for a period of 42 days in accordance with the

Town Planning Regulations; • The Council considers submissions received and determines whether to adopt the

Amendment in a final form (with or without modifications); • The Council’s final recommendation on the Amendment is forwarded with details of

submissions received to the WAPC; • The WAPC considers the proposal and makes a recommendation to the Minister for

Planning who makes a final decision as to whether to approve and gazette the Amendment, to request modifications to it (normally submitted back to Council) or to reject it.




Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town's natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme.


Should the Council initiate the Scheme Amendment, consultation will be required under the Town Planning Regulations.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Proposed rezoning and Site Map Attachment 2: Site photos Attachment 3: Preliminary Car park Plans


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Council initiates an Amendment to the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 to rezone Lot 270 (No. 152) Jersey Street and Part Lot 1000 (No. 322-326) Cambridge Street, Wembley from 'Residential R20' to 'Local Centre'. Carried 9/0



DV13.34 190 CAMBRIDGE STREET -TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN ELVERD LANE AND STATION STREET FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To approve temporary parking restriction amendments in Elverd Lane and Station Street, Wembley for the duration of the construction works of a 4 level medical centre at 186-190 Cambridge Street, Wembley.

SUMMARY:

A condition of Development Approval for the Cambridge Street Specialist Medical Centre, 186-190 Cambridge Street (report DV 10.18, April 2010) included the requirement: " a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the construction of the development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided within the subject site for the parking of workers’ vehicles on site and how traffic management will be undertaken. The Construction Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Town prior to the issue of the building licence." Restrictions posed by location of this construction site; the design of the proposed medical centre (with the main building located on the Cambridge Street frontage), as well as severe limitations imposed conditions in Cambridge Street have necessitated the use of Elverd Lane as the primary access to the construction site at 186-190 Cambridge Street, Wembley. The temporary closures will allow for construction vehicles, such as large concrete pump trucks, concrete and construction delivery trucks/semi-trailers to stop for extended period at certain stages of the construction process. The builder has estimated that there would be no more than 60 short to longer term closure periods. A number of properties, both commercial and residential use the lane for access. The Construction Management Plan (CMP) identifies that the builder will issue written notification of proposed works to all adjoining property owners, tenants and strata building managers advising about works that will be conducted in the vicinity of their property. It is also intended that the Administration writes to all adjacent occupiers and businesses, advising them of forthcoming demolition and construction, and the procedures proposed to manage the numerous temporary closures of Elverd Lane.

DETAILS:

To allow adequate access for construction vehicles to the site via Elverd lane, the builder has requested:- 1. the temporary suspension of the "No Standing" restrictions in Elverd Lane, from the rear

of 186 to the rear of and 198 Cambridge Street for the duration of the construction work (estimated at 18 months); and

2. the temporary suspension of the "2 hour" restrictions and approval to occupy the four parking bays in Station Street immediately adjacent to the LifeCare building at 202



Cambridge Street between 6am and 9am on days when major concrete pours are programmed (estimated to be no more than 30 occasions).

In accord with Policy 5.2.13, the builder has requested that the area of Cambridge Street, immediately adjacent to the site, be approved as "work zone" for the duration of the construction works. As this is a morning clearway, this work zone cannot be used prior to 9am. The removal of 6 parking bays in Cambridge Street for approximately 18 Months will impact on adjacent commercial premises. However, there are numerous, seldom used 2 hour parking bays further to the west, on both sides of Cambridge Street that would adequately accommodate customer parking requirements. The use of the four parking bays in Station Street has been requested so as to accommodate concrete trucks waiting to deliver during the major concrete pours, as these vehicles cannot park in the Cambridge Street works zone during the morning clearway period, and it is preferable for them to temporarily park in Station Street rather than slowly drive around the streets of Wembley awaiting a call to deliver to site. The temporary obstruction of Elverd Lane (between the rear of 186 Cambridge Street to the rear of 194 Cambridge Street) for up to 8 hours to allow for the 30, or so, major concrete pours will impact on residents in Barrett Street, particularly those at Numbers 9 to 17 Barrett Street and the businesses at 194 to 200 Cambridge Street. There will also be approximately 30 other occasions of short term obstructions of Elverd Lane to allow for major construction material/pre-cast components and minor concrete pours. These are anticipated to be a maximum of 2 hours each. The builder has confirmed that their standard procedure is to officially inform all affected residents and local businesses in writing 48 hours before any significant or major works take place. This should be adequate notice for affected residents to make alternative arrangements for parking of their vehicles. The builder's Construction Management Plan includes the following statements:-

• "Over the planned 18 month construction period, longer duration lane closures will typically be required for events such as excavation, precast and steel deliveries and concrete pours. These events will be weekly and involve a part lane closure for up to 8 hours. These events will be notified to the residents via letter drop and a sign board located to the lane end at Station St."

• "The works when likely to disrupt neighbour operations due to restricted Vehicle Access to the laneway/ or Excessive Noise/ or Services Disruptions and the like will be planned and communicated on an ongoing basis to all affected parties."

• "It is intended to develop a proactive relationship via ongoing written and verbal dialogue with the affected parties, providing maximum practical notice periods and Works information."

So as to provide access to verge or on-street parking, those residents of Barrett Street whose on-site parking is only accessible via Elverd Lane will be offered the relevant parking permits if they have not already received permits to park in Barrett Street. The Administration will consult with affected residents and businesses and liaise with the builder in order that recycling and refuse removal services, including private refuse removal services are maintained during the construction period. The builder has offered to ensure that refuse bins are physically moved to a street-based collection point and then returned to the relevant property; however this proposal is yet to be assessed.




The recommended temporary changes to parking restrictions are:- • in accord with the Policy 5.2.22 - Parking Restrictions, which allows changes to parking

restrictions to meet changes of adjacent land use or road conditions. • in accord with the Policy 5.2.13 - Loading zones for building sites, which allows for on-

street parking adjacent to construction sites to be changed to work zones for the construction period, provided that the applicant meets any costs incurred.


There are no financial implications relating to this matter. The builder will bear all costs associated with works zone signage, temporary lane closure signage and community advice/information.


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009 - 2020 has specific outcome areas to aim for, namely:- Community - Quality service to meet identified community needs and expectations; - A safe community.


This matter has been considered under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as "Inform". The Administration will write to every adjacent occupier and businesses to inform them of forthcoming demolition and construction works at 190 Cambridge Street, the builders' procedures proposed to manage the numerous temporary closures of Elverd Lane; as well as providing a list of the builders' relevant staff and their telephone numbers.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That, for the duration of the estimated 18 months construction period at 186-190 Cambridge Street, Wembley:- (i) the "No Standing" restrictions in Elverd Lane between the rear of 186 Cambridge

Street to the rear of 194 Cambridge Street, be temporarily suspended;

(ii) the "2 hour" parking restrictions in the four parking bays in Station Street immediately adjacent to LifeCare, 202 Cambridge Street, be suspended between 6am and 9am on days when major concrete pours occur;



(iii) the Administration liaise with the contracted builder and relevant service providers to ensure refuse and recycling collection services to affected residents and businesses are effectively maintained;

(iv) adjacent residents and businesses be advised in relation to the matters raised in this report.

Carried 9/0



DV13.35 PROPOSED PARKING RESTRICTIONS - WEMBLEY COMMUNITY CENTRE

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To obtain Council approval to implement parking restrictions in the Wembley Community Centre car parks W103 and W104.

BACKGROUND:

The matter of parking restrictions at the Wembley Community Centre was considered by the Council in June 2011. Council decided as follows:- "That:- (i) appropriate signs be erected in the car parks serving the Wembley Community Centre

restricting use to centre users and an identification permit be issued to the users, to be permanently affixed to their car, to enable the car parks to be patrolled by the Town's rangers;

(ii) the decision in (i) not be implemented until the proposed street parking and footpath

realignment works in Alexander Street are constructed;

(iii) the Council, in collaboration with the Department of Education, Wembley Primary School administration and School Board prepare a parking and access plan. The plan will include, but not be limited to, the identification of additional bays for staff in the immediate area and strategies for increasing safety during pick-up and drop-off times;

(iv) the Administration to report to the July Council meeting on the progress of the initiatives outlined above and confirmation that the Department of Education will co-fund the works in Alexander Street."

Construction of embayed parking in Alexander Street was completed at the beginning of 2012 (Education Department paid half). Over the course of last year, Council staff worked with the school and the Wembley Community Centre to better manage parking and traffic. Introducing parking restrictions in Wembley Community Centre were not imperative over this time.

DETAILS:

Parking Permits With respect to the permit system, following further discussions with Wembley Community Centre Management and Manager Community Development, it became clear that a permit scheme for visitors and clients to the Wembley Community Centre would be cumbersome to administer due to the large number of patrons utilising the centre. In 2011, the Wembley Community Centre had approximately 150 patrons, this number has increased to approximately 300 regular patrons who use the centre during the week. A number of these patrons are elderly and there are others who are not necessarily regular users. As a consequence, the increase in patronage has made a permits system unmanageable



Parking Time Restrictions As a result of ongoing parking congestion and at the Wembley Community Centre, it is recommended that timed parking restrictions in car parks W103 and W104, indicating "2 Hour Parking, 8am to 5.30pm, Monday to Friday", would resolve the current problems for clients and visitors to the Community Centre. Two hours will serve the needs of the centre users and discourage use by school staff. Parking and Access Plan With respect to item (iii) of the above Council decision (preparation of a Parking and Access Plan). In preparing the Parking and Access Plan, consideration has been given to needs of both the school and the Wembley Community Centre. With regard to the needs of the school, this includes both staff parking and parent drop-off and pick-up of school children. The Administration is working with the school to improve driver behaviour at drop-off and pick-up times and to reduce the number of car trips to the school with assistance from the Travel Smart officer.


Implementations of parking restrictions as detailed in this report are in conformity with Policy No. 5.2.22 (i) - 'Implementation of Restrictions'. Clause 3.1 of the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law requires that any proposal to determine or amend the permitted time or the conditions of parking in a parking station; or the permitted class of vehicle which may park in a parking station; or persons who may park in a parking station requires a formal decision by the Council.


The total cost of the proposed parking restriction signage and re-marking the demarcation lines within the centre car park is estimated at $3000. This can be accommodated under Budget Item - Wembley Community Centre.


The strategic direction pertaining to the proposed parking restrictions supports the outcome area objectives of the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020, namely:- - services that meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and visitors; - develop a parking strategy aligned to land use.


This matter has been considered under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as "Inform". Parking restrictions are determined by the Council in accordance with the Parking Local Law. The public are informed of the parking restrictions by the installation of Australian Standard compliant signage that clearly states the applicable parking restrictions. Wembley Primary School management have been advised by the Administration of the proposed restrictions in the Wembley Community Centre Car parks W103 and W104.



ATTACHMENTS:

Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That "2 Hour Parking, 8am to 5:30pm, Monday to Friday" parking restrictions be implemented at the Wembley Community Centre car parks W103 and W104 with effect from 1 April 2013. Carried 9/0



DV13.36 AUTHORISATION OF OFFICERS - DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To authorise recently employed Officers under various statutes.

BACKGROUND:

The Town of Cambridge is responsible for the enforcement of various Acts, Regulations and Local Laws. These include Planning and Development, Building, Health, Food, Local Government, Environmental Protection and subsidiary legislation. It is essential that Officers employed by the Town be authorised to enable them to perform their duties. Authorisations in terms of other Acts provides the Administration with the flexibility of using multi-skilled Officers capable to deal with various enforcement matters when they arise.

DETAILS:

Mr Ben Milne commenced employment with the Town on 11 February 2013 as an Environmental Health Officer: The prime objective of the Environmental Health position is to ensure compliance with the Health and Food Acts, numerous Health Regulations, the Environmental Protection Act in relation to noise issues, the Local Government Act; and the Town's local laws. Two Compliance Officers commenced employment with the Town, as follows:- • Mr Mark Sargent commenced on 14 January 2013; • Mrs Zena Baker commenced on 4 February 2013. The prime objective of these positions is to administer compliance and conformity with Town Planning and Building legislation, and those local laws relating to development or the management and use of public property. In its decision in relation to Report DV12.43 (Building Act 2011 - Appointment of Authorised Officers, Schedule of Fees and Charges and New Delegations ) of April 2012, the Council delegated a range of Building Act enforcement activities and powers of entry to a range of positions (not persons). Those delegations also apply to the abovementioned positions.


Authorisations in terms of various regulations and the Town's local laws permit Officers to take enforcement action, issue relevant Notices or infringement notices, as well as process various applications for approval.






Authorisation of Officers satisfies the Strategic Direction of capable and committed staff and services that meet resident and ratepayer needs by improving delivery and quality of services.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as “Not required” as the matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That:- (i) Mr Benjamin Milne, Environmental Health Officer, whilst employed by the Town, be

appointed as an authorised officer with effect from 11 February 2013 in terms of:

(a) Health Act 1911 and all subsidiary legislation; (b) Environmental Protection Act 1986 and all subsidiary legislation; (c) for the purposes Section 122(1)(b) of the Food Act 2008; (d) be designated as a 'Designated Officer' under provisions of Section 126(13) of

the Food Act 2008 for the express purpose of issuing Infringement Notices; (e) Local Government Act 1995, Sections 3.24, 3.39, 3.40, 9.10, 9.11, and 9.29 for

the purposes of enforcing any provisions of the Act and all Local Laws made under the Act, the issue of Notices and the issue of Infringement Notices;

(f) the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920 and local laws made under that Act; and

(g) all Town of Cambridge Local Laws; (ii) Mr Mark Andrew Sargent and Mrs Zena Baker, Compliance Officers, whilst

employed by the Town, be appointed as authorised officers from 14 January 2013, and 4 February 2013 respectively, in terms of:

(a) the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme, Clause 54 for the purpose of

entering, at any reasonable time, any building or land to determine whether the provisions of the Scheme have been or are being observed;

(b) the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920 and local laws made under that Act;

(c) the Local Government Act 1995, Sections 3.24, 3.39, 3.40, 3.40A, 9.10, 9.11, 9.13, 9.15, 9.16 and 9.29 for the purposes of entering private land, enforcing any provisions of the Act and Local Laws made under the Act, and the issue of Notices and Infringement Notices;

(d) the Planning and Development Act 2005, Section 234 for the for the express purpose of issuing Infringement Notices;

(e) all Town of Cambridge Local Laws.

Carried 9/0



DV13.37 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR FEBRUARY 2013

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the Council of other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters.

DETAILS:

The following items (for the month of February 2013) have been dealt with under delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- • 28 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • 21 Pindari Road, City Beach - Replacement patio • 6 Norbury Crescent, City Beach - Alfresco re-roof • 43 Boscombe Avenue, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 6 Arbordale Street, Floreat - Single storey dwelling • 79b Lake Monger Drive, Wembley - Three storey dwelling • 60 Essex Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 158 Daglish Street, Wembley - Shed • 2 Nanson Street, Wembley - Single storey dwelling • 84 St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville

The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval:- • Two lot amalgamation - Lot 802 (No. 82) Salvado Road and Lot 309 Halifax Lane,

Wembley • Two lot subdivision - Lot 301 Birkdale Street (corner The Boulevard and Newry Street),

Floreat The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s information:- Applications for Review (Appeals) - received No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions of the Council during February 2013. Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during February 2013.




Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period ending 28 February 2013 be received. Carried 9/0



DV13.38 BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building permits approved under delegated authority in February 2013.

BACKGROUND:

Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued in the month of February 2013. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of permits issued on the same month of the previous year and year to date totals. February

2013 February

2012 Financial

Year to Date 2012/2013

Corresponding Financial Year

to Date 2011/2012

Building Permits 41 36 444 417 Demolition Permits 10 6 63 49 Building Approval Certificate (unauthorised work)

1 4 2 8

Building Approval Certificate (Strata Development)

0 0 3 0

Occupancy Permits (Classes 2-9 only)

3 0 11 0

Occupancy Permits (Strata Development)

0 0 1 0

Special Licences 0 0 0 0 Total

45

46

324

474

Value of Construction $9,807,199 $11,910,618 $125,024,205 $121,225,425 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar That the Schedule of Building and D emolition Permits approved under delegated authority for the month of February 2013, as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received. Carried 9/0


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\MARCH 2013\C CR.DOCX 70

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE The report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on Monday 18 March 2013 was submitted as under:


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources Committee open at 6.02 pm.


Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 8.55 pm Mayor Simon Withers 6.02pm 8.55 pm Cr Louis Carr 6.02 pm 8.55 pm Cr Sonia Ginceri 6.02 pm 8.55 pm Cr Colin Walker 6.02 pm 8.55 pm Observers: Cr Rod Bradley Cr Tracey King Cr Corinne MacRae Officers: Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Carole Lambert, Acting Director Community Development Brett Jackson, Director Projects Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks Peter Maloney, Manager Infrastructure (Assets and Design) Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance and Contracts Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 8.55 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil




Steve Apedaile, 1 Jubilee Crescent, City Beach Re: Item CR13.16 - City Beach BioLINC Project - Community Comment Question 1 Can Council advise whether a cost analysis study which compares water savings versus initial establishment and maintenance costs has been completed to support claims made by Coastcare and the Town of Cambridge in the BioLINC proposal? Response Not at this stage of the planning process as the budget unit rates for those various elements of the BioLINC project relating to initial establishment costs and maintenance have not been assessed at that advanced level by Council or the Coastcare Quantity Surveyor. Potential Water savings, however, have been assessed over the initial 4 years and on water volumes used in 2011/12 as follows:- Jubilee park is 4.92 hectares in total and was supplied with 28,234 kilolitres of water in financial year 2011/2012. The Town's parks in total (including Jubilee park) consumed 985,750 kilolitres in financial year 2011/2012. Current Usage (2011/2012): 28,200 kilolitres full year. Estimated usage within the 40% ecozone turf area (1.97Ha) proposed for BioLINC planting = 11,300 kilolitres Year 1 of planting: 8,475 kilolitres will be used in a full year (25% less) = -2,825 Year 2 of planting: 5,650 kilolitres will be used in a full year (50% less) = -5,650 Year 3 of planting: 2,825 kilolitres will be used in a full year (75% less) = -8,475 Year 4 of planting: 0 kilolitres - no watering = saving of 11,200 Question 2 Do Council acknowledge that since the BioLINC proposal entails native revegetation for less than 30 cm height on new artificially recreated dunes with significant less undulation compared to the Floreat Boardwalk, together with a requirement to maintain attractive species to a standard tourist operators deemed " Kings park by the Sea ", continual irrigation would be required with no significant net water savings anticipated ? Response No. Follow up planting for three years will ensure the plants not strong enough to survive will be replaced and irrigation will be reduced until not longer required after 3 years in the ecozoned areas



Gordon Swingler, 6 Branksome Gardens, City Beach Re: Item CR13.16 - City Beach BioLINC Project - Community Comment Question 1 Our elected Council members have been provided with both copies of a feasibility assessment by Dr Mitchell Ladyman at the recent Special Electors' meeting and the WALGA planning guidelines, section 6. Coastcare have provided not one scientific report to support their claim of an increase in biodiversity upon completion of the BioLINC project. Do Council acknowledge no significant increase in biodiversity will result upon completion of their project? Would Council support a Federal Biodiversity grant application lodged by Coastcare mindful that neither Council nor the wider public have not been provided with any supporting scientific documents whatsoever? Response The Director of Infrastructure advised that the question will be taken on notice and a written response will be provided. Question 2 Should Councillor Colin Walker excuse himself from voting on the BioLINC proposal at the ordinary meeting on Tuesday 26 March 2013 since being the Council representative on the Coastcare committee, his position is compromised? Response No. Cr Walker is a Council representative on Coastcare and, as such, does not have to declare an interest and excuse himself from voting on the proposal. Eric Tucker, Re: Item CR13.16 - City Beach BioLINC Project - Community Comment Question Why was 40% Ecozoned area referred to when responding to Mr Apeldaile's question when at the Special Meeting of Electors a revised plan was referred to with 20% to be ecozoned. Response This matter is to be discussed at tonight's meeting. 4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item CR13.16 Duane Cole, Save Jubilee Park Committee made a deputation on the BioLINC project and made reference to the Special Meeting of Electors presentation, the feasibility report prepared by Dr Ladyman and questions from that meeting for Council consideration.

Item CR13.16 Jessica Stingemore, Chairperson, Coastcare made a presentation about the benefits of the BioLINC proposal.

Item CR13.16 Dr Kingsley Dixon, Member, Coastcare made a presentation at which he provided 18 scientific journal extracts for Council information only.




That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee held on 18 February 2013 as contained in the February 2013 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.


Item CR13.16 - Mayor Withers, Impartiality Interest Item CR13.21 - Cr Grinceri, Proximity Interest Item CR13.28 - Mayor Withers and Cr Langer, Financial Interest

7. REPORTS



CR13.15 ECOZONE IMPLEMENATION PROGRAM

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider a proposed Ecozone Implementation Program for the Town's road reserves and parks.

BACKGROUND:

The Town has a Water Conservation Plan 2007/2008 which is a license requirement by the Department of Water for the allocation of ground water to the Town for the purposes of park irrigation. This plan lists a set of strategies developed into 27 Actions in order to achieve various targets set in the plan. Action four states "Assess turf areas that are suitable for replacement with mulched low water use gardens" (i.e. Ecozones). This report relates to this action. The above strategy and action to install Ecozones applies to all Metropolitan Councils. The Plan's Water Conservation Strategies and Actions have been included in Attachment 1 of this report. Ecozone - Can be defined as a section within a park which contains native vegetation and no turf (grassed surface). The primary role of an Ecozone is to promote biodiversity. The Ecozone can consist of either shrubs, trees or both and can be either irrigated or not. If irrigated, the system should ideally have the ability to be operated only when necessary via a central control system and weather station for plant survival and to conserve water. Ideally, Ecozones should be considered for establishment when designing a new park such as the Ocean Mia and Perry Lakes Estates, or when upgrading/improving a park as part of the Town's Park Improvement Concept Plans strategy. Ecozoning can also be designed and implemented on an existing park or road reserve. However, this requires an assessment of the use of the park and the existing irrigation system. Redesigning or removing a section of an irrigation system can be expensive and sometimes not possible. To make Ecozones possible, easy to implement and minimise irrigation modification costs, they should be designed to fit, as much as possible, the existing irrigation system of a park or road reserve. Hydrozone - Can be defined as the set up of the irrigation system on a park that has the ability to apply different amounts of water on a particular area (zone) within the park, based on the type of use of the area within the zone and the irrigation requirements of the turf or vegetation within the zone. The primary role of implementing this is to irrigate parks based on usage and the type of crop (vegetation) growing in the park. This ensures responsible use of ground water resources and should result in reducing water consumption. An example of this is the different irrigation requirements between the playing and the non-playing surface of a sportsground or between a garden bed and the surrounding turf within a neighbourhood park. Hydrozoning and best practice industry standards for park irrigation management, commenced in the Town in 1997 when improvements to park irrigation began. These improvements were completed in 2010 when all Town parks and road reserves were connected to the central control computer and weather station enabling full implementation of Hydrozoning. No further improvements to hydrozoning are required at this stage.



The Town's park irrigation consumption for year ending 30 June 2012 was 24% below the Department of Water annual allocation, representing a saving of 307,400 kilolitres. These savings are as a result of irrigation and hydrozoning improvements made to date. In 2010, best practice industry methods for park irrigation were developed into a strategy aimed at formalising existing practices, providing the Town with best practice industry infrastructure, systems and procedures for sustainable and effective irrigation management. The strategy included a five step approach which has been used since 1997 to achieve the desired outcomes as follows:- 1. Improve irrigation systems; 2. Improve irrigation scheduling/application and introduce Hydrozones; 3. Improve water penetration and retention to plant roots; 4. Introduce Ecozones; and 5. Manage ground water allocation. It is recognised the plan has been significant and successful as the Town was a finalist in the Premier's Awards in 2010 and the Australian Water Association Awards in 2011 and 2012. The above strategy was presented to Council in September 2010, (Item CR10.5), and Council decided that:- "(i) the Best Practice Irrigation Management Strategy, as outlined in the report, be received;

and (ii) the Administration investigate and report back to Council on an Ecozone program, for

implementation in the Town." The Town has completed all the requirements on four of the above five strategic steps and is now ready to progress item 4, "Introduce Ecozones". The Town has been implementing Ecozones since 2006. Locations of existing Ecozones throughout the Town include the road reserves of Oceanic Drive median, The Boulevard median, West Coast Highway median, the parks at the Ocean Mia housing development, the Rose Gardens, Holyrood Park and more recently the verge between Chipping Road and Hale Road. These Ecozones have been favourably received by the majority of residents. Photographs of some of the above existing Ecozone locations have been included in Attachment 2 of this report. To further progress the development of an Ecozone program for implementation, the Council, in May 2012, (Item CR12.58), decided that:- "(i) the proposed Ecozone Trial described in this report and as shown on attachment 2 map,

at a section of Challenger Park bounded by Challenger Parade, Jubilee Crescent and Boscombe Avenue be supported for consideration in the Draft 2012/2013 Budget; and

(ii) a further report be submitted on road reserve Ecozone projects together with Parks Ecozone projects for implementation in future budgets."



The above Council report identified that at a recent seminar in 2011, the "Centre for the Built Environment and Health School of Population Health", University of Western Australia, it was stated, amongst other benefits, that research indicates public open space with higher amounts of grass and trees are used more frequently and increased neighbourhood "greenness" is associated with better physical and mental health. Therefore, care should be taken in making decisions for permanent removal of turf areas from public open space, by ensuring there are adequate turf areas remaining for public recreation. The Ecozone Trial in 1 above has been funded in the 2012/13 budget. A report in this project (Item CR13.1) was presented to the February 2013 Council meeting. Implementation has been deferred pending consideration of a City Beach BioLINC Project.

DETAILS:

To progress and assist with the identification of Ecozone projects, an Ecozone development strategy was prepared to:- • assist in formalising existing Ecozoning practices in the Town; • assist in the identification of new Ecozones; • provide elected members, staff and the community, information on the purpose and

benefits of Ecozoning; and • ensure the sustainable development of Ecozones. Ecozone Development Strategy

1. Review and assess all turf areas within landscaped road reserves and public open space (irrigated and non-irrigated) suitable for replacement with mulched low water use gardens (Ecozones) to:-

• conserve water, promote biodiversity and visually improve the area while retaining the area's amenity and function.

In relation to public open space, it is important not to remove areas of turf currently used or have the potential to be used for public recreation.

2. To minimise irrigation modification costs, the Ecozone should be designed as much as possible to match the existing irrigation system.

3. Commence Hydrozoning (applying different water requirements within the new Ecozones) whilst plants are being established. Once the Ecozones have established irrigation can be turned off as required.

Ecozone Implementation Program

With the assistance of the Ecozone Development Strategy as detailed above, a ten year Ecozone Implementation Program has now been developed and is included as Attachment 3 to this report. This program also includes an assessment of the likely cost of improvements.

The Ecozone Implementation Program can be summarised as follows:-



Irrigated Turf - Will achieve water savings and biodiversity improvements by 2019 (6 years):

• Existing Irrigated Turf (Ha)

177.75

• Proposed New Ecozones in Irrigated Turf (Ha)

27.168 Includes 8.55Ha within the Park Improvement Plans Program

• Net Irrigated Turf After Ecozoning (Ha), after 6 years.

150.58 2013 to 2019

• Percentage Reduction of Irrigated Turf (%)

15.28 Target Objective by 2019

• Water Consumed in 2011/2012 (kilolitres)

985.750

• Target Water Consumption by the Year 2019 (kilolitres/Year)

822,739

• Potential Water Savings (kilolitres/Year)

163,011

• Percentage Reduction in Water Consumption (%)


• Total Cost of Ecozoning Parks excluding Park Improvements Plans

$2,159,426

• Total Cost of Ecozoning Parks within the Park Improvement Plans Program

$923,000 8.55Ha x $108,00

• Total Cost of Irrigated Turf Improvements ($)

$3,082,426

Non-Irrigated Turf - Will achieve biodiversity and aesthetic improvements over 4 years 2019 to 2023:

• Existing Non-Irrigated Turf (Ha)

23.88

• Proposed New Ecozones in Non-Irrigated Turf (Ha)

13.01

• Net Non-Irrigated Turf After Ecozoning (Ha) after 4 years

10.87 2019 to 2023

• Percentage reduction of non-irrigated turf (%)


• Total Cost of Ecozoning Improvements

$1,347,258

Total Cost of Ecozone Improvement Program - $4,429,684

Priorities

Ecozoning irrigated turf areas have been placed on a higher priority than Ecozoning non-irrigated areas due to identified water savings.

Road reserves have been placed on a higher priority to parks because they are more visible to the wider community and will assist to promote Ecozoning during the first few years of the program.

The 23 park locations that were identified by Council in November 2012 (Item CR12.169) for implementing overall park improvements, have been categorised separately in Attachment 3, as Ecozoning within these parks will be part of individual improvement plans and associated costs that will be presented to Council in future reports. It is assumed an average area of 15-20% can be ecozoned on each park.



Water Savings Detail In 2011/2012, the Town's annual allocation was 1,293,150 kilolitres. The Town used 985,750 kilolitres of water to irrigate its parks which related to a saving of 307,400 kilolitres (minus 24%) below the annual allocation. In 2012/2013, the Town received an increase in its water allocation from the Department of Water, due to a review of the Town's actual irrigated areas. The Town's annual ground water allocation (excluding the Golf Course) from the Department of Water is now 1,397,325 kilolitres per year (increase of 104,175 kilolitres or plus 8.0%). The 27.168Ha of existing irrigated turf proposed to be eventually replaced over a 6 year period with Ecozones currently consumes an average of about 163,010 kilolitres per year (27.168Ha x 6,000 kilolitres per hectare per year). The above water savings can only be achieved over 6 years by modifying the irrigation systems to the parks to isolate the Ecozones from the surrounding turf areas, to allow irrigation to be turned off, once Ecozones have established. Water Savings (%) 11.7% (on Department of Water allocation 2012/2013). Water Savings (%) 16.5% (on 2011/2012 usage). Ecozoning Target Objectives:

• To reduce irrigated turf areas in road reserves parks and sportsgrounds by up to 15% or 27.168Ha (from 177.75Ha to 150.58Ha) between July 2013 and June 2019;

• To gradually reduce water consumption in irrigated turf areas by up to 16.54% or

163,010 Kilolitres per year, between July 2013 and June 2019;

• To gradually reduce non-irrigated turf areas in road reserves parks and sportsgrounds by up to 54.5% or 13.01Ha (from 23.88 to 10.87Ha) between July 2019 and June 2023.

The Town's water consumption in 2011/2012 was 985,750 kilolitres (which is 70.55% of our annual allocation of 1,397,325 kilolitres). The above savings will result in consuming 822,739 kilolitres or 58.88% of our allocation by the year 2019. It is noted that turning off the irrigation to these areas will result in higher plant mortality rates as nature takes its course, particularly during periods of above average summer temperatures and below average winter rains. However, this can be managed by increasing planting programs.



ECOZONE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM PROJECTED WATER SAVINGS

Cost of Improvements

The Ecozone Implementation Program has been developed for implementation over a 10 year period subject to approved budget funding. This equates to a budget requirement of approximately $350,000 per year.

The Program's annual cost details over the life of the Program, 10 years, are detailed in Attachment 3 as follows:-

Irrigated Parks Road Reserves/Sportsgrounds

Park Improvement Plans Non Irrigated Parks Total Cost of Improvements

Year 1 $359,710 $153,833 $0 $513,543 Year 2 $341,480 $153,833 $0 $495,313 Year 3 $314,000 $153,833 $0 $467,833 Year 4 $432,000 $153,833 $0 $585,833 Year 5 $343,440 $153,833 $0 $497,273 Year 6 $368,796 $153,833 $0 $522,629 Year 7 $0 $0 $274,010 $274,010 Year 8 $0 $0 $398,200 $398,200 Year 9 $0 $0 $341,000 $341,000 Year 10 $0 $0 $334,048 $334,048 Total $2,159,426 $923,000 $1,347,258 $4,429,684 An overview of proposed Ecozone locations, have been included in Attachment 4 of this report.

411,575 436,745

462,095 485,645

518,195 545,825

574,595 574,595 574,595 574,595 574,595

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Yr 2012 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr 10

Wat

er V

olum

e (

kilo

liter

es )

DoW Allocation

Cambridge Useage

Variance To Allocation



Comment

The Town's first Ecozone Implementation Program aims to promote biodiversity, conserve water and visually improve the Town's Road Reserves and Parks while keeping the areas amenity and function. The Town has been implementing Ecozones since 2006 and is well placed in continuing this strategy. Turf areas considered for Ecozoning have been carefully assessed so as not to remove areas of turf currently used or have the potential to be used for public recreation including walking of animals, kicking a football, enjoying a picnic or just relaxing. The implementation of this program will provide a significant visual change to some areas and should be implemented over a 10 year period (6 years within areas of irrigated turf and 4 years within areas of non-irrigated turf), commencing with the irrigated road reserves first, to assist in the promotion and benefits of Ecozoning. It is recommended that the following Ecozone target objectives be agreed to:- • To reduce irrigated turf areas in road reserves parks and sportsgrounds by up to 15% or

27.168Ha (from 177.75Ha to 150.58Ha) between July 2013 and June 2019; • To gradually reduce water consumption in irrigated turf areas by up to 16.54% or 163,010

Kilolitres per year, between July 2013 and June 2019; • To gradually reduce non-irrigated turf areas in road reserves parks and sportsgrounds by

up to 54.5% or 13.01Ha (from 23.88 to 10.87Ha) between July 2019 and June 2023. • the Ecozone Implementation Program be reviewed annually to report on the progress

against the above target; • Ecozoning be incorporated with the Parks Improvements Concept Plans and not be

implemented until these plans are endorsed. • The proposed Ecozone Implementation Program be supported and each year of the

program be listed in the draft budget for further consideration.


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.


If the proposed Ecozone Implementation Program is endorsed and an amount of $359,710 is proposed to be listed in the 2013/2014 Draft Budget for Council consideration, to implement the first year of works. Grant funding will be sourced if available and if the project qualifies.


This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 2009-2020:- • Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; • Preserve the character of our suburbs; • Develop and improve the Town's main beaches and reserves;



• Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure their sustainability for future generations; and

• Understand our environmental impacts and respond appropriately.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration of the “Inform” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, it is proposed to inform the community as follows:

• Via a letter, for immediate adjacent residents of proposed future works; • For other residents, it proposed to install appropriate signage at the works area. These

signs have previously been used prior to implementing Ecozoning works on Oceanic Drive median, The Boulevard median and Hale Road.

SUMMARY: As part of the Town's Water Conservation Plan 2007/2008 and the Council decision in May 2012 to identify Ecozone projects for implementation in future budgets, a proposed Ecozone Implementation Program has now been developed. The Program aims to promote biodiversity and conserve water, while retaining the area's amenity and function. The Ecozone Implementation Program lists those road reserves and parks, in priority order, commencing with the irrigated road reserves first, that are considered suitable for Ecozoning. Concept design details of each location will be prepared as funding is approved each year and presented to Council for consideration. The 23 parks that have been previously identified for implementing overall improvements as part of the Park Improvement Concept Plans Program have also been identified for Ecozoning. However, Ecozoning these parks will be considered when improvement plans are developed for these parks which will be presented to Council for consideration. When preparing these plans an assumption is made that around 15-20% of these parks can be ecozoned. It is recommended that the attached proposed Ecozone Implementation Program be supported and relevant road reserves and parks be listed in the draft budget each year for further consideration. To achieve the above it is recommended that the following Ecozone target objectives be endorsed:- • To reduce irrigated turf areas in road reserves parks and sportsgrounds by up to 15% or

27.168Ha (from 177.75Ha to 150.58Ha) between July 2013 and June 2019; • To gradually reduce water consumption in irrigated turf areas by up to 16.54% or 163,010

Kilolitres per year, between July 2013 and June 2019; • To gradually reduce non-irrigated turf areas in road reserves parks and sportsgrounds by

up to 54.5% or 13.01Ha (from 23.88 to 10.87Ha) between July 2019 and June 2023. • the Ecozone Implementation Program be reviewed annually to report on the progress

against the above target; • Ecozoning be incorporated with the Parks Improvements Concept Plans and not be

implemented until these plans are endorsed.



• The proposed Ecozone Implementation Program be supported and each year of the program be listed in the draft budget for further consideration.

Total cost of Ecozoning improvements is estimated at $4,429,684 over 10 years.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Water Conservation Plan Strategies. 2. Photographs of existing Ecozones within the Town. 3. Proposed Ecozone Implementation Program. 4. Proposed Ecozone Location Plans. Committee Meeting 18 March 2013 During discussion, the Administration was requested to provide further information in relation to maintenance costs of the Ecozone in Oceanic Drive median. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the following Ecozone target objectives be endorsed:

• to gradually reduce irrigated turf areas in road reserves parks and sportsgrounds by up to 15% or 27Ha (from 178Ha to 150Ha) between July 2013 and June 2019;

• to gradually reduce water consumption in irrigated turf areas by up to 15% or

160,000 Kilolitres per year, between July 2013 and June 2019; • to gradually reduce non-irrigated turf areas in road reserves parks and

sportsgrounds by up to 55% or 13Ha (from 24Ha to 11Ha) between July 2019 and June 2023;

(ii) the Ecozone Implementation Program be r eviewed annually to report on t he

progress against the above targets; (iii) Ecozoning be incorporated with the Parks Improvements Concept Plans and not

be implemented until these plans are endorsed; (iv) the proposed Ecozone Implementation Program be supported and each year of

the program be listed in the draft budget for further consideration. Carried 9/0



CR13.16 CITY BEACH BIOLINC PROJECT - COMMUNITY COMMENT

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider the community consultation process outcomes in relation to the BioLINC proposal which was considered by Council in August 2012.

BACKGROUND:

At the commencement of the Community and Resources meeting held on Monday, 16 July 2012, representatives of the Cambridge Coastcare presented their concept of a BioLINC proposal for City Beach. Works proposed were rehabilitation of dunes which historically were removed or altered between 1940 and 1965. Subsequent to this presentation, the specific details were reviewed by the Administration and Council considered a report at its August 2012 meeting (item CR12.138) where the following decision was adopted:- "That:- (i) the proposal submitted by Cambridge Coastcare for the City Beach BioLINC project

detailed in the attachment be endorsed as a concept subject to various modifications and conditions as follows:-

(a) dune and coastal trail to the northern dune boardwalk being integrated with the

proposed shared path on the east side of Challenger Parade as detailed in the Town's City Beach Development Plan;

(b) all new coastal trails to give adequate consideration to passive surveillance; (c) clarification on which of these coastal trails incorporate a shared path for bicycle

use; (d) the extension of the dune system through the car park on the east side of

Challenger Parade be relocated to cross in the centre of the car park and there be no net loss of car parking bays, with the reconfigured car park and replacement car bays being consistent with the parking requirements of the beach precinct to be determined in the traffic and parking study for the Surf Club and commercial facilities development at City Beach;

(e) the sculpture in the roundabout at the corner of Oceanic Drive and Challenger

Parade not forming part of the BioLINC project;

(f) the options being considered to provide a biodiversity crossing across Challenger Parade and Oceanic Drive to be provided to the community during the consultation phase;

(g) any proposal to close Challenger Parade to traffic not be supported and will be

subject to a traffic and parking study for the Surf Club and commercial facilities development at City Beach;



(h) the dune and landscape strategy for Jubilee Park through to Boscombe Avenue be subject to resident support and to ensure that any plantings and dune construction do not obstruct existing beach and ocean views for residents;

(i) consideration being given to the integration of the Jubilee Park dune and landscape

strategy with the Surf Club and commercial facilities development at City Beach as it relates to traffic and parking;

(j) Cambridge Coastcare undertake the public consultation detailed in this report under

the guidance of officers of the Town; (ii) it be noted that Cambridge Coastcare will apply in the November/December 2012 round

of the federal government's Biodiversity Fund for $2.5 million to undertake the City Beach BioLINC project over a three year period; and

(iii) prior to the funding submission outlined in (ii) being made, the City Beach BioLINC

project being modified to incorporate the items in (i) above". It is noted that the plan attached to the August 2012 report was not completely supported by Council and specific modifications were required to be made prior to the conduct of the community consultation process. Council's decision required Cambridge Coastcare to undertake the public consultation process under the guidance of officers from the Town, with the following comments and guidance being relevant as detailed in the August 2012 report. "There are elements of the BioLINC project that would generate significant public interest and it is expected that there would be general support for the environmental and recreational outcomes proposed. However, some of the initiatives may impact on the residents that live in close proximity to some of the project areas such as the Jubilee Park dune development through to Boscombe Avenue and any changes to traffic and parking arrangements. Coastcare have advised that they will manage this project therefore Coastcare should undertake the consultation process and demonstrate community support for the project. It is proposed that the following consultation mechanisms should occur:- 1. Information circulated about the project to all the households in South City Beach; 2. A public information session be held; 3. Advertised in the local media with links to relevant website information about the project; 4. Feedback forms provided canvassing key parts of the project; 5. Other stakeholders such as the users of City Beach Oval, City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club

and restaurant operators at City Beach be consulted; and 6. Consultation undertaken over a four week period." Petition A petition was tabled at the Council meeting on 18 December 2012 as follows:- "We, the undersigned residents whom reside in City Beach alongside Jubilee Park strongly oppose proposed plans by Cambridge Coastcare to convert any grassed area of Jubilee Park to sand dunes. We request Cambridge Coastcare submit new plans only after completion of a comprehensive traffic management report in consultation with the new proposed surf club development". This petition was signed by owners of 10 properties who live directly adjacent Jubilee Park. There are a total of 13 properties directly adjacent Jubilee Park.



In accordance with Clause 3.5 of the Standing Orders, this petition was received and referred to the appropriate committee for a report to be prepared. A public consultation process was conducted which commenced 17 November 2012 for a four week period for submissions to close 17 December 2012. The report Attachment 2 of 5 includes the Information Pack and Proforma Survey sheet which was prepared for the consultation process. Coastcare, in collaboration with specialist community consultants Creating Communities, prepared the survey proforma and background information which was reviewed and approved by the Town of Cambridge prior to circulation to all residents of South City Beach. Attachment 3 of 5 also includes a copy of an advertisement which was included in the Post Newspaper on the weekend of 17 November 2012. This advertisement provided preliminary details on the project, provided a web link to view the plans and advised the time and location of two open days to be held at The Boulevard Centre by members of Coastcare. These open days were held on Sunday, 2 December 2012 (9am to 11am) and on Monday, 3 December 2012 (6pm to 8pm).

DETAILS:

During the public comment process, which commenced 17 November 2012, the following information and comments have been received for review in this report. 1. Letters from adjacent residents to Jubilee Park. 2. A petition was tabled to the Council meeting held 18 December 2012. It was signed by

owners representing 10 of the 13 properties who live directly adjacent Jubilee Park. 3. A total of 15 questions were asked during question time prior to the 18 December 2012

Council meeting. The replies are included in the December 2012 Council minutes. 4. As at 18 December 2012, 158 proforma replies had been received. Subsequently, a

further 13 were received making a total of 171. All 171 responses have been considered. Approximately 360 Information Packs were distributed to all properties in South City Beach. A further 155 were also posted to the property owner whose postal address was recorded in Council's property database as different to the actual property address.

5. All proforma replies and letters received were copied to Coastcare on 18 December

2012 and 18 January 2013 for inclusion in a report summarising the public opinions received relating to the BioLINC project.

6. Two community open days were conducted by Coastcare at The Boulevard Centre.

Unfortunately attendance was not extensive with 8 people attending the open day on Sunday, 2 December 2012 and 1 person attending on Monday, 3 December 2012.



Proforma Survey Responses The proforma survey form which was part of the Public Consultation Information Pack circulated provided an opportunity for comment on the proposal in a structured format of questions.

Whilst two lines were available for comment on these questions, it was noted additional pages could be attached in order to provide more comment. Save Jubilee Park Website During January 2013, it was bought to the attention of the Administration, that a website had been created by a group of community residents for the public to comment on the BioLINC proposal. It was referenced at SaveJubileePark.com and known as "Anti-BioLINC - Save Jubilee Park Petition. As at 12 March 2013, a total of 103 replies had been posed in response to the following questions:- "We the undersigned petition the Town of Cambridge to reject the BioLINC project as prepared by Cambridge Coastcare Inc and currently before the Town of Cambridge for consideration.

Proforma Survey Questions

BioLINC will be an attractive addition to City Beach and of benefit to beach goers. Yes/No This was then followed by the following 6 statements:- The development will improve:- 1. Beachside amenity; 2. Pedestrian access to the beach; 3. Pedestrian access and safety; 4. Traffic management and safety; 5. Use and respect of the local beachside environment; and 6. Community use of local facilities (e.g. New Surf Club). Tick box comments options were:- • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • Don't know Following this, 3 specific questions were provided for comment:- 1. What do you like best about the proposed development? 2. What concerns or suggested improvement do you have regarding the proposed

development? 3. Are there any additional comments you would like to make about Urban Design Option 1?



After reviewing the Cambridge Coastcare document entitled "BioLINC Connection People with Nature" released on 13 November 2012, in conjunction with the facts we find the following:- • The removal of the grassed area at Jubilee Park and construction of sand dunes is not in

the public interest;

• No risk assessment study has been conducted on the impact of the project on the safety of beach goers and surrounding residents. Thus, many pertinent safety issues raised by the community have not been addressed;

• No parking study has been completed, therefore the proposal can be misleading or misunderstood;

• No traffic study has been completed, therefore the proposal can be misleading of misunderstood."

General Comments When reviewing all completed proforma survey comments, various letters presented, the questions and petitions raised at the Council meeting on 18 December 2012, several issues have been identified as follows:- 1. Nearly half of the comments wish to retain Jubilee Park in its current state (no Ecozoning)

as it creates amenity, is well used and is iconic for City Beach. 2. There is a lack of detail in relation to how the new Surf Club and commercial facilities will

integrate with Jubilee Park. 3. There is no parking or traffic studies relating to the Surf Club and commercial facilities or

BioLINC plan. 4. There is no risk assessment presented into safety of pedestrians and cyclists. 5. The Jubilee Park plan creates increased danger from snakes and other feral animals. Surf Club and Commercial Facilities Project It is acknowledged in the August 2012 Council report, comment was made within the Council decision in relation to integration of this project with the BioLINC proposal and in relation to traffic and parking studies. Specific comment is provided on these issues as follows:- In so far as traffic and parking, the status is as follows:- • The traffic consultant has assessed the anticipated parking demand from the Surf Club

building and commercial development at City Beach and has a view that all parking demand can be satisfied within a five minute walk of the commercial buildings in all but extreme peak demand times;

• Administration believes that it is appropriate that the quantum of car parking spaces that will be taken away by the Surf project works be replaced as close as possible to the replacement Surf Club and restaurant buildings. This has yet to be designed even at concept level;

• The traffic consultant will need to propose a series of traffic calming measures on Challenger (north) to address the speed of vehicles within the beach precinct;



• If BioLINC proceeds and the Fred Burton car park is carved into two parts separated by a

dune, the lost car parking must be replaced (again within the five minute walking issue and possibly closer to the Surf Club and restaurant buildings by reconfiguring some of the dune area);

• The traffic consultant has formed a view that the additional traffic flow from the Surf project would have significant impacts on Challenger Parade and Oceanic Drive as the two main desire lines for access and egress. Side streets may only be impacted by kerbside parking. Council may wish to impose residential parking or local traffic only signage if it desires.

Special Meeting of Electors In accordance with section 5.28 of the Local Government Act 1995, a special meeting of the Electors of the district is to be held on a request of not less than - (a) 100 Electors or 5% of the number of Electors whichever is the lesser number; (b) 1/3 of the number of Council members. A request from Mrs Pam Buchhorn was received on 11 February 2013 and signed by in excess of 180 Electors. In accordance with section 5.28 of the Local Government Act, the Mayor scheduled this meeting to be held on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 at The Boulevard Centre commencing 6.00pm. The meeting was required to be held within 35 days of receipt of the request and 14 days notice must be given to the local public and Elected members. The request specified the matters to be discussed will be:- "The BioLINC and our objections to the BioLINC. Express our concerns concerning the BioLINC proposal". Following the conduct of a Special Electors Meeting, the minutes are to be made available for inspection by members of the public before the Council Meeting at which decisions made at Electors meeting are first considered. All decisions made at Electors Meeting are to be considered at the next ordinary Council Meeting, or the first ordinary Council Meeting after that meeting or at a special meeting called for that purpose. If at a meeting of the Council, a local government makes a decision in response to a decision made at an electors meeting, the reasons for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting. The meeting was convened on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 commencing at 6.00pm and concluded at 8.30pm. Meeting attendees :- 138 persons registered attendance for the meeting. 125 persons were marked off the electoral roll and were entitled to vote at this meeting. Approximately 190 persons attended the meeting.



The following motion was presented to the meeting. Motion: "That the BioLINC proposal not proceed." Moved: Mr Peter Dawson Seconded: Mr Eric Tucker For: 109 (88.6%) Against: 14 (11.4%) 123 votes The minutes from the meeting are included in the report attachment 5 of 5. General Meeting Opinions Discussed • Save Jubilee Park supporters made up the majority of attendees.

• Coastcare through Newform (Mr Matt Huxtable) presented a revised plan from that used

in the November 2012 public consultation. Essentially this plan reduced from around 40% to 15-20%, the amount of Jubilee Park proposed to be ecozoned. The revised plan focussed on ecozones on the western and northern park edges. The plan presented to the meeting is included within the report attachment 4 of 5.

• The majority of speakers wished to maintain 100% of the existing Jubilee Park as a passive/active recreational area with no extra ecozones being established.

• Several speakers requested if any scientific reports had been prepared for community review to justify scientifically how the BioLINC would work and what successful outcomes could be expected. It was noted no written reports are currently available for review. Coastcare Deputy Chairperson, David Merritt gave a verbal response to this question several times.

• The attendees generally agreed that all works completed over many years by Cambridge Coastcare had significantly improved the City Beach Dune systems and specific reference was made to the Dune Boardwalk project.

• Cambridge Coastcare confirmed to the meeting:- - All existing Norfolk Island Pines trees are to be maintained. - All proposed ecozone works on Jubilee Park are aimed at producing a native garden

incorporating plants of height up to 300mm. No natural surface levels would be altered to create any new sand hill or dunes as it is a specific deliverable that no existing ocean views will be reduced when works are carried out.

Cambridge Coastcare Public Consultation Report This report has been produced by Creating Communities for Cambridge Coastcare. The report was developed using data collected by Cambridge Coastcare as part of a public consultation process which they developed and implemented. This report is the Final version which incorporates changes following a review by the Town of Cambridge to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in the report and agreed to and supplemented by Cambridge Coastcare. A full copy of the Final report has been included within the report attachment 1 of 5.



A summary of the report is presented in relation to the report outcomes as detailed in the extract below:

"Cambridge Coastcare advise that the BioLINC project proposes to link interpretive trails and dune restoration that includes refreshed dune landscapes, restoring native vegetation in degraded areas and providing a world-class coast walking opportunity. It has been stated by Cambridge Coastcare that the Cambridge BioLINC project would be one of the largest biodiversity programmes undertaken in an Australian capital city coastal area and will be a showcase for the community and visitors. Cambridge Coastcare proposes work in Jubilee Park to remove lawn from the perimeter of the park on the western and northern sides and to plant attractive native species in a garden-type setting with walkways and seating areas installed amongst the new plants. These plant species are to be low growing (no higher than 300 millimetres) and no change in ground elevation is proposed (i.e. there will be no building of new dunes or sand hills). Irrigation will be installed for the establishment phase of the plants, envisaged to run for the first two or three summers following planting. The BioLINC proposal presented by Cambridge Coastcare was considered by the Town of Cambridge in August 2012 and was assessed as requiring public consultation under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. This is because there are elements of the BioLINC project that the Town of Cambridge perceived would generate significant public interest. While it was expected that there would be general support for the environmental and recreational outcomes proposed, the Town identified that there may be impacts on the residents that live in close proximity to the project areas such as the Jubilee Park dune development through to Boscombe Avenue. The feedback gained will be used by Cambridge Coastcare and the Town of Cambridge to determine the level of support for the proposed development and to inform any updates to the plans. It will also be used in Town of Cambridge reporting processes. Community Survey A total of 555 questionnaires and information packs were distributed by Cambridge Coastcare and the Town of Cambridge on Saturday 17th and Sunday 18th of November 2012. This includes:

• 359 distributed by hand by Cambridge Coastcare to households in the South City Beach Area bounded within Oceanic Drive, Challenger Parade, and West Coast Highway.

• 34 distributed by hand by Cambridge Coastcare to households in the area bounded by Yaringa Way and Windarra Drive, and north along Windarra Drive to Taworri Way. o 7 distributed to local stakeholder groups, including: o Green Range Cricket Club o West Coast Cowan Amateur Football Club o West Coast Junior FC o City Beach Tee Ball Club o Wembley Districts' Cricket Club o City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club o Clancy’s Fishbar City Beach

• 155 mailed out by the Town of Cambridge to every property owner within the target area that did not live at the property (i.e. those owners that had a different service address than the property address for their rates notice).



A stamped, addressed return envelope was included so as to encourage response. Also included with the questionnaire form was a cover letter and information brochure. These survey materials have been appended to the report (see appendix section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3). The questionnaires were returned to the Town of Cambridge who collected and collated the completed questionnaires which were then passed on to Cambridge Coastcare for data entry and analysis. There were at total of 171 responses and 154 of those were considered valid. It was evident that some community members sought to over-represent their household view by submitting more than one sheet. Questionnaires were considered invalid if they were duplicates that were created by a single individual. For a questionnaire to be considered a duplicate it had to meet all

of the following:

• Being written in the same handwriting as an original submission • Originating from the same street as an original submission • Having the exact same response to the numeric questions and an identical or very

similar response to the open ended questions as an original submission Following suggestions for exclusion by Cambridge Coastcare and Creating Communities, the final decision on the 17 invalid questionnaires was taken by the Town of Cambridge. It should be noted that the information and survey packs included a single questionnaire form per household. With the 17 invalid submissions only one submission was included per property. Survey Questions The community survey consisted of three open-ended questions and five closed-ended questions. The introduction to the questionnaire confirmed the purpose of the questionnaire, that all questions were optional and that the identity of respondent would remain anonymous. Only themes mentioned by two or more respondents in the open ended questions have been included in the report. Respondents were also asked three open ended questions. The answers to these questions were then coded according to themes. The percentage of respondents mentioning that theme could then be calculated. Multiple themes/codes could be recorded for each response, therefore percentages sum to greater than 100%. The three open ended questions were as follows: 1. What do you like best about the proposed development? 2. What concerns or suggested improvements do you have regarding the proposed

development? 3. Are there any additional comments you would like to make about Urban Design

Option 1? The results of these questions are described in the following sections.



What the local community liked best A large proportion of the local community liked the environment, natural vegetation and plants with 39% listing this as a key feature they liked best about the proposed development. The full list of responses mentioned by two or more respondents includes: • Environment, natural vegetation, plant diversity, plants etc (39% of respondents) • Walkways and trails (10% of respondents) • Native fauna, wildlife conservation (10% of respondents) • Reduces traffic issues including car parks and roads (10% of respondents) • Dune reclamation/restoration (10% of respondents) • Educational benefit (3% of respondents) • Water conservation, less lawn to water (1% of respondents) • Tourist attraction (1% of respondents) • Many respondents also stated that there was nothing that they liked about the

proposal (21%). Concerns or suggested improvements The most commonly mentioned concerns or suggested improvements were about the impact of increased traffic on residential streets (21% of respondents) and loss of existing amenity of Jubilee Park (19%). The full list of common responses includes: • Increased traffic on residential streets (21% of respondents) • Loss of existing amenity of Jubilee Park (19% of respondents) • Waste of money, enough dunes existing (12% of respondents) • Safety of walkers on trails (11% of respondents) • Snakes and other fauna including into gardens (10% of respondents) • More parking needed (7% of respondents) • Loss of views from homes (5% of respondents) • Watering requirements (4% of respondents) • Path & cycleway should be west of Challenger (3% of respondents) • Tree retention (3% of respondents) • Educational signs identifying plants (3% of respondents) • Native plants only if superior to alternatives (3% of respondents) • Boardwalk (2% of respondents) • Shady paths to beach needed (2% of respondents) • Needs support of Town of Cambridge (1% of respondents) • People or dogs may disturb BioLINC areas (1% of respondents) • Control of feral predators needed incl. cats and foxes (1% of respondents) Several respondents also stated that there was nothing that they were concerned about in the proposal (5%). Additional comments about the design The most commonly mentioned additional comments about the design were concerns (10% of respondents) or positive statements (7%) about sealing off Challenger Parade and, or denying access to the dog beach car park. Another common comment was regarding separate (rather than shared) paths for pedestrians and cycles (8%).



The full list of common responses includes: • Don't seal off Challenger parade, deny access dog beach car park (10% of

respondents) • Separate paths for pedestrians and cycles, not shared (8% of respondents) • Seal off Challenger Parade as part of project (7% of respondents) • Will cut-off access to beach particularly during construction (5% of respondents) • Should be extended throughout South City Beach (3% of respondents) • Selective benefit of homes cnr Jubilee & Challenger (3% of respondents) • Doesn't address noise, roads, people, predators (3% of respondents) • Avoidance of commercialisation (3% of respondents) • Curvy paths increase danger from cyclists (3% of respondents) • Future maintenance may inflate rates (2% of respondents) • More frequent rubbish removal from beach (2% of respondents) • Coastcare group incompetent, ineffective (2% of respondents) • Prefer to see a water fun park, improve Bold Park swimming pool (2% of

respondents) • Additional wildlife leads to additional road kill (1% of respondents) • Traffic calming needed for Branksome Gardens (1% of respondents) The following provides a summary of the key findings from the community residents’ survey. (For more detailed findings please refer to section 4 of the Final report). Key findings – positives/ support

Positive responses from the local community centred around: • Enhanced environment, natural vegetation and plant diversity • Walkways and trails • Enhanced native fauna and wildlife conservation • Reduced traffic issues including car parks and roads • Dune reclamation and restoration Key findings – concerns/ issues

Concerns from the community are centred around: • Increased traffic on residential streets • Loss of existing amenity of Jubilee Park • Waste of money, enough dunes existing • Safety of walkers on trails • Increase of snakes and other fauna including into private gardens Conclusions - Cambridge Coastcare Public Consultation Report Reactions from the community to the BioLINC development represent a broad range of views. Relatively little consensus is found amongst the results, with a divergence of views present amongst the respondents. However, overall there were more positive responses (40%) to BioLINC than there were negative (30%). Further detail can be found in section 4.2 and 4.3 of the Final report. In some cases there is both negative and positive feedback regarding the same element of the proposed development. In part this may because residents have misunderstood some of the information provided, or have developed inaccurate views about what the BioLINC development would entail.



A key misconception that appeared evident with the project is that Challenger Parade would be closed if the development were to be approved. A significant contributing factor may be that the illustrations on the consultation document show a shaded area on Challenger Parade and also a picture of the existing streetscape for Challenger Parade with an arrow pointing to an image of the revitalised section of Challenger Parade as a result of BioLINC (see appendix section 5.4). Whilst the Council decision does not support the closure of Challenger Parade and the consultation document clearly stated that there is to be no road closures as a result of BioLINC, this imagery is in direct conflict to that assertion. It is possible that other developments being undertaken in the area by the Town of Cambridge may also be influencing the views of residents and influencing their opinion of the BioLINC development."

Proforma Survey Response Comments - Town of Cambridge Review Not all proforma responses included comments and a summary of various comments made has been prepared. Some comments were repeated in several responses. The comments presented are a true representation of comments received. 1. Against the Proposal

• Leave sand hills in existing natural state; • Just leave as is; • Waste of money; • There are enough sand hills; • Not necessary. Its all in Reabold Park; • There are enough rabbits, snakes, foxes; • Parking further away from beach; • Object to any road closures; • It will destroy valuable public open space in Jubilee Park; • Curved pedestrian ways are not safe; • Hidden agenda to close roads; • I like the extra coastal planting; • Restrict restoration to existing dune areas only; • Jubilee Park is well used at the moment; • Have extra elevated boardwalk added; • Loss of playground and park area; • Its not wanted; • Increased danger to South City Beach; • Antisocial behaviour in sand dunes; • Loss of amenity; • Poisonous snake intrusion will increase; • Parking overflow into adjacent streets; • Loss of ocean views; • Don't like it; • Spend on other projects like the Bold Park Pool; • Lack of traffic plans and traffic study details; • Not enough information presented; • Poorly conceived and designed.



2. In Support of the Proposal

• Vegetation proposed looks fine. How much extra water is required; • Disagree with any traffic changes which would increase traffic on Branksome

Gardens; • It will help maintain low key development in the beach precinct; • Protection and enhancement of the environment; • Safety of community by reduction of traffic/recreational enjoyment for families; • Do not make the site too commercial; • Support retention of natural vegetation or dunes; • Great walkways; • Create landscape crossing over Challenger Parade to assist with traffic safety on

Challenger which is a dangerous through road; • Removal of 40% of the grassed area in Jubilee Park is excessive; • Excellent - long overdue; • Cycle way would be great; • Will increase safety and activity around surf club; • Concern about potential closure of Challenger Parade; • Natural environment and with north/south link created; • Need to separate cyclists and walkers (elderly); • Ecologically sound; • Concerned about traffic nuisance; • Adds to the existing path networks; • No more roundabouts; • Retain City Beach in natural state; • No additional commercial development; • Need traps for foxes and cats in sand dunes; • Poor co-ordination on design with Surf Club; • Like reduction in grassed area; • Need more rubbish bins; • Dogs might muck it up; • Better use of local native flora reserves; • Concerned about increased traffic flow with increased pedestrian traffic; • Improved amenity and beauty links for wildlife and improved ecosystem health; • Like dune restoration; • Cost is always an issue. Don't waste money; • Close Challenger Parade to link dunes.

Summary of Community Comment This report provides information sourced from several events as summarised:-

• Formal public consultation over the period 17 November 2012 to 17 December 2012 where an information pack and proforma were distributed. The response from the information is summarised and presented in the Cambridge Coastcare Report March 2013.

• Council meeting 18 December 2012. A petition was tabled and 15 questions were presented to the meeting for reply.

• A group of community residents set up a public website to seek comments.

• A special meeting of electors was held on Tuesday 5 March 2013.



The issues raised through these events has highlighted the following issues which Council will now use to gauge if it considers there is a sufficient level of community support for the project to be supported by the Council.

1. The Coastcare report concluded there was a relatively little consensus found amongst the results with a divergence of views present amongst respondents.

2. Support to provide ecozone opportunities in Jubilee Park from the Cambridge Coastcare report was even at around 50% for and 50% against.

3. Support to provide ecozone opportunities in Jubilee Park from the special meeting of Electors was not evident with significant opposition and a vote to request the BioLINC not proceed, with 109 voting against the BioLINC and 14 supporting. The meeting identified there was no support even for a reduced ecozone plan which reduced to around 15-20% of the area from the 40% originally planned.

4. There are still no plans from the commercial beach project to identify parking and traffic impacts.

5. If any ecozone is created in Jubilee Park issues of concern are snakes and public safety.

6. There is no prepared scientific report for the public to review that demonstrates or justifies how the BioLINC would work and what successful outcomes could be expected. What are the merits of biodiversity?

7. Some respondents may have interpreted the plan circulated in the information pack as providing for exclusive sand hills and dunes in Jubilee Park and road closures. The Council has corrected this in various discussions and specifically at the special meeting of Electors on 5 March 2013 and when the Cambridge Coastcare Public Consultation report was finalised.

8. It was clarified that there will be no removal of any Norfolk Island Pines in Jubilee Park.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no Policy Implications related to this report. The Statutory requirements in relation to section 5.28 of the Local Government Act 1995 applicable to the conduct of an Electors Special Meeting have been completed.


Coastcare have proposed to source all the funding for this project through Lotterywest and the federal government's Biodiversity Fund. It was initially proposed to apply to the federal government as part of their November/December 2012 funding round for $2.5 million. Applications for Round Two are expected to open sometime in 2013. The Town does not have any funds allocated for this project in its 2012/2013 Budget.




The proposal is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 as follows: 1. A wide range of quality, accessible recreation facilities.

• Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; • Develop and improve the Town's main beaches and reserves; • Encourage a wide range of recreational pursuits.

2. Services which meet the needs of our ratepayers, residents and visitors.

• Develop partnerships with other service providers, aiming to improve delivery and quality of services.

3. Environmentally sustainable practices for the Town's operations

• Reducing our water consumption and improving the water quality; • Protecting and enhancing biodiversity.


This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy as "consult" with the objective "to provide the community with balance and objective information to assist them in understanding the proposal". This report has been prepared following an extensive community consultation process.

SUMMARY:

Cambridge Coastcare have submitted a proposal to implement a BioLINC project at City Beach that will result in enhancing the biodiversity of the area by creating a dune connection from north to south with coastal trails for access. It is proposed that the project of approximately $2.5m will be fully funded from grant sources and that Cambridge Coastcare will manage the implementation of the project. In August 2012 Council endorsed a concept plan and prior to considering support for the development of an implementation plan requested a public comment/consultation process be completed. Specifically it was noted resident support was required and the strategy for Jubilee Park was to ensure no residents existing beach or ocean views were obstructed. It was also specified no road closures would be supported. The community response from the Coastcare Consultation Report included mixed responses to the proposal with marginally more in favour and the Special Meeting of Electors indicates there is no overwhelming support from the attendees at the meeting to proceed with any works in Jubilee Park. Also any BioLINC proposal should be supported with a prepared scientific report to justify the merits of the BioLINC proposal and to explain what successful outcomes can be expected. It is also noted community consultation is conducted to gauge the views of the community which Council can use to consider when assessing proposals. Community consultation is a process used to identify the issues with a proposal and address these to determine whether or not they can be overcome. Consultation is part of the decision making process and the result of this consultation on its own does not determine the final result although it is given due consideration and will influence the outcome.



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Copy of Cambridge Coastcare Public Consultation Summary Report (February 2013) 2. Coastcare BioLINC Project Proposal - Public Consultation Information Pack. 3. Copy of Post Advertisement 17 November 2012. 4. Copy of Plan presented to the Special Electors Meeting 5 March 2013. 5. Minutes of the Special Meeting of Electors - Tuesday, 5 March 2013. 6. Plan 1 - Jubilee Park Committee Meeting 18 March 2013 Prior to consideration of this item, Mayor Withers disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to the City Beach BioLINC project, I declare that I am currently a member of Cambridge Coastcare and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. Council Meeting 26 March 2013 Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Grinceri That Item CR13.16 be brought forward to the start of the meeting. Carried 7/2 For: Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, Grinceri, King, Langer, Pelczar and Walker Against: Crs Carr and MacRae Prior to consideration of this item, the following Members declared an interest affecting impartiality: • Mayor Withers declared as follows: "with regard to the City Beach BioLINC project, I

declare that I am currently a member of Cambridge Coastcare and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly.

• Cr Walker declared as follows: "with regard to the City Beach BioLINC project, I declare that I am the Council representative on Coastcare and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly."

• Cr Grinceri declared as follows: with regard to the City Beach BioLINC project, I declare that I used to be the Council representative on Coastcare and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly."


Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) the Cambridge Coastcare BioLINC Project - Public Consultation Summary Report

March 2013 and the details of the consultation response included in the above report be received;



(ii) the decision of Electors to not proceed with the BioLINC proposal from the Special Meeting of Electors held Tuesday 5 March 2013 be noted;

(iii) in response to the Public Consultation the following commitments be made if the

Biolinc project proceeds

• Confirm no closure of Challenger Parade • All planting will be no higher than 300mm in Challenger Parade and in Jubilee

Park and not obstruct any residential views • No Norfolk Island Pine trees to be removed

(iv) further information be requested from Cambridge Coastcare in relation to written

justification on ho w the BioLINC will function. This would include scientific evaluation on the biodiversity benefits and required successful outcomes;

(v) when preparing information as requested in (iv) above, comment be made on the

success of the BioLINC in relation to the original plan (40% ecozone) and a revised plan which would accommodate a 15-20% ecozone of Jubilee Park;

(vi) on receipt of the information requested in (iv) and (v) above, Council reconsider the

BioLINC proposal. Amendment Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley That the motion be amended to read as follows: That:- (i) the Cambridge Coastcare BioLINC Project - Public Consultation Summary Report


(ii) the decision of Electors to not proceed with the BioLINC proposal from the Special

Meeting of Electors held Tuesday 5 March 2013 be noted; (iii) the BioLINC project be supported as det ailed in the attached modified indicative

plan (No. CR 13.16 Plan 1) with up to 20% of Jubilee Park and surrounds, (excluding Challenger Parade car park) from kerb to kerb being vegetated, subject to detailed design of the final area including relevant modifications as outlined in Council Report of August 2012 and the outcomes of the traffic and parking study from the Surf Club and Commercial Development at City Beach Project; and

(iv) in response to the Public Consultation the following commitments be made:

• no closure of Challenger Parade • plantings in Jubilee Park will be no hi gher than 300mm and will not obstruct

any residential views • no Norfolk Island Pine trees will be removed.

Amendment carried 9/0



COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) the Cambridge Coastcare BioLINC Project - Public Consultation Summary Report


(ii) the decision of Electors to not proceed with the BioLINC proposal from the Special

Meeting of Electors held Tuesday 5 March 2013 be noted; (iii) the BioLINC project be supported as det ailed in the attached modified indicative

plan (No. CR 13.16 Plan 1) with up to 20% of Jubilee Park and surrounds, (excluding Challenger Parade car park) from kerb to kerb being vegetated, subject to detailed design of the final area including relevant modifications as outlined in Council Report of August 2012 and the outcomes of the traffic and parking study from the Surf Club and Commercial Development at City Beach Project; and

(iv) in response to the Public Consultation the following commitments be made:

• no closure of Challenger Parade • plantings in Jubilee Park will be no higher than 300mm and will not obstruct

any residential views • no Norfolk Island Pine trees will be removed.

Carried 9/0



CR13.17 CHALLENGER PARK ECOZONE TRIAL

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To provide details on the establishment of a small Ecozone project in Challenger Park and seek endorsement to commence construction in May 2013. This report has been deferred from the February 2013 Council Meeting (item CR13.1).

BACKGROUND:

In May 2012, (Item CR12.58), Council decided that:- "(i) the proposed Ecozone Trial described in this report and as shown on attachment 2 map,

at a section of Challenger Park bounded by Challenger Parade, Jubilee Crescent and Boscombe Avenue be supported for consideration in the Draft 2012/2013 Budget;

(ii) a further report be submitted on road reserve Ecozone projects together with Parks Ecozone projects for implementation in future budgets."

This report refers to item (i) above. A report on (ii) will be a separate report proposed for the March 2013 agenda.

DETAILS:

An amount of $20,000 is included in the 2012 / 2013 Adopted Budget to construct an Ecozone at a small portion of Challenger Park, City Beach. The location is bounded by Challenger Parade, Jubilee Crescent and Boscombe Avenue and the north/south shared path. A map of this location together with relevant work details and extent of works is included as Attachment 1.

The aim of the proposed trial is to demonstrate to the community the value of Ecozones in a park environment. The turf area within the trial location has a low use value and fits the criteria for Ecozoning.

Details of work to be undertaken include:-

• Replace all of the turf area on the west side of the north/south shared path with native vegetation (highlighted in yellow on attachment 1); and

• Rehabilitate the dunes area including weed control and planting of native vegetation (highlighted in blue on attachment 1).

Details of cost include:-

Undertake Weed Control $5,000 Prepare site and mulch $11,000

approximately Planting $4,000 (600 plants) Total $20,000



All works will be undertaken on the west side of the north/south shared path. The east side will be retained as public open space. Works have been programmed to commence in May 2013, however, preliminary planning and the sourcing of suitable plants need to be progressed now to ensure works can be undertaken in May 2013. This is the preferred time for planting to make use of winter rains.

Comment

The location of this Ecozone project is within of the proposed BioLINC project boundary which has been proposed by Cambridge Coastcare. Details relating to the BioLINC proposal were considered by Council in August 2012 (Item CR12.138) when Council supported the BioLINC proposal subject to specific conditions being adopted. This conditional endorsement by Council has allowed Coastcare to conduct a community consultation process in South City Beach. This consultation process, covering a 4 week period, closed on Monday 17 December 2012. Following the 4 week community comment period, all submissions were copied to Coastcare for review and preparation of a report. As this report has not been finalised the BioLINC project will not be reviewed at the February 2013 Council meeting. On this basis it is recommended consideration on this project be deferred until the BioLINC project is considered by Council.




An amount of $20,000 is included in the 2012/2013 Budget for this Ecozone trial project.


This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 2009-2020:- • Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; • Develop and improve the Town's main beaches and reserves; • Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure

their sustainability for future generations; and • Understand our environmental impacts and respond appropriately.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration this project will be included in a future assessment for the BioLINC project. There are two residential properties adjacent to the proposed Ecozone trial area. These residents will be advised of the proposed works prior to implementation. Appropriate signage will also be installed at the works area prior to any works commencing, to inform adjacent residents and the community of the aims of the trial.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ecozone Trial details overview map.



Committee Meeting 18 February 2013 During discussion, Cr Grinceri requested that further information be provided on incidences of snake sightings and snake bites in the area. This information is included in the Report attachment. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

That consideration on this project be deferred and reconsidered when the BioLINC proposal and community comment summary is presented to Council. FURTHER REPORT: (Post Council Meeting 26 February 2013) Council Ranger Services have provided the following information in relation to snake sightings:- The Town received 16 reported snake sightings on private property between the period 2011 -2013. There was only 2 occasions where Rangers attended west of West Coast Highway for snake sightings on private property. In the last 4 years the Town's Rangers have not heard of a person being bitten by snake that required hospitalisation in the City Beach area or the whole of the Town. If a Ranger captures a snake, the snakes are released in Bold Park at various locations so that over population does not occur. Snakes will try to bite a human only if they feel seriously threatened. If possible, a frightened snake will almost always try to flee. However, if there is no time for flight, or if a snake feels cornered, it may try to strike in defense. Council is considering a separate report on the City Beach BioLINC project at tonight's meeting and can review this report after consideration of that report.


Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That consideration on this project be deferred and reconsidered when the BioLINC proposal and community comment summary is presented to Council. Committee Meeting 18 March 2013 During discussion, Cr Walker foreshadowed that the establishment of a small Ecozone project in Challenger Park be endorsed. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That a sm all Ecozone project be established in Challenger Park and construction be commenced in May 2013. Carried 9/0



CR13.18 ADMINISTRATION AND CIVIC CENTRE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To advise Council of the need for the replacement of the Air Conditioning system at the Administration and Civic Centre. This report has been referred back to committee at the Council meeting held on 26 February 2013.

BACKGROUND:

The existing Air Conditioning system was installed in 1996 when the new Administration and Civic Centre was built. It has been independently assessed as having reached the end of its economic life. Furthermore, it has experienced several significant and costly failures throughout the last few years, particularly during summer. The Town is faced with the requirement to replace the chiller and associated air conditioning system or to consider adopting a revised airconditioning process.

DETAILS:

Engineering consultants were appointed to assess the existing system, peer review previous assessments and review the other potential options available for replacement. The assessment is completed and has identified:- • The chiller has reached the end of its operational life; • The existing Heating, Ventilating & Air Conditioning (HVAC) system does not comply with

the current Building Codes of Australia (BCA) Part J. The code prohibits the use of electrical duct heaters as the primary method for heating;

• The existing air conditioning system is very inefficient and profligate in terms of energy

consumption; and • The existing chiller comprises of refrigerant gas R22 which has relatively high global

warming and high ozone depletion properties. R22 is currently being phased out and is no longer manufactured or imported into Australia. Whilst some reprocessed stock is available, it is envisaged that this will only be available until 2014.

System Options Several system options were reviewed:- 1. Air cooled chiller system; 2. Air cooled chiller system with gas heating; 3. Water cooled chiller system; 4. Water cooled chiller system with gas heating; 5. Variable Refrigerant Volume system (VRV); 6. Chilled Beam Systems; 7. Trigeneration & Cogeneration systems; and 8. Geothermal System.



System Evaluation Criteria These systems were evaluated against key criteria:- • Technical suitability; • Whole of life costs; • Current code compliance; • Environmental impacts; and • Spatial considerations and disruption upon Town's operation Following this evaluation four options were shortlisted as follows:- ID System Initial

Capital Cost

20 Year Life Cycle Cost

Estimated Greenhouse Gas

Emissions (Tonnes CO2/Annum)

1 Air cooled chiller system (Like for like replacement).

$1,020,000 $3,740,000 149

2 Water cooled chiller only.

$1,300,000 $3,730,000 126

3 Variable Refrigerant Volume system (VRV).

$1,040,000 $2,450,000 92

4 Water cooled chiller system with gas heating.

$1,720,000 $2,620,000 57

The initial capital costs include a 10% contingency, allowance for phasing of works and potential disruption during normal business hours. They also include professional fees for design documentation, tender and contract administration. Note: the initial capital costs are also included in the 20 year life cycle costs. The VRV system (Variable Refrigerant Volume) is the preferred option, predominantly due to:- • Low capital costs; • Greater economic life; • Lower operational costs; (Life Cycle Costs) • Does not require the provision of any gas services for heating; • Low environmental emissions; • System meets current BCA standard; • Providing greater comfort control; • System flexibility; and • VRV systems can be prioritised and staged over more that one year for construction. An option to simply replace the system "like for like" was reviewed and whilst it has minor measurable benefits it was rejected due to:- • High "Whole of Life" costs; • Comprises of part system replacement only; • Existing inefficient electrical heating which does not meet current BCA standards; and • Higher environmental emissions. • Should works be required on the building system, BCA compliancy is not met.

The annual environmental emissions have been estimated on normal working hours, Monday to Friday.



Variable Refrigerant Volume System (VRV) Variable Refrigerant volume systems operate like a normal direct expansion (DX) air conditioning system but have the ability to control the volume of refrigerant by varying the speed of the compressor. This makes them far more efficient than normal large scale refrigerated air conditioning systems. It also means that the building can be divided into smaller sections which need only be enabled when required which is very advantageous when considering after hours use of specific areas such as the rangers Office and Council Chambers. They also have the advantage of being able to provide simultaneous heating and cooling to different areas which allows individual comfort control at a very high level and can be incorporated with an Economy Cycle to deliver genuine future energy savings. Economy Cycle Economy cycles measure the conditions within the building against outside ambient conditions and utilise the fresh air when advantageous. This not only results in lower operating costs due to energy savings but can also greatly improve conditions within the building for the occupants due to the increased amount of fresh air. An economy cycle has the potential to reduce cooling plant energy costs by up to 20% which will significantly lower the greenhouse emissions associated with the building and subsequently its carbon foot print. Although an economy cycle has been incorporated in the existing system, it has been added onto the original design and does not take full advantage of the potential savings available. Any new air conditioning system installed in the building will require installation of a true economy cycle to conform to current BCA/NCC Section J5 requirements. Systems with lower carbon footprints such as geothermal were considered, however, it was noted that there was significant capital cost differences (>$1m) over preferred options and much longer payback periods (>10 years) before they came into parity with more conventional outcomes. It is also noted that the significant technical risks associated with these systems are proving challenging elsewhere. Attachment 1 provides an extract from the full consultancy assessment.


The Town's Asset Management Policy 5.4.9 adopted in April 2012 includes as a principle that consideration be given to life cycle costs prior to a decision being made to replace an asset. The preferred system has strong credentials in this regard.


The scope of the consultancy, to be undertaken in this (2012/13) financial year includes finalisation of design, preparation of tender documents and completion of a pre-tender estimate of capital costs. It will be necessary to undertake works in 2013/14 as the risk and complete system failures are increasing. A funding amount of $300,000 is currently held in the Asset Management reserve. During the last three budgets, $100,000 has been allocated each year for this air conditioning upgrade.



An additional financial provision, of at least $740,000, is sought for inclusion in the draft 2013/14 budget. If the VRV technology is adopted, a total budget in the order of $1,040,000 would be required. Final costs will be determined following a tender process.


The recommendations embrace the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Plan 2009 - 2020:- • Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure

their sustainability for future generations; • Ensure the Town has good asset management strategies; • Maintain quality Community and Civic buildings; and • Reducing our energy consumption and increasing energy efficiency.


This project has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration of the "Not Required" Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, consultation is not required due to this matter being administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Except from Design Consultancy report. 2. Natural Ventilation Discussion Paper.


That:- (i) detail design and tender documents, including pretender estimates of costs, be prepared

for the replacement of the air conditioning system at the Administration and Civic Centre with a Variable Refrigeration Volume System (VRV);

(ii) the tender is to provide an option for at least a 2 stage construction implementation and a

single installation; (iii) tenders be advertised and presented to Council for approval to proceed with replacement

of the existing air conditioning system; and (iv) the necessary budget funds be included within the draft 2013/14 budget.



Council Meeting 26 February 2013 Amendment Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Carr That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- (v) the Administration obtain an energy efficient assessment of the Administration Building

under the NABERS Energy Rating System with a view to improving the NABERS rating and reducing energy consumption in the building;

(vi) the assessment provide options to reduce artificial heating and cooling, including

modifications to the building and how people interact within the building. Discussion ensued and Members agreed that the item should be referred back to the Community and Resources Committee for further consideration. COUNCIL DECISION: That the item relating to the Administration and Civic Centre Air Conditioning System Replacement be referred back to the Community and Resources Committee for further consideration. FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 26 February 2013) During committee discussions and Council discussions several issues were raised and further information is provided for review. Preliminary Design Assessment As part of the air conditioning preliminary design evaluation process, it is accepted the assessment is compliant with the following standards:- • The current Building Code of Australia Part J5 (BCA/NCC Section J); • Australian Standard AS1668.2; • Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS). Consideration of Other Provisions In terms of low hanging fruit, the Town has implemented several sustainability initiatives ($70,000) in recent years, such as:- • Installation of LED lighting throughout the building; • Installation of solar panel domestic hot water heating; • Installation of domestic hot water heat pumps.

In order to achieve further greenhouse gas savings, major building and structural changes would be required, which would incur significant construction costs. As part of the evaluation process undertaken, the assessment involved a review of applicable "Deemed to satisfy Provisions" associated with the Building Codes of Australia for Class 5 Buildings.



Construction of the Existing Administration Building A thermal analysis of the building was undertaken which involved the energy modelling of the building using Trane TRACE 700 energy modelling software. The performance of the existing glazing and associated shading coefficient was benchmarked against reference case standards. The results identified that the introduction of the performance glazing treatment reduces the total peak plant cooling load capacity by approximately 5%. There is no appreciable reduction in cost of the air conditioning compared to the cost of glazing. This marginal difference is predominantly reduced due to existing ecologically sustainable design features incorporated into the Administration Building, such as:- • The orientation of the building, particularly Area one occupied by staff, minimising solar

gain on the north face through minimum amount of glazing. Conversely maximising natural light on the south face with large glazing;

• Effective window fenestration design with external shelf overhang which maximises natural light whilst minimising excessive solar gain;

• Passive design shading provided by external trees; • Shading provided internally by blinds; • Low energy consumption LED lighting installed internally.

In other words, concerted effort has been made to make the building as sustainable as possible without wholesale rebuild. Air infiltration It is acknowledged that there are areas of the building which require improvement in terms of air tightness and permeability. The main area that requires addressing is the Reception area which is subject to high air infiltration gains particularly when the entrance doors open. This results in unstable room temperatures and imposes excessive load on the air conditioning system. This matter will be addressed as part of the design solution for the proposed system. Air Movement In terms of the air movement within the building, this will be significantly improved together with thermal comfort if the proposed solution is adopted:- • Increased number of air conditioning units and optimized zoning, in comparison to air

conditioning being provided by large central plant;

• The facility to regulate the air movement from individual air conditioning units using the variable fan speed technology.

Air conditioning & Ventilation system The VRV system (Variable Refrigerant Volume) is the preferred option, predominantly due to:- • Low capital costs; • Greater economic life; • Lower operational costs; (Life Cycle Costs) • Low environmental emissions; • 92 tonnes CO2 per annum; (Proposed) Vs 149 Tonnes CO2 per annum (Existing)



• System meets current BCA standard; • Providing greater comfort control; and • System flexibility. Furthermore, the system can incorporate an economy cycle facility which has the potential to reduce cooling plant energy costs by up to 20%. Economy cycles measure the conditions within the building against outside ambient conditions and utilise the fresh air when advantageous. This not only results in lower operating costs due to energy savings but can also greatly improve conditions within the building for the occupants due to the increased amount of fresh air. Artificial lighting and Power The majority of the building utilises a significant amount of natural light due to the glazing installed in roof and window areas. Furthermore, the installation of LED lighting has not only reduced the lighting operating consumption but also the cooling load requirements in comparison to previous T8 fluorescent light fittings that were installed in 1995. Access for Maintenance The design of the system will take into account easy access and maintenance. This type of system is typically installed in a modular arrangement with easy access. It will be designed so that there will be no need to work upon the roof or within confined spaces. Comment In support of these comments, a paper is included within the report Attachment explaining the design principles associated with natural ventilation. The issues raised during Committee and Council discussion relate to building design and improvements to any building or in this case the existing Administration building to improve energy efficiency of any air conditioning installation. The analysis carried out by the Administration of the original design requirements of the administration building indicates the current building was very well designed for energy efficiency and only major structural improvements will address and accommodate points raised in discussion. In any case, the two design extremes relating to winter and summer drive the design parameters for any air conditioning system and this will still require the installation of a system with a budget in the order of $ 1,000,000 as detailed in the report. The structural improvements referred to would only operate for only for a very small period of the year and on those days the VRV economy cycle would basically achieve the same result.



NABERS Energy Rating The following report is provided with a view to:- • Seeking a resolution on the endorsement of the air conditioning replacement proposal;

and • Aims to address the comments raised by Councillors with respect to:-

1. Energy Efficiency Assessment of the Administration Building. 2. Consideration of Other Provisions Associated with the Building in Terms of Energy

Savings. Energy Efficiency Assessment of the Administration Building The energy performance of the Administration Building was evaluated using the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS).

NABERS is a national rating system that measures the environmental performance of Australian buildings. It does this by using measured and verified performance information and converts them into an easy to understand star rating scale from one to six stars, as represented below.

NABERS Stars Building Performance 0 Very poor 1 Poor 2 Below average

2.5 to 3 Average 4 Good 5 Excellent 6 Market leading

Government NABERS Energy Targets

Governments across each state in Australia have set sustainability standards for government owned and leased offices. The table below outlines proposed performance targets for WA government buildings.

Government Proposed NABERS Energy Target

WA 4.5 Stars for new buildings 3.5 Stars for new leases in existing buildings

Administration Building NABERS Assessment Results

The NABERS energy for Whole Building self assessment rating tool was used to evaluate the Administration Building using the last 12 months of energy data. The rating calculation results are represented in the report Attachment and summarised below for convenience.

Annual Energy Consumption

Annual Greenhouse Gas Emission

NABERS Star Rating

413,364 kWh 384 Tonnes CO2-e 3.5 Stars - Above Average Performance



Potential Energy Improvement

Whilst it is difficult to model energy consumption in buildings due to variances in weather patterns and occupancy demand, the proposed air conditioning system is more efficient in operation. The Administration Building has the potential to achieve a 4 Stars NABERS Energy rating (Approximately 15% reduction in energy consumption) which is classified as a good performance).

The report Attachment provides a discussion paper on Natural Ventilation and building design.

Comment

The additional information was presented and explained to the Elected Members at the Councillor Forum held Tuesday, 12 March 2013. It is recommended the original motion is still appropriate for committee consideration.

REFERRED BACK RECOMMENDATION:

That:- (i) detail design and tender documents, including pretender estimates of costs, be prepared

for the replacement of the air conditioning system at the Administration and Civic Centre with a Variable Refrigeration Volume System (VRV);

(ii) the tender is to provide an option for at least a 2 stage construction implementation and a

single installation; (iii) tenders be advertised and presented to Council for approval to proceed with replacement

of the existing air conditioning system; and (iv) the necessary budget funds be included within the draft 2013/14 budget. Committee Meeting 18 March 2013 Amendment Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Walker That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (v) a report be prepared on options for further energy reduction in the Administration

building. Amendment carried 5/0



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) detail design and tender documents, including pretender estimates of costs, be

prepared for the replacement of the air conditioning system at the Administration and Civic Centre with a Variable Refrigeration Volume System (VRV);

(ii) the tender is to provide an opt ion for at least a 2 st age construction

implementation and a single installation; (iii) tenders be adv ertised and pr esented to Council for approval to proceed with

replacement of the existing air conditioning system; and (iv) the necessary budget funds be included within the draft 2013/14 budget. (v) a report be prepared on options for further energy reduction in the Administration

building. Carried 9/0



CR13.19 BUS SHELTER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review options for expanding the number of bus shelters in the Town to support the Travelsmart Program.

BACKGROUND:

The asset management of bus shelters in the Town was considered by Council on 28 August 2012 (Item CR12.118) when it was decided that: "(i) the current strategy for maintaining and replacing bus shelters be continued; (ii) a purpose made bus shelter be constructed on Challenger Parade at the new bus stop

adjacent to the City of Perth Surf Club using the available budget funds of $28,000 in 2012/13;

(iii) a report be prepared on options for expanding the number of bus shelters in the Town." This report address clause (iii) of this decision.

DETAILS:

The current budget for capital expenditure on bus shelters is $28,000 and this is adequate for: • Replacing two worn out shelters with a new shelter. A new shelter normally costs

between $10,000 - $15,000 depending on size and make. This assumes that the existing shelters will require replacement when they are approximately 50 years old and require major maintenance work;

• Two concrete hardstands for the new shelters, and

• Install five new seats to either replace old timber seats or where there is no seat provided.

This current expenditure is not sufficient to increase the number of bus shelters, it is only for replacing existing shelters that have reached the end of their economical life. The provision of additional shelters at bus stops can be justified because:- 1. It supports the Town's Travelsmart Program for encouraging more residents to use public

transport instead of driving a private car on congested roads and searching for a parking space. During 2001 - 2005, the Town participated with ten other local authorities in the Travelsmart Household Program organized by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. The report for this program indicated that the program had increased bus patronage by 13% in a sample group of residents in the Town. This percentage increase was retained during the course of the program. The current total number of bus boardings per week-day in the Town is 2,480 people which is equivalent to approximately 10% of the Town's population. (The number of people getting off at bus stops in the Town is 7,225 people per day, which suggests they travel by car into Perth and return by bus).



2. The bus passengers will appreciate a shelter to protect them from sun, rain and wind

while they wait 5 to10 minutes for the bus to arrive. This will encourage more residents to travel by public transport, particularly when rain, hot weather or strong winds are forecast;

3. The more people using bus transport will reduce parking demand in Wembley and West

Leederville where many people park vehicles in residential streets and then catch a bus or train into Perth. This is where the buses are more frequent and shelters are provided at most stops;

4. It will reduce traffic on local streets, particularly if a parent has to drive a family member to

a destination, return home and then pick them up later in the day; 5. Increased passenger patronage will justify more frequent bus services being provided by

Public Transport Authority in the Town (PTA). The locations of bus routes and bus stops in the Town is determined by Public Transport Authority to provide an efficient and practical bus service for all residents. The placement of bus shelters at some of these bus stops was originally determined in the 1960's and 1970's. The main criteria appears to have been to provide a shelter at the stops where passengers boarded a bus travelling to the central business district of Perth. Therefore, it is prudent that the location of bus shelters is reviewed for the current number of boardings. Since the report (Item CR12.118) in August 2012, the following information has become available:- 1. The Public Transport Authority has closed Route 401 that serviced stops along Walker

Street, Daglish Street, Ruislip Street, Northwood Street, Vincent Street West, Kimberley Street and Lake Monger Drive. The affected bus patrons will now catch the Route 85 bus that uses existing bus stops along Herdsman Parade, Cambridge Street and Harborne Street. This action has removed 21 bus stops and has made seven bus shelters redundant. One of these shelters belong to Adshel and will be moved by Adshel at no cost to the Town. Two shelters were installed since 2009 and can be relocated for approximately $2,000. Four shelters are the older style of shelter installed approximately 40 years ago and will be removed since it is not worthwhile renovating and erecting elsewhere in consideration of their short remaining life.

2. The current statistics for bus stops in the Town, without Route 401, is:-

Total number of public bus stops - 267; Number of school bus stops - 19; Number of bus stops with shelters - 99 plus the 3 shelters to be relocated from Route 401; Number of bus stops with a seat only - 26; Number of bus stops with no hard stand (grassed or sand verge) - 50; Number of bus stops boarding to Perth or Fremantle - 106; Number of bus stops boarding to Perth without a shelter - 32; Number of bus stops boarding to Perth without a seat -17;



3. The Public Transport Authority has reviewed its Bus Shelter Grants Scheme and a copy

is provided in the attachment to this report. In summary, PTA may provide 50% funding for installation of a bus shelter at a bus stop that consistently has 15 or more passengers boarding per day. All new shelters and the boarding area at all bus stops must comply with PTA’s standards in order to comply with Disability Standards.

4. The Public Transport Authority (part of Department of Transport) has provided daily

statistics for passengers getting on and off buses at each bus stop. A re-formatted version of this data is provided in the attachment to this report. This is useful for determining whether a bus shelter is required at this location for passengers waiting for a bus. The bus stops on the opposite side of the road typically have the same numbers getting off the bus. In summary, there are:-

Number of stops with 15 or more passengers getting on - 50; Number of stops with between 5 and 15 passengers getting on - 52; Number of stops with between 0 and 4 passengers getting on - 88; Number of stops with 0 passengers getting on but more than 0 getting off - 72; Number of stops with 0 passengers - 25.

Options for Providing Additional Shelters The current strategy for asset management bus shelter allows for replacing two old existing shelters with two new shelters and replacing five old seats with five new seats each year for an annual expenditure of $28,000. The range of options for providing additional shelters are:- Option 1 - Provide a new shelter at the 20 bus stops that have more than 5 passengers boarding each day. This will require total funding of $300,000 based on $15,000 per shelter; Option 2 - Provide a new shelter at the 30 bus stops on the route to the Perth CBD. This will require total funding of $450,000. If six shelters are provided each year over a 5 year program, then the annual funding required would be $90,000. This program could be stretched over 10 years with an annual funding of $45,000 (ten of these stops have less than 5 passengers per day); Option 3 - Provide seats at the 18 bus stops on the route to the Perth CBD. If these are provided in one year, then the funding required would be $12,000; Option 4 - Provide a new shelter at the 89 bus stops where 1 or more passengers board a bus. This will include some school bus stops and stops travelling away from Perth; It is recommended that a combination of Options 1, 2 and 3 are adopted in that priority order. Option 3 would be considered if Option 2 is spread over a 10 year period. A total of 30 shelters would be installed at a total cost of $450,000. Option 4 is a "Blue Sky" option.




The Town does not currently have a policy relating to provision of bus shelters. The Public Transport Authority of WA has guidelines for the layout and construction of the hardstand, seats and shelters at bus stops. Specific attention is given to disability requirements.


There are no financial requirements associated with this report. Funding for the proposed works will be considered in the draft 2013/14 Budget. New bus shelters currently cost between $10,000 and $15,000 to supply and install. New seats cost approximately $600 to supply and install. Two shelters may qualify for a 50% subsidy from PTA since they have more than 15 passengers boarding per day. New hardstands are typically installed by the Town as part of any road-works or footpath works adjacent. In addition, PTA have a program for installing hardstands that meet disability access requirements at all bus stops in the metropolitan area over a 5 year program that commenced 2012. They will also give a higher priority to bus stops where the Town is carrying out road-works, footpath construction or bus shelter installation.


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009 - 2020 includes goals of providing:- - services to meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and their visitors that assist with

personal and community safety; and - community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained through the

improvement of Transport Infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc.).


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11 and considered to be "Not Required" based on the Consultation Assessment criteria. This is at present considered an administrative matter with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Map of locations of bus routes and stops within Town of Cambridge (Local Travel Smart Guide 2009).

2. List of bus stops in the Town with boarding numbers and infrastructure provided.




Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) thirty new bus shelters be installed over a 5 year program with annual funding of

$90,000 for installing shelters and hardstands at bus stops departing to the Central Business District of Perth;

(ii) funding of $12,000 be included in the draft 2013/14 Budget to provide a seat at the

18 bus stops without a seat and departing to the Central Business District of Perth. Carried 9/0



CR13.20 PARKING ISSUES - MCKENZIE STREET, ALEXANDER STREET

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To obtain approval to implement kerbside parking restrictions in McKenzie Street in the section between Levitt Lane/Major Lane and Ruislip Street, and Alexander Street between property number 10 located 130 metres north of Cambridge Street and Ruislip Street.

BACKGROUND:

Kerbside parking restrictions have progressively been implemented in many streets within the Town, in accordance with Policy No. 5.2.22. In general, this has been done to improve the safety and amenity of residents. Requests are regularly received from directly affected residents to implement parking restrictions to address safety or amenity problems caused by long term parking of non-residential vehicles in the street adjacent to their premises. The present parking situation is:- • McKenzie Street from Cambridge Street to Levitt Lane/Major Lane is 2 hour parking 8am

to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 12 Noon Saturday. The remainder of the street up to Ruislip Street has no parking restrictions;

• Alexander Street from Cambridge Street to property number 10 has a combination of 2 hour parking 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 12 Noon Saturday with a small section adjacent to 338-342 Cambridge Street designated as "loading zone", "taxi zone" and ¼ hour parking 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 12 Noon Saturday. The remainder of the street has no parking restrictions.

Requests have been received from residents of both these streets, to impose some form of parking restriction to prevent all day or long term parking by commuters and nearby workers. This has affected residents and their visitors' ability to park adjacent or in close proximity to their premises. Council Policy No. 5.2.22 (i)(b) indicates that:- "Parking restrictions shall be reviewed when: - Requested by adjacent property owners or occupiers in writing; - Considered necessary by the Town; - Requested by other person in writing."

DETAILS:

Observations by the Town's technical officers confirmed the reports from residents of both streets that kerbside parking during the period of 8am to 5.30pm was almost exclusively taken up by non-residents for the entire period. The problem can be attributed to the implementation of timed parking restrictions in Daglish Street causing all day parking to move to the next street, McKenzie Street. The same issue in



Alexander Street has come about as a consequence of parking restrictions being implemented in the parking area of the Wembley Hotel and the Wembley Commercial Centre. In discussions with some of the residents requesting parking restrictions, it was agreed that a proposal to institute 2 hours parking 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 12 Noon Saturday - residential parking permit excepted would resolve the problem of all day parking by non-residents and provide visitors with adequate on street parking. This would be consistent with the restrictions implemented recently in Daglish Street north of Cambridge Street and Daglish Street south of Grantham Street. This proposal has also been supported by the Town's Ranger Services. It is therefore recommended that parking restrictions be implemented indicating 2 hour parking 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 12 Noon Saturday - residential parking permit excepted in McKenzie Street from Levitt Lane/Major Lane and Ruislip Street, and in Alexander Street from property number 10 and Ruislip Street. There is no conflict with the Council's Parking Strategy. Time restrictions will allow visitors and customers of properties to park. All day parking for commuters or local workers in the residential streets is not advocated. Sketch plans showing the location of these proposals is included as an Attachment to this report.


The recommended changes are in accordance with the Road Traffic Code 2000 and Policy No. 5.2.22 "Parking Restrictions". The Policy allows for kerbside parking restrictions to be imposed to:- (a) protect the residential precincts from an intrusion of businesses, commercial, medical,

recreational an commuter parking on local roads; (b) introduce a "No Parking road or Verge Residential Parking Permit Excepted" in local

residential precincts adjacent to residential properties. Any proposal to change or establish parking restrictions or time limits requires a formal decision by the Council in accordance with Clause 2.1 of the Town's Parking Local Law.


The estimated cost for the erection of signage is $1,600. This amount can be accommodated under Budget Item - "Road Name Signs and Parking Signs".


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely:- Community - Quality service to meet identified community needs and expectations; - A safe community.




This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy as "inform" with the objective "to provide the community with balance and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions". The proposed parking restrictions are as a result of request from adjoining property owners and residents and have been investigated and endorsed by the Town's Infrastructure and Ranger Services officers.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Sketch Plans indicating location of proposed parking restrictions in McKenzie Street and Alexander Street.


Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) parking restrictions be implemented in McKenzie Street from Levit Lane/Major Lane

to Ruislip Street indicating, 2 Hour Parking 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 12 Noon Saturday - Residential Parking permit Excepted.

(ii) parking restrictions be implemented in Alexander Street from property number 10

to Ruislip Street indicating, 2 Hour Parking 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 12 Noon Saturday - Residential Parking Permit Excepted.

Council Meeting 26 March 2013 Members were advised that a resident of the street, when reviewing the report, has requested an amendment to have restrictions only applied Monday to Friday. Saturday has never caused problems with all day commuter parking. Amendment Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That clause (i) and (ii) of the motion be amended by deleting the word "and 8am to 12 Noon Saturday". Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) parking restrictions be implemented in McKenzie Street from Levit Lane/Major Lane

to Ruislip Street indicating, 2 H our Parking 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday - Residential Parking permit Excepted.



(ii) parking restrictions be implemented in Alexander Street from property number 10 to Ruislip Street indicating, 2 Hour Parking 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday - Residential Parking Permit Excepted.

Carried 9/0



CR13.21 KERBSIDE PARKING RESTRICTIONS - MINOR AMENDMENTS CAMBRIDGE STREET

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To obtain approval to modify kerbside parking restrictions in the vicinity of number 453 Cambridge Street resulting from requests by adjacent property owners and residents.

BACKGROUND:

Kerbside parking restrictions have been progressively implemented in many streets within the Town, in accordance with Policy No. 5.2.22. In general, this has been done to improve the safety and amenity of residents. Requests are regularly received from directly affected residents to modify the posted restrictions over short distances to address changed circumstances and requirements which would not negate the original intent of the restrictions. Minor changes at times also become necessary due to the introduction of traffic management devices. Policy No. 5.2.22 (i)(b) states that:- "Parking restrictions shall be reviewed when: • Requested by the adjacent property owner or occupier in writing; • Considered necessary by the Town; • Requested by other persons in writing".

DETAILS:

Cambridge Street south side adjacent to property number 453 is approximately 90 metres from Birkdale Street. Currently there are parking restrictions indicating 1 hour parking 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 12 Noon Saturday adjacent to property numbers 449 and 451. A request has been received from the adjoining property owners for these restrictions to be extended to the western boundary of their property, a distance of approximately 40 metres. This will allow for sufficient parking time for visitors and tradespeople but will discourage long term and all day parking by non residents. A sketch plan of this proposal, which is supported by the Town's Infrastructure and Ranger Services officers, is attached to this report. The proposal is not in conflict with the Town's Parking Strategy.


Amendments for parking restrictions as detailed in this report are in conformity with Policy No. 5.2.22(i) - 'Implementation of Restrictions'. Any proposal to change or establish parking restrictions or time limits requires a formal decision by the Council in accordance with Clause 2.1 of the Town's Parking Local Law.




The total cost of the proposed parking amendments is estimated to be $200. This amount can be accommodated under Budget Item - 'Road Name Signs and Parking Signs'.


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely:- Community - Quality service to meet identified community needs and expectations; - A safe community.


This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy as "Inform" with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions". The proposed parking restriction amendments are as a result of a request from adjoining property owners and residents and has been investigated and endorsed by the Town's Infrastructure and Ranger Services officers.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Sketch plan indicating location of proposed parking restriction extensions adjacent to 453 Cambridge Street.

Committee Meeting 18 March 2013 Prior to consideration of this item, Cr Grinceri, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.52 pm. During discussion, the Administration was requested to consider the possibility of 2 hour parking restrictions and to confirm what parking restrictions currently exist outside of property number 447, prior to the next meeting of Council Council Meeting 26 March 2013 Prior to consideration of this item, Cr Grinceri, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.48 pm.




Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That parking restrictions indicating 1 hour parking from 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 12 N oon Saturday, be ext ended from the current location adjacent to property number 451 Cambridge Street to the western boundary of property number 453 Cambridge Street. Carried 8/0 Cr Grinceri returned to the meeting at 7.49 pm.



CR13.22 OBAN ROAD - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To obtain Council endorsement for traffic management measures to be installed in Oban Road between Yolande Place and Simon Place in response to residents' requests for reduction in vehicle speeds.

BACKGROUND:

The Town has received regular reports from residents of the section of Oban Road between Yolande Place and Simon Place (adjacent to Beecroft Park) of vehicles exceeding the statutory speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour and creating the potential for crashes on the long curve alignment and creating danger to pedestrians and adjoining properties. Investigations by officers indicated that the recorded 85th percentile speed of vehicles is 58 kilometres per hour in the west direction and 55 kilometres per hour in the east direction. It is considered therefore that some form of traffic management should be installed to actively reduce the speed of vehicles. In December 2012 (item CR12.192), this project was listed for consideration to be funded in 2013/14 in the Roadworks Capital Program.

DETAILS:

Consideration was given to the installation of traffic speed reducing plateaus, however, with the horizontal alignment of the road being on a sweeping curve, this presents a danger to motorists and also does not conform with Austroads guidelines for positioning of such devices. The width of the road pavement in the curvilinear section is 10 metres and it was observed that this contributed to drivers exceeding the speed limit due to its unimpeded visual effect. Austroads guidelines indicate that in such circumstances the narrowing of lane widths and the installation of vertical features on either the verge areas or in a median will give a visual indication to drivers of a slower speed environment. In keeping with the guidelines, it is proposed that a contrasting coloured median section be constructed at a width of 1.6 metres to give resulting lane widths of 4.2 metres. Vertical features can be obtained by tree plantings at locations which do not interfere with the vehicular movements of adjoining residents entering or exiting from their properties. A footpath currently exists only on the western side of Oban Road. Ideally, an extra link is desirable on the eastern side of Oban road and the plan shows how a 3.0 metre wide shared path could also be accommodated within Beecroft Park. To complete a path link, extensions would also be required to Simon Place (140 metres) and to Gayton Road (88 metres).



Budget estimates for the works are:- 1. Median works, trees $20,000 2. Path within Beecroft Park $30,000 3. Path links to Simon Place and Gayton Road (2.5 metres) $32,000 This proposal is indicated on plan number E058-13-01, included as an Attachment to this report.


Policy No. 5.2.17(a) "Road Design Standards' which indicates that "design and construction be compatible with best modern practice and design". The proposal has received Main Roads WA approval for the required line marking and signage.


It is recommended that funding provision of $ 20,000 being the estimated cost of construction, be considered in the 2013/2014 draft budget submission to Council for the road works and a further $62,000 be included for the shared path works.


The Town's Stategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely:-

• Services that meet the need of ratepayers, residents and visitors by:- - connecting communities and bringing people together; and - personal and community safety.


This matter has been reviewed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy and assessed as a requirement to "inform". The works are proposed as a response to representations, both written and verbal from adjoining residents. It is proposed to distribute a copy of the plan when approved together with a notification of impending resurfacing works at least two weeks prior to commencement.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Plan number E058-13-01 Oban road - Line Marking Plan and Detail.


That:- (i) the proposed construction of a contrasting bitumen coloured median in Oban Road

together with tree plantings as indicated on plan number E058-13-01 be endorsed; and (ii) funding of $82,000 for the construction of the median with tree plantings be included for

consideration in the 2013/14 draft budget submission to Council.



Committee Meeting 18 March 2013 Amendment Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That clause (ii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (ii) funding of $82,000 for the construction of the median with tree plantings and the paths be

included for consideration in the 2013/14 draft budget submission to Council as follows:-

• Median works, trees $20,000 • Path within Beecroft Park $30,000 • Path links to Simon Place and Gayton Road (2.5 metres) $32,000

Amendment carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the proposed construction of a contrasting bitumen coloured median in Oban Road

together with tree plantings as indicated on plan number E058-13-01 be endorsed; and

(ii) funding of $82,000 for the construction of the median with tree plantings and the

paths be included for consideration in the 2013/14 draft budget submission to Council as follows:-

• Median works, trees $20,000 • Path within Beecroft Park $30,000 • Path links to Simon Place and Gayton Road (2.5 metres) $32,000

Carried 9/0



CR13.23 COMMUNITY SPORTING RECREATION FACILITIES FUND (CSRFF) - SMALL GRANT APPLICATIONS 2013/2014

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To make recommendations for the prioritisation of the Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) applications for the Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) 2013/2014 Small Grants category.

BACKGROUND:

Priority Rating of Applications The DSR recently called for the first round of small grant applications for the 2013/2014 CSRFF Small Grants category. The small grants were introduced in July 2009 by DSR. Applications must be made to DSR by Friday, 28 March 2013 for consideration. The outcome of the grant applications will be known by May 2013. If the application is successful, the Town's funding allocation can be made in the 2013/2014 Draft Budget. Small Grants $5,000 - $150,000 for projects involving a basic level of planning. The total project cost for Small Grants must not exceed $150,000. Grants given in this category must be claimed by 15 June in the relevant financial year. Examples of Small Grant projects are: • Cricket pitch and practice wickets • Safety fences for sport and recreation facilities, ie. motor sports • Minor upgrade to swimming pool • Small floodlighting project • Court resurfacing or upgrade • Construction of or upgrade to shade shelters • Large scale dams, water collection systems and pipelines for distribution • Various planning studies to a maximum grant amount of $15,000 The maximum CSRFF grant approved will be no greater than one-third of the total estimated cost of the applicant’s project. Furthermore, the Western Australian State Government’s contribution must be at least matched by the applicant's own cash contribution, with the balance of funds required being sourced by the applicant. Variations will occur for Special Assistance Grants. There is no obligation on the local government authority to make any contribution to a community group project. Application for Financial Assistance In addition to CSRFF assistance, organisations often apply to Council for financial assistance towards the project. Council has a Community Grant Program (Policy 2.1.15) which declares Council’s willingness to consider funding allocations for facilities and services to sporting,



welfare, cultural, musical, and educational or other community organisations. The purpose of one of the specific categories within this program - Financial Assistance for Community Facilities - is to provide financial assistance to organisations to enhance the provision of facilities within the Town (such as new facilities, building extensions, provision or replacement of sporting/community facilities). The policy also specifies the terms and conditions on which such assistance may be forthcoming. The Town has received one application under the first round of the 2013/2014 CSRFF Small Grant category, specifically, the City Beach Tennis Club.

DETAILS:

City Beach Tennis Club - Lighting Modification Project Details The City Beach Tennis Club (CBTC) has submitted a 2013/2014 CSRFF Small Grants application to modify the current lighting fixtures at the Frinton Avenue tennis courts. There are four flexipave floodlit public tennis courts on Frinton Avenue. These courts have been floodlit prior to 1994 and the lights were upgraded in 2001. The floodlights were decommissioned when new lights were installed on courts 13-16. These courts are managed by the Town and available for public use, with the CBTC having limited access to them. The Town have been in discussions with the CBTC over a number of years in relation to CBTC taking over the responsibility of these courts. Both the Floreat and Reabold Tennis Clubs manage the public courts at their respective facilities. The CBTC advised they will manage these courts on the condition that they are recommissioned and modified with new lights with modern boxed, low-spill, efficient light systems. The courts will be included as part of the Club's lease and will result in an increase in the maintenance fund (spilt two thirds Town and one third Club), specifically towards the playing surface, lighting and fencing. This is in Accordance with the Town's Asset Management Policy. Once these lights have been modified and are operational, the CBTC will then have eight floodlit courts, which is similar to the Town's other tennis clubs, Reabold and Floreat. This will allow the CBTC to provide more night tennis to its members and the general public and assist with the Club's financial sustainability. Project Cost The breakdown of the project cost is outlined below: Funding Sources Cost

(excl GST) GST applicable

Cost (incl GST)

Notes

Local Government (LGA) contribution $7,100 $710 $7,810

Applicant cash $6,600 $660 $7,260 Voluntary labour

$500 Nil $500 Maximum of 1/3 total project cost up to $50,000. No GST is applicable to voluntary labour.

Donated materials No limit but cannot exceed the sum of



Funding Sources Cost (excl GST)

GST applicable

Cost (incl GST)

Notes

applicant cash and LGA contribution. No GST is applicable to donated materials.

Other State Government contributions

e.g. Lotteries Commission, Office of Youth Affairs etc. (please provide details)

Other - Bank Loan (Town as guarantor)

e.g. Sponsorship, Commonwealth funding (please provide details)

CSRFF Grant Requested $7,100 $710 $7,810 Cannot exceed 1/3 of the total Project Cost

exclusive of GST. Refer to Guidelines. Total Project Cost $21,300 $2,080 $23,380

The City Beach Tennis Club has requested financial assistance of $7,092 (GST exclusive) from the Town’s Community Organisations Facilities Assistance program. The relevant application form has been completed and submitted The Town's contribution of $7,092 is based on the City Beach Tennis Club also contributing $7,092 (cash and voluntary labour) which is in accordance of the Town's dollar for dollar Community Grant (Policy 2.1.15). It is recommended that this project be given a B rating (Well planned and needed by applicant) as per the DSR rating chart. The prioritisation of applications has been based on the following criteria:

• The planning and need for the project; • The benefits to the community; • The number of participants the project will benefit; • The benefit to the Council; • Recent funding is being provided.


Policy 2.1.17 - Lighting


The Town's funding conditions for Policy 2.1.15 and specifically Category 1 - Financial Assistance for Community Facilities (b) states that “Financial Assistance will be on a dollar for dollar basis after deducting any other grants from the total project costs.” If the funding application is successful an amount of approximately $7,092 (GST exclusive) will be required to be allocated in the 2013/2014 Budget.




The CSRFF program strongly supports a number of the Business Philosophies of the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, namely: • Community Centred • Sustainability and enhanced services It further supports a number of the Town's priority areas: • Planning for our community • Delivering our services • Financially sustainable


The CSRFF application report has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the Department of Sport and R ecreation be advised of the following priorities,

together with the ratings awarded to the 2013/2014 CSRFF small grant application:-

Priority Applicant Project Priority Rating

Project Cost (excl GST)

CSRFF Contribution (excl GST)

Council Contribution (excl GST)

1 City Beach Tennis Club

Modifications of Lighting

B $21,300 $7,100 $7,100

(ii) all supporting documentation, including the completed application forms, be

forwarded to the Department of Sport and Recreation; (iii) the applicant be advised of the priorities together with the ratings awarded by

Council;



(v) subject to the CSRFF application submitted by the City Beach Tennis Club being

successful, a contribution of $7,100 (ex GST) be included in the 2013/2014 Budget. Carried 9/0



CR13.24 ALDERBURY RESERVE CHANGE ROOMS/MEN'S SHED - FEASIBILITY STUDY

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider the results of the feasibility study into reconfiguring sporting facilities and accommodating a Men's Shed facility in the current Alderbury Reserve change room building.

BACKGROUND:

The Town have a number of change room/toilet facilities on our reserves that are used by sporting clubs and the general public and are not included as part of the leased area. These include the following:

• Henderson Park • Floreat Oval • McLean Park; and • Grantham Park

These facilities are provided and maintained by the Town and users pay a hire fee (casual or seasonal) to use them. The Alderbury Reserve Toilet and Change room building is over 40 years old and is used by a variety of sporting clubs, schools and the general public. These facilities are poorly designed and are at the end of their useful life and have been subject to previous termite damage. The building now requires upgrade or replacement. In April 2012, Council approved an amount of $20,000 in the 2012/2013 Budget to undertake a feasibility study to determine the viability of reconfiguring and reduce the sporting facilities, provide safer public toilets and reuse surplus space to accommodate a Men's Shed facility. In addition to these funds, a $10,000 grant from the Department of Sport and Recreation's Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund - Small Grant program, was approved to assist with the conduct of the feasibility study. In October 2012, architectural firm Cox Howlett & Bailey Woodland (CH&BW) were commissioned to undertake the feasibility study for a fee of $30,000. A plan of the existing building was prepared and initial consultation was undertaken with the users of the facility (YMCC Hockey Club, Subiaco/ Floreat Cricket Club, West Coast Junior Football, Floreat Lions Club, City Beach T-Ball, Perth Highland Band) to ascertain what type and level of usage they require of the facility, both now and into the future. This information, along with details previously received from the Cambridge Rotary Club (CRC) in relation to the requirements of the Men's Shed, was provided to the architects to confirm design requirements. On 4 December 2012, CH&BW facilitated a workshop with the Town, Cambridge Rotary Club and other sport and recreation user groups of the facility (YMCC Hockey Club, Subiaco/ Floreat Cricket Club, Perth Highland Band), to present an initial design option and get input from all stakeholders. This process enabled the Architects to finalise their design brief and develop a number of concept options for further stakeholder feedback before deciding on preferred options.



DETAILS:

Three design options have been developed and costed: Option 1 This consists of a basic internal reconfiguration of the existing building and the construction of a separate public toilet facility to prevent/mitigate anti social behaviour. Feedback from the CRC is that the space allocation for the Men's Shed would not be adequate and a future extension would be required. This option also lacked sufficient storage space for the sport and recreation user groups. In summary, this option would only suffice for the short term, requiring extensions in the future. Option 2 This consists of an internal reconfiguration of the existing building plus extensions to accommodate the Men's Shed requirements, additional storage spaces for sport and recreation user groups, and new public toilet facilities connected to the building. This option meets all identified needs of both the CRC and other user groups by reconfiguring and extending the existing facility. It also provides a number of shared use facilities that would be used by all users including a meeting room, kitchen/kiosk with external courtyard, and toilet/change room facilities. All shared facilities except the meeting room would be booked through a seasonal hire agreement for sporting clubs while storerooms would be allocated to specific user groups on a monthly hire basis, as is the current practice. The Men's Shed area (highlighted blue on the attached concept plans) would be leased to the CRC as per the normal club lease arrangements and they would have access the shared use facilities as required. The meeting room, although part of the Men's Shed area and lease, would be available to the other sport and recreation user groups for occasional meetings, booked through the CRC. Option 3 This consists of a basic refurbishment to the existing building to provide improved change rooms/ sporting facilities for sport and recreation user groups. It also includes a separate public toilet facility to prevent/mitigate antisocial behaviours, along with a new stand alone Men's Shed within the vicinity (specific location yet to be determined). This Option was presented to compare the costs of constructing a new stand alone men's shed building with the reuse of the existing structure.



Costings Option 1: Men's Shed Change

rooms Public Toilets Total Project

Base Cost (ex GST) $377,000 $377,000 $125,000 $879,000 Preliminaries $48,500 $48,500 inc $97,000 Construction Contingency (5%)

$21,275 $21,275 $6,250 $48,800

Cost Escalation (5%) $21,275 $21,275 $6,250 $48,800 Professional Fees (12%) $51,060 $51,060 $15,000 $117,120 TOTAL (ex GST) $519,110 $519,110 $152,500 $1,190,720

Option 2: Base Cost (ex GST) $661,000 $377,000 $125,000 $1,163,000 Preliminaries $79,500 $48,500 inc $128,000 Construction Contingency (5%)

$37,025 $21,275 $6,250 $64,550


Option 3: Base Cost (ex GST) $661,000 $484,000 $125,000 $1,274,000 Preliminaries $79,500 $60,500 inc $140,000 Construction Contingency (5%)

$37,025 $27,425 $6,250 $70,700


The preferred option is Option 2 as it reuses the existing building, provides shared use facilities and meets all identified needs in the most cost effective way.


Town Planning Scheme: The site is reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the purpose of Parks and Recreation and as such any future development would require the approval of the WA Planning Commission.


LotteryWest have assisted in the creation and set up of many West Australian Men's Shed projects. Through their Community Spaces funding program the Cambridge Rotary Club, with the support of the Town, is eligible to apply for funding for the Men's Shed portion of the project. Preliminary discussions between the Cambridge Rotary Club and LotteryWest have proposed a shared funding arrangement between these two organisations. The Town's contribution to the Men's Shed portion of the project would not be financial, but would include the provision of land and part of the existing building to house the Men's Shed facility. The Department of Sport and Recreation provides a grant opportunity through their Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF). If successful, this grant would provide for up to 33% of the total cost of the change room/sporting facilities. A separate report will be presented to Council through the normal CSRFF application process (envisaged September/ October 2013).




This project supports the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan vision of planning for our Community through the actions of a wide range of quality, accessible recreational facilities.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, and will require public comment on the proposal and preferred concept design. Consultation would be undertaken via advertising in local newspapers and Cambridge News, letterbox drop to residents living within 300m of the site, and details of proposal on Council website with feedback sheet.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Concept Plans prepared by Cox Howlett & Bailey Woodland Architects COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the Alderbury Reserve Change Rooms/ Men's Shed Feasibility Study be received. (ii) Option 2 (reconfiguration of the existing Alderbury Reserve Change Rooms,

accommodating a Men's Shed, additional storage, new public toilet) be endorsed as the preferred concept plan, subject to the outcome of the Community Consultation Process; and

(iii) community consultation on Option 2 be undertaken for a period of four weeks and

a further report be presented to Council. Carried 9/0



CR13.25 STATE NETBALL CENTRE - DESIGN APPROVAL

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To seek the endorsement of Council, as Landlord, to the revised design of the State Netball Centre. Approval of the design is an essential term of the lease between the Town and the State.

BACKGROUND:

The Town and State executed a lease in 2012 for the State Netball Centre to be located at Wembley Sports Park. An essential term of the lease requires that: "The Lessee must obtain the Lessor's consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) before the Lessee: (a) constructs any material building or other structural improvement on the Land; or (b) carries out any structural alteration of any building or other structural improvement on

the Land." At its meeting held in August 2012, Council gave conditional approval to the design of the State Netball Centre based on a Design Development Report dated August 2012 (Version 1.2) (CR12.128). In seeking Development Approval for the project, the State modified the design of the State Netball Centre that was given conditional approval by Council in August 2012. The modified design put forward by the State has been the subject of consideration by the Metropolitan West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP). At a hearing held on 27 February 2013, JDAP gave conditional approval to the modified design for the State Netball Centre. Under the terms of the lease between the Town and the State, it is necessary to seek the approval of Council for the modified design.

DETAILS:

The JDAP, in considering the original application for the design of the State Netball Centre (as approved by Council in August 2012), raised several concerns regarding the State Netball Centre and its context in an urban environment before giving conditional approval. An appeal was made by the Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) and, after State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) mediation; a revised design application was approved by the JDAP on 27 February 2013. The current (revised) design application (approved by the JDAP in February 2013) details the main design changes undertaken to satisfy the JDAP (Attachment 1). Whilst the overall design intent has not significantly changed, approval of the design by the Lessor (the Town) is an essential term of the lease between the Town and the State. The table below details the progress to date on each condition of the approval given by Council in August 2012 (CR12.128). Where a condition of approval has been satisfied in the period August 2012 to date, it is not considered necessary to repeat the condition in this new design approval. However, additional conditions may be added to reflect the progress of the revised design.



There are no significant changes to the fundamental plans for the State Netball Centre being located at Wembley Sports Park, in that the lease area is the same and access conditions and arrangements for Perth Netball Association on competition days has not changed. Item Condition (August 2012) Progress (revised application March 2013)

A A permanent fence being constructed in accordance with the Forecourt Landscape Plan (MP-02 Rev H) dated July 2012 shown in red on Page 28 of the State Netball Centre report.

Department of Sport and Recreation and Town of Cambridge administration have agreed on the conceptual layout of boundary fences which will be detailed on subsequent design drawings.

A similarly worded condition is recommended for the revised application.

B The operator (VenuesWest) of the State Netball Centre being permitted to open the fence on the forecourt at times that they are operating the State Netball Centre and being responsible for the security and safety of people entering the Matthews Netball Centre premises and any subsequent damage (and repair of) to these premises caused by persons under the operator of the State Netball Centre's supervision.


C the final design of the fence and gate within the State Netball Centre lease being agreed by the State and Town and any costs above the provision of the standard of the fence proposed by the Town are borne by the State.


D no temporary obstructions being placed within the forecourt area preventing access from the Matthews Netball Centre premises to the forecourt area without prior approval of the Town.


E the final detail design of landscaping within the State Netball Centre lease area and the building façade for the State Netball Centre being consistent with the application submitted by the State and attached to this report;


F the Department of Sport and Recreation to provide a buffer of suitable trees along the western side of the building to provide suitable screening to the Town's satisfaction.

The revised plan has a significant increase in tree planting. It is recommended that this condition has been met.

G A tree replacement strategy of replacing two trees for every living tree removed from within the State Netball Centre lease being undertaken by the applicant.

The new application provides 51 new trees for 26 living trees to be removed. This condition has largely been met and should not still apply.



H A signage plan, to be approved by the Town, be developed in consultation with and overall strategy for Wembley Sports Park.


I The State undertake a community consultation forum regarding the State Netball Centre design to be undertaken prior to, or during the statutory notice period for planning application.

Department of Sport and Recreation conducted this forum on 12 September 2012. This condition need no longer apply.

J A separate application for landowner consent being provided to the Town for works outside the State Netball Centre lease area which the State will be undertaking.

This condition has been met.


There are no significant Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.


There are no significant Financial Implications related to this report.


The eventual development of this land for sporting purposes is consistent with the Town's strategic plan of creating communities of choice.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration of the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, consultation is not recommended due to the attitudes of the community are well known on this topic and documented.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Submission from the Department of Sport and Recreation for JDAP approval of the State Netball Centre design dated February 2013.


That Lessor approval of the revised design of the State Netball Centre, in accordance with the submission dated February 2013, be granted subject to the following conditions: (i) boundary fences between the State Netball Centre site and the remainder of Wembley

Sports Park be located to the mutual agreement between Department of Sport and Recreation and the Town, to optimise permeability of the site to Matthews Netball Centre;

(ii) in resolving the final design of fences and gates within the State Netball Centre any costs

above the standard fence and gates provided in the Town's works under construction for Wembley Sports Park be borne by the State;



(iii) the operator of the State Netball Centre (Venues West) being permitted to open any fences or gates between the State Netball Centre and Matthews Netball Centre at times that they are operating the State Netball Centre and being responsible for the safety and security of people entering Matthews Netball Centre and any subsequent damage (and repair) to these facilities caused by persons under the supervision of the operator of the State Netball Centre;

(iv) no temporary obstructions being placed within the forecourt area preventing access to

Matthews Netball Centre premises without prior approval of the Town;

(v) the final design of landscaping within the State Netball Centre is consistent with the application approved by JDAP on 27 February 2013 including the planting of 51 new trees to replace the anticipated 26 healthy trees to be removed; and

(vi) the Town and State continue works on a coordinated approach to signage within

Wembley Sports Park.

Committee Meeting 18 March 2013 Amendment Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Walker That clause (iii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:-

(iii) the operator of the State Netball Centre (Venues West) being permitted to open any

fences or gates between the State Netball Centre and Matthews Netball Centre at times that they are operating the State Netball Centre and being on the basis that they are responsible for the safety and security of people entering Matthews Netball Centre and any subsequent damage (and repair) to these facilities caused by persons under the supervision of the operator of the State Netball Centre.

Amendment carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That Lessor approval of the revised design of the State Netball Centre, in accordance with the submission dated February 2013, be g ranted subject to the following conditions: (i) boundary fences between the State Netball Centre site and the remainder of

Wembley Sports Park be located to the mutual agreement between Department of Sport and R ecreation and t he Town, to optimise permeability of the site to Matthews Netball Centre;

(ii) in resolving the final design of fences and gates within the State Netball Centre any

costs above the standard fence and gat es provided in the Town's works under construction for Wembley Sports Park be borne by the State;

(iii) the operator of the State Netball Centre (Venues West) being permitted to open any

fences or gates between the State Netball Centre and Matthews Netball Centre at times that they are operating the State Netball Centre and being on the basis that they are responsible for the safety and se curity of people entering Matthews



Netball Centre and any subsequent damage (and repair) to these facilities caused by persons under the supervision of the operator of the State Netball Centre;

(iv) no temporary obstructions being placed within the forecourt area preventing

access to Matthews Netball Centre premises without prior approval of the Town;

(v) the final design of landscaping within the State Netball Centre is consistent with the application approved by JDAP on 27 February 2013 including the planting of 51 new trees to replace the anticipated 26 healthy trees to be removed; and

(vi) the Town and State continue works on a coordinated approach to signage within

Wembley Sports Park. Carried 9/0



CR13.26 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT - PREFERRED BUILDING LAYOUT

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To adopt a preferred building concept design for the Hospitality Development at Wembley Golf Course.

BACKGROUND:

GresleyAbas Architects were appointed by Council in October 2011 to undertake the design for the Hospitality Development at Wembley Golf Course. Their tender submission was based on a two storey building (with additional basement) with areas assigned to function space, bar and restaurant specified by the Town during the tender phase. As works have progressed with the Hospitality Leasing Specialists and the Architect, the proposed areas for the function spaces, bar and restaurant have changed from the tender specification to ensure better commercial viability of the project. This has resulted in two concepts being developed, the first being two storey (with basement) and the second a single storey (with basement). To progress the project further, a preferred concept needs to be adopted.

DETAILS:

Two concepts have been developed, with key images of each attached. The key differences, both positive and negative, between each concept are as outlined in the table below:

Two Storey Concept Single Storey Concept

Positives Elevated overlooks to both the Tuart Course fairways on one side and City glimpses and the Old Course on the other side. This could result in higher function space revenue for a premium outlook.

Provides some “free” extent of covered space where a canopy would normally be used.

Open space on upper floor has capability to covered at a later stage if business demands.

Distinct and quite overt separation between the 'function' space and the 'bar / restaurant' space may be attractive to patrons.

One larger space for functions, bar & restaurant allows the operator to readily adjust the sizes of each area as circumstances change over time or specific events require.

Is marginally cheaper to construct and lower risk to build.

Allocation of break out space can be changed without needing pre function space to spill out onto the piazza, which may impact golfers.



Two Storey Concept Single Storey Concept

Negatives The upper floor requires a dedicated servery and plate finishing area which potential operators have indicated is less preferred due to higher operational costs and thus may reflect in a lower rent offer.

There is limited opportunity to grow the restaurant / bar within the enclosed space by using function space (and vice versa), given the floor separation.

There may be a requirement for higher specification acoustic treatment of the facility given the elevation of the upper floor.

Greater operational and maintenance costs (especially increase in elevator numbers) which will impact on return.

Aspects are limited to North over course, losing South views towards Quarry & City.

Requires a large extent of canopy between forecourt and piazza, which the two storey option provided as part of its superstructure.

Cost prohibitive to expand the building at a later date to a two storey facility.

Aesthetically, both concepts are quite attractive and the Architect would be able to deliver a very good outcome within approved budget whichever concept was adopted. A decision regarding single or two storeys would need to be made prior to planning approval being sought. Planning approval also requires design work to progress to a suitable level. In consideration of the overall positives and negatives of each concept and an assessment of the relative business risks between the two, the single story option is recommended for adoption.




At a conceptual design level, the indicative project budget is as follows:

Two Storey Concept

Single Storey Concept

Building Construction Cost $ 6,590,000 $ 6,175,000

Landscape, External Works, Car Park provision (90 bays) $ 900,000 $ 940,000

Construction Costs $ 7,490,000 $ 7,115,00

Contingency (15%) $ 1,125,000 $ 1,070,000

Professional Fees $ 1,095,000 $ 1,070,000

Headworks charges (allowance) $ 250,000 $ 250,000

Total Indicative Budget $ 9,960,000 $ 9,505,000



It is to be noted that the single storey concept includes a provisional sum of $ 650,000 for a canopy between the ground level buildings, entry forecourt and piazza near the golf pro shop. As design develops, it is believed that a suitable canopy can be designed for a more modest cost, targeting a 20% reduction in the budget allowance.


The eventual development of the Hospitality Development at Wembley Golf Course will realise financial benefits to the Town which supports its objectives of financial sustainability contained in the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. At this time, this report prior to being considered by Council would not necessitate Community Consultation. It is proposed that a preferred concept is further developed and with the benefit of more substantive information, effective Community Consultation can occur at that time.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Key images of each of the Concepts. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That: (i) the single storey concept design developed for the Hospitality Development at

Wembley Golf Course be adopted as the preferred concept for continuation of design and business modelling; and

(ii) community consultation be undertaken on this preferred concept and the results reported back to Council.

Carried 9/0



CR13.27 DOCUMENTS SEALED - MARCH 2013

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To advise Council of documents that have been affixed with the Town of Cambridge Common Seal.

DETAILS:

There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of the Municipality to be placed on documents, however, Council Policy directs the type of documentation to which the seal may be affixed, and requires a subsequent report to Council. A schedule of documents affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge appears below: Date Sealed Document Details Purpose

No. Copies

Oct 2012 Harding Lane - Lots (Various) on Plan 5892

Application for New Title

Lot 68 - SFR & FJ Robson 1 Lot 69 - WHW Thong 1 Lot 70 - PA & JN Duffy 1 Lot 71 - CB & J Hudson 1 Lot 72 - TG and AS Stone 1 Lot 73 - AJC a& BS Maxwell 1 Lot 74 - S-JM Murray 1 Lot 75 - R Deacon 1 Lot 76 - DA Deacon 1 Lot 77 - RS & SA Frigo 1 Lot 78 - S Shamshi 1 Lot 80 - SM Tassell 1 Lot 81 - LK Lubich 1 Lot 82 - AJ Lovegrove 1 Lot 93 - GJ & CL Power 1 Lot 94 - RM & MPJ Campbell

1

Lot 95 - KD & VA Metcalf

1 Lot 96 - DT & KC Ryan

1

Lot 97 - Moonjade Pty Ltd

1 Lot 98 - JL Bond

1

Lot 100 - MA Edgley & MS Evans

1 Lot 102 - DA & KI Forbes

1

Lot 104 - GC & DS Campbell

1 Lot 105 - GC & DS Campbell 1 Lot 106 - EG & LM Greco 1 Lot 107 - JL & BD Sullivan 1 Lot 108 - JO Deacon 1 Lot 200 - Town of Cambridge 1



Date Sealed Document Details Purpose

No. Copies

Oct 2012 Harding Lane - Lot 200 on Plan 5892 as is now comprised in Lots (various) on Deposited Plan 75179

Transfer of Land

Lot 401 - SFR & FJ Robson 1 Lot 402 - WHW Thong 1 Lot 403 - PA & JN Duffy 1 Lot 404 - CB & J Hudson 1 Lot 405 - TG and AS Stone 1 Lot 406 - AJC a& BS Maxwell 1 Lot 407 - S-JM Murray 1 Lot 408 - R Deacon 1 Lot 409 - DA Deacon 1 Lot 410 - RS & SA Frigo 1 Lot 411 - S Shamshi 1 Lot 413 - SM Tassell 1 Lot 414 - LK Lubich 1 Lot 415 - AJ Lovegrove 1 Lot 417 - GJ & CL Power 1 Lot 418 - RM & MPJ Campbell

1

Lot 419 - KD & VA Metcalf

1 Lot 420 - DT & KC Ryan

1

Lot 421 - Moonjade Pty Ltd

1 Lot 422 - JL Bond

1

Lot 423 - MA Edgley & MS Evans

1 Lot 424 - DA & KI Forbes

1

Lot 425 - GC & DS Campbell

1 Lot 426 - GC & DS Campbell 1 Lot 427 - EG & LM Greco 1 Lot 428 - JL & BD Sullivan 1 Lot 429 - JO Deacon 1 18-Feb-13 Lot 569 Ocean Mia - Alkoomie Terrace -

PJ Bradley Transfer of Land 1

27 Feb 13 Lots 1 & 17 (No. 156) Railway Parade, West Leederville - Westbound Corporation Pty Ltd & Town of Cambridge

Grant of Easement 3




There are no Financial Implications related to this report.


Sealing of Council documents is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 priority area of Capacity to Deliver and goal of open and transparent governance.




This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to the documents as listed in the schedule as it appears in this report. Carried 9/0



CR13.28 REVIEW OF LEGISLATION: TAMALA PARK LAND TRANSFER ACT 2001 AND OCEAN GARDENS (INC) ACT 2004

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To inform Council of the Minister for Local Government's review of old legislation and the intent to repeal unnecessary Acts. The following two Acts are applicable to the Town of Cambridge: • Ocean Gardens (Inc) 2004 • Tamala Park Land Transfer Act 2001

BACKGROUND:

Recently, the Minister for Local Government advised the Town that he is conducting a review of old pieces of legislation for their relevance and continued application. It is proposed to repeal all legislation which is no longer relevant. The Minister is seeking advice on whether the Town has any objection to repealing the following two pieces of legislation:- • Ocean Gardens (Inc) 2004 • Tamala Park Land Transfer Act 2001 The Ocean Gardens (Inc) Act 2004 was established to determine the rules that formed the constitution of the body corporate and prohibit certain actions between 20 August 2003 and the establishment of Ocean Gardens Inc. In 2011, Ocean Gardens updated its constitution so the "rules" that were established in the 2004 Act no longer apply. The Tamala Park Land Transfer Act 2001 – transferred the ownership of land (as tenants in common), from the City of Perth, to the Towns of Cambridge, Victoria Park and Vincent, as these Local Governments were originally excluded from ownership of the land, when the former City of Perth was restructured.

DETAILS:

Ocean Gardens (Inc) Act 2004 In 1995, the City of Perth reduced the representation of Councillors on the Board of the Ocean Gardens Inc from three (3) to two (2) in spite of the Town's request that it retain three (3) positions on the Board, including the Chairman. After 8 years of investigation by the Town, State Government and Ombudsman, the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Act 2004 was enacted to allow the Town to retain three (3) positions on the board, including the Chairman. The 2004 Act was an intermediary piece of legislation written to transition the organisation from 20 August 2003 until the establishment of the new Ocean Gardens Inc Board. The legislation also contained the rules that would govern the body during this period. In 2011, Ocean Gardens updated its constitution and rules. In adopting the new Constitution, the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Act 2004 was made redundant. The Department of the Local Government advised that the State Solicitors Office has reviewed the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Act 2004 and reported that the Act no longer applies as the new 2011 Constitution is now the governing legislation.



Tamala Park Land Transfer Act 2001 The Tamala Park Land Transfer Act was established to ensure the Towns of Cambridge, Victoria Park and Vincent received their share of the Tamala Park Land. When the City of Perth was divided in 1994 the City of Perth retained the title to the Tamala Park Land. The Towns of Cambridge, Victoria Park and Vincent fought to ensure that this land was equally distributed amongst the newly created Councils and the entire share did not remain with the City of Perth. A review of this legislation reveals that the local governments of Cambridge, Victoria Park and Vincent are now part owners of Tamala Park – therefore the Act is no longer relevant.


Ocean Gardens (Inc) Act 2004 Tamala Park Land Transfer Act 2001 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil


Nil


Nil

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Correspondence Minister for Local Government Committee Meeting 18 March 2013 Prior to consideration of this item, Mayor Withers and Cr Langer, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared an interest in this matter and left the meeting at 8.41 pm. Cr Walker took the chair during Cr Langer's absence from the meeting. Council Meeting 26 March 2013 Prior to consideration of this item, Mayor Withers and Cr Langer disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to the Review of Legislation: Tamala Park Land Transfer Act 2001 and Ocean Gardens (Inc) Act 2004, I declare I am a member of Ocean Gardens (Inc) and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality maybe be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly.




Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That the Minister for Local Government be advised that the Town of Cambridge has no objection to the repealing of the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Act 2004 and the Tamala Park Land Transfer Act 2001. Carried 9/0



CR13.29 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - FEBRUARY 2013

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To confirm the payment of accounts in accordance with the Local Government Act (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

DETAILS:

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing of all payments issued for the past month.


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”.


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.


The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan key outcome area of capacity to deliver and its goal of open and transparent governance.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Account Payment Listing COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts, as detailed below and at tached, be confirmed:



Carried 9/0

(i) CHEQUE PAYMENTS

Date From Date To Details Amount

Municipal Fund 01-December-2012 07-December-2012 045673 - 045719 $1,054,292.69Municipal Fund 10-December-2012 13-December-2012 045720 - 045811 $242,205.05Municipal Fund 18-December-2012 20-December-2012 045812 - 045835 $76,642.29Municipal Fund 02-January-2013 03-January-2013 045836 - 045904 $238,555.42Municipal Fund 09-January-2013 10-January-2013 045905 - 045940 $50,028.70Municipal Fund 11-January-2013 11-January-2013 045941 - 045993 $226,715.86Municipal Fund 15-January-2013 18-January-2013 045994 - 046036 $104,116.42Municipal Fund 25-January-2013 25-January-2013 046037 - 046074 $149,131.75Municipal Fund 31-January-2013 31-January-2013 046075 - 046151 $143,848.82Golf Course 01-December-2012 31-December-2012 000217 - 000221 $2,756.45Golf Course 01-January-2013 31-January-2013 000222 - 000225 $3,586.76

Total Cheque Payments $2,291,880.21

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)

Date From Date To Details Amount

Investments 01-December-2012 31-December-2012 INV00449 - INV00460 $9,198,410.46Investments 01-January-2013 31-January-2013 INV00461 - INV00467 $3,862,224.65Direct Bank Charges 01-December-2012 31-December-2012 Sup 165 - Sup 167 $85,154.59Direct Bank Charges 01-January-2013 31-January-2013 Sup 168 - Sup 169 $21,547.56Accounts Payable 01-December-2012 07-December-2012 E 8638 - E 8710 $394,237.05Accounts Payable 10-December-2012 12-December-2012 E 8711 - E 8723 $184,327.28Accounts Payable 13-December-2012 13-December-2012 E 8724 - E 8767 $69,315.71Accounts Payable 18-December-2012 18-December-2012 E 8768 - E 8769 $103,649.55Accounts Payable 18-December-2012 18-December-2012 E 8770 - E 8843 $64,327.10Accounts Payable 19-December-2012 28-December-2012 E 8844 - E 8868 $1,400,526.46Accounts Payable 01-January-2013 03-January-2013 E 8869 - E 8872 $156,934.46Accounts Payable 07-January-2013 10-January-2013 E 8873 - E 8958 $721,991.45Accounts Payable 11-January-2013 14-January-2013 E 8959 - E 9022 $107,420.81Accounts Payable 15-January-2013 17-January-2013 E 9023 - E 9049 $342,919.14Accounts Payable 18-January-2013 23-January-2013 E 9050 - E 9105 $528,169.95Accounts Payable 25-January-2013 31-January-2013 E 9106 - E 9160 $1,456,467.19Golf Course 01-December-2012 01-December-2012 E 00163 - E 00163 $25,571.70Golf Course 11-December-2012 11-December-2012 E 00164 - E 00164 $24,054.57Golf Course 20-December-2012 20-December-2012 E 00165 - E 00165 $45,171.60Golf Course 28-December-2012 28-December-2012 E 00166 - E 00166 $19,015.91Golf Course 07-January-2013 07-January-2013 E 00167 - E 00167 $30,410.89Golf Course 15-January-2013 15-January-2013 E 00168 - E 00169 $61,541.16Golf Course 22-January-2013 22-January-2013 E 00170 - E 00170 $26,438.64Payroll 01-December-2012 31-December-2012 Pay 490 - Pay 503 $1,156,136.13Payroll 01-January-2013 31-January-2013 Pay 504 - Pay 513 $1,041,847.54

Total EFT Payments $21,127,811.55

TOTAL PAYMENTS $23,419,691.76



CR13.30 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - FEBRUARY 2013

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To advise Council of the amount of surplus funds invested, the distribution of those funds and the financial performance of each investment (ie interest earned) year to date.

BACKGROUND:

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity guidelines as set out in the policy.

DETAILS:

Investment Portfolio Performance At its March 2013 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate at 3.00% in line with market expectations. The Reserve Bank indicated that it is currently in a "wait and see" mode as the impact of last year's 1.25% rate cut continues to filter through the economy. Positive signs such as moderate growth in consumer spending, investment in housing slowly increasing and a switch by savers into higher risk investments are evident. However, investment in non residential building and investment outside the resource sector remains subdued. The labour market is continuing to soften with unemployment edging higher with businesses focusing on lifting efficiencies. Inflation is currently within the Reserve Bank's target of between two and three per cent. On the global economy, the Reserve Bank noted that market conditions have improved with the United States experiencing modest growth, Europe's debt crisis easing and growth in China having stabilised at a robust pace. Given these positive signs, the Reserve Bank is not planning to cut interest rates further at this time although it has indicated that there is scope to do so if required. In terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term of three months are around 4% with the major banks. Interest rates for securities for periods of six months are around 4.1%. The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day period) was 2.97% for February 2013. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of future interest rates) was 2.96% at 28 February 2013. As the Council’s investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 3.00% for February 2013 is the more appropriate performance measure. Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash rate with a weighted average interest rate of 4.62%. The weighted average investment period of 165 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates (with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 4.1%.



Investment Portfolio Performance for February 2013 The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 12 month period February 2012 to February 2013.

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the Town's investment portfolio, since February 2010.

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00Interest Rates

Investment Performance For February 2012 to February 2013

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index RBA Cash Rate

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Feb-10 May-10 Aug-10 Nov-10 Feb-11 May-11 Aug-11 Nov-11 Feb-12 May-12 Aug-12 Nov-12 Feb-13

Interest Rates

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance For February 2010 to February 2013

Weighted Avg Interest 90 UBS Bank Bill Index



The total investment at the end of February 2013 is $26.5 million which consists of Municipal Funds of $14.3 million, Reserve Funds of $2.3 million, Endownment Lands Funds of $8.5 million and Trust Funds of $1.4 million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from February 2012 to February 2013.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

Feb 12 Mar 12 Apr 12 May 12 Jun 12 Jul 12 Aug 12 Sep 12 Oct 12 Nov 12 Dec 12 Jan 13 Feb 13

Millions Investment Portfolio

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal



The investment performance as at the end of February 2013 is as follows:

Term

(Days) Rating

Current Interest

Rate February

2013 Income Total Amount

Invested

% of Funds

Invested Floating Rate Notes

.

Emerald Reverse Mortgage

"A" 3.62% $2,541 $897,820 3.39%

Sub-total

$2,541 $897,820 3.39%

Term Deposits and Bank Bills ANZ - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 4.63% $8,169 $2,329,467 8.78%

ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.70% $3,605 $1,013,907 3.82% ING - Term Deposit matured "A1"

$1,620

0.00%

ING - Term Deposit 183 "A1" 4.62% $1,786 $512,337 1.93% ING - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 4.79% $3,721 $1,022,973 3.86% ING - Term Deposit 179 "A1" 4.66% $1,787 $503,830 1.90% ING - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 4.81% $3,690 $1,020,690 3.85% ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.72% $1,810 $509,246 1.92% ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.67% $3,582 $1,016,505 3.83% ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.75% $1,640 $454,568 1.71% ING - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 4.46% $1,711 $502,261 1.89% ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.47% $3,429 $1,003,796 3.79% BANKWEST - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 4.45% $291 $86,991 0.33% BANKWEST - Term Deposit 31 "A1+" 4.00% $230 $100,230 0.38% NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 4.52% $3,016 $877,670 3.31% NAB - Term Deposit matured "A1+"

$1,168

0.00%

NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 4.62% $3,544 $1,011,012 3.81% NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 4.49% $1,722 $502,768 1.90% NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 4.90% $3,759 $1,021,882 3.85% NAB - Term Deposit 188 "A1+" 4.90% $3,759 $1,021,882 3.85% NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 4.62% $2,126 $606,455 2.29% NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 4.51% $3,460 $1,008,773 3.80% NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 4.49% $1,722 $503,014 1.90% WESTPAC - Term Deposit 161 "A1+" 4.59% $1,761 $507,231 1.91% WESTPAC - Term Deposit 178 "A1+" 4.59% $1,940 $558,871 2.11% WESTPAC - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 5.10% $4,678 $1,225,074 4.62% WESTPAC - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 4.53% $2,662 $774,051 2.92% WESTPAC - Term Deposit 149 "A1+" 4.66% $1,821 $515,971 1.95% WESTPAC - Term Deposit 167 "A1+" 4.45% $876 $258,086 0.97% WESTPAC - Term Deposit 157 "A1+" 4.40% $2,025 $602,821 2.27% WESTPAC - Term Deposit matured "A1+"

$3,555

0.00%

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 4.50% $3,452 $1,015,904 3.83% WESTPAC - Term Deposit 146 "A1+" 4.42% $1,715 $507,937 1.92% WESTPAC - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 4.55% $3,490 $1,008,851 3.80% WESTPAC - Term Deposit 138 "A1+" 4.49% $3,444 $1,008,734 3.80% WESTPAC - Term Deposit 131 "A1+" 4.53% $1,738 $503,972 1.90% WESTPAC - Term Deposit 145 "A1+" 4.53% $1,738 $503,972 1.90%

Sub-total

$96,243 $25,621,731 96.61%

62.71%

Total Investments

$98,784 $26,519,551 100.00%

Weighted Average 165

4.62%




The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.


Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this. The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below:

Budget 2011/2012

Actual as at February 2012 %

Budget 2012/2013

Actual as at February 2013 %

General * $677,000 $506,211 74.8% $637,400 $509,361 79.9% Reserves $100,000 $80,880 80.9% $165,000 $68,000 41.2% Endowment Lands $659,900 $426,907 64.7% $550,000 $359,461 65.4% Total Investments $1,436,900 $1,013,998 70.6% $1,352,400 $936,823 69.3%

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $38,764.


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area of Capacity to Delivery and its goal of financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for maintaining the Town's wealth and revenue capacity.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No.1.2.11 and consultation is not required as this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Oakvale Consolidated Investment Report - February 2013 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That the Investment Schedule as at 28 February 2013, forming part of the Notice Paper, be received. Carried 9/0



CR13.31 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - FEBRUARY 2013

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the financial position for the period ended 28 February 2013 and to comment on both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on financial results.

DETAILS:

Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures against the year to date budget.

The following observations are made and should be read in conjunction with the Statement of Financial Activity (Rate Setting Statement) in attachment 1. Operating Revenue

Operating revenue year to date is $33 million in line with year to date budget. Significant variances are as follows:

Amended Budget

YTD Budget YTD Actual

Revenue $48,595 $38,384 $38,115

Expenditure $37,917 $25,320 $24,170

Operating Profit/(Loss) $10,678 $13,064 $13,945

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$'00

0

Operations

Capital Expenditure

Amended Budget $25,673

YTD Budget $9,550

YTD Actual $8,463

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$'00

0

Capital Expenditure

Amended Budget

YTD Budget YTD Actual

Transfers to/(from) Reserves

$3,506 -$452 -$278

Transfers to/(from) Endowment Lands

$9,336 -$708 -$388

-$2,000

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$'00

0

Reserves & ELA Transfers

Current Assets, $36,841

Current Liabilities,

$6,130

Net Current Assets ($'000)



Fees and charges Actual revenue for February YTD is $9.3 million against year to date budget of $9.5 million giving an unfavourable variance $150k. The following budget items contribute to this variance:

• Quarry Amphitheatre fees - currently $65k under YTD budget due to a timing variance with respect to income from productions which span February and March. Inflow of revenue in March will therefore see this come back to budget.

• Building application fees - currently $81k below YTD budget with new building

legislation allowing private certification by independent surveyors, previously performed by the Town and consequently has impacted revenue significantly. This is expected to be a permanent variance.

• Footpath inspection fees - currently $56k below YTD budget with advice received from

Department of Local Government circulated to all local governments indicating that these fees can no longer be charged. This matter is being further investigated and could result in a permanent variance.

Operating grants and subsidies Actual revenue for February YTD is $1.5 million against year to date budget of $1.3 million giving a favourable variance of $175k. The following budget items contribute to this variance:

• Senior Services operational subsidy - currently $79k over budget with subsidy received quarterly in advance. This is a timing difference and will come back to budget.

• General purpose grants - currently $96k over budget being a timing difference as a

result of grants received quarterly in advance. This is a timing difference and will come back to budget.

Operating Expenses

Operating expenses year to date is $24.2 million compared to budget of $25.4 million, giving a favourable variance of $1.2 million. Significant variances are as follows: Materials and contracts Actual expenditure for February YTD is $7.8 million against year to date budget of $8.7 million, giving a favourable variance of $923k.

The following timing variances contribute towards this variance: Sustainability programs $82k under YTD budget, Town planning scheme review $47k under YTD budget; Waste management operations $232k under YTD budget; Waste management programs $37k under YTD budget; Computer software licences $62k under YTD budget; Road reserves non capital works $69k under YTD budget' Parks and landscape non capital works $90k under YTD budget Wembley Golf Course non capital works $49k under YTD budget.

No permanent variances have been identified at this time.



Net Operating Result The net operating surplus from operations is $11.5 million is above year to date budget of $10.4 million giving a favourable variance of $1.1 million.

Non Operating Revenue

Non Operating Revenue year to date is $7 million in line with year to date budget. • This includes a $5 million capital contribution received from the State Government for the

Matthews Netball Centre. Capital Works Programs The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 28 February 2013 is $8.4 million against year to date budget of $9.1 million, a variance of $0.7 million. A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows the following timing variances:

• Buildings - $4.7 million against year to date budget of $5.2 million.

• Parks and Reserves - $874k against year to date budget of $1 million. • Roads and Lanes - $1.1 million against year to date budget of $1.3 million.

There are no major permanent variances within the capital works program to report on.

Cash Surplus (Closing Funds) The surplus as at 28 February 2013 is $15 million which is above the year to date budget of $13.4 million, a $1.6 million difference. The surplus is predominantly due to the $923k under expenditure with respect to materials and contracts and $700k under expenditure with respect to the capital expenditure program.

0

4

8

12

16

20

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Net Operating Result

Budget

Actual



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Cash Surplus ($ millions)

Budget

Actual

This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and the carrying out of budgeted capital works.

Material Variances

Permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items are normally reported upon. As at 28 February 2013 the following two material variances exist:

• Building Control - building application fees $81k under YTD budget. • Road Infrastructure - footpath inspection fees $56k under YTD budget.

Explanations for these have been provided within this report.


The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement.


The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impact on Council funds.


The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal of financial sustainability, by ensuring our expenditure is matched by our revenue.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Monthly Financial Statements - February 2013 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That the report on the Financial Statements as at 28 February 2013 be received. Carried 9/0



CR13.32 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 2013

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To report on items considered at the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) Ordinary Meeting held on 21 February 2013.

BACKGROUND:

The Town of Cambridge is one of seven members of the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC). The complete membership and equity ownership varies between members as follows:- Member Equity Member Representation City of Stirling 4/12 4 City of Joondalup 2/12 3 City of Wanneroo 2/12 3 Town of Cambridge 1/12 1 Town of Vincent 1/12 1 Town of Victoria Park 1/12 1 City of Perth 1/12 1

The purpose of the TPRC is to undertake, in accordance with the Establishment Agreement objectives, the rezoning, subdivision, development, marketing and sale of the Tamala Park land.

The objectives of the Council are:-

• to develop and improve the value of the land; • to maximise within prudent risk parameters, the financial return to the participants; • to balance economic, social and environmental issues; and • to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban design and

development practice. Around 2,600 dwellings (2,300 lots) will be developed, establishing a population of 6,500. The dwellings are likely to comprise of:

Single Residential 1,755 Town Houses 555 Flats/Apartments 310

The indicative sales plan provides for staged release of around 360 lots over the next twelve months. At its Ordinary Meeting in August 2011, the TPRC considered a revised project cashflow. The project cashflow was again reviewed and updated in June 2012, mainly for the effects of a reconfigured lots, reduced developable area, revised escalation rates and increased development costs. The following summarises the revised project budget:-



August 2011 June 2012 Project Duration: 13 Years (2012-2025) 13 Years (2012-2025) No of Lots: 2,310 2,351 Gross Income: $669.5 million $674.3 million Development Costs: $357.6 million $366.1 million Net Profit: $311.9 million $308.2 million Town of Cambridge Share*: $26 million $26 million * This is not the net present value. The first few years of the project cashflow produces the following cash outflows/inflows, which allow Owner’s capital and profit distributions to commence:-

2012 2013 2014 2015 Cumulative net inflow/(outflow) -$12.6 million -$0.9 million $7.1 million $14.9 million Capital Distribution* $7.0 million $6.3 million Profit Distribution $8.7 million Town of Cambridge share $585,000 $1.25 million * Note, the owners have injected initial equity into the project from the proceeds from an agreement with the State Government, which returned developable land to the State for ‘Bush Forever’.

DETAILS:

Business Report The meeting of the TPRC noted the progress on lot creation and sales with a brief outline of components to date;

CONSTRUCTION & SALESConstruction Stage Bulk Ethwks Civil Wks Sales Stage Lots Sales SettledStage 1 Practical Completion Practical Completion Stage 1a 24 24 24

Stage 1b cottage lots 11 11 11

Stage 2 Practical Completion Practical Completion Stage 2 Builders Display Village 24 24 24

Stage 3 Practical Completion Practical Completion Stage 3a 31 20 16Stage 3b 12 12 4

Stage 4 Practical Completion 99% Complete Stage 4a 34 34 0Stage 4b 11 6 0

Stage 5 Practical Completion 35% Complete (not released) 63 - -

Stage 6 Practical Completion Practical Completion Stage 6a 8 5 4Stage 6b (not released) 10 - -Stage 6c (not released) 25 - -

Stage 7 Practical Completion not commenced (not released) 64 - -

LANDSCAPING WORKSStage StatusDrainage Basin & Neerabup Practical CompletionLot 1 Entry Statement Works deferredStage 1b POS Practical Completion



Sales, Financial Report & Budget Review Revenue The TPRC noted that sales revenue, budgeted at $42.7M is under budget due to:

• $3.2M of revenue received in FYE 2012 ahead of budget; and • a delay of 43 settlements.

Whilst substantial settlements are planned for February, a review of the sales cash flow has resulted in a revised forecast of $33.8M. Expenditure Expenditure to date remains under budget primarily due to timing delays in land development costs. Currently, $12.86M of the $43.18M budget has been spent and a revised forecast of $36.7M has been estimated, the result of deferring $6M of land development costs to next financial year.



Sales Strategy The Project Manager tabled a revised sales strategy for the Estate. The Strategy proposes 18 staged sales releases, varying in size from 10 to 63 residential lots and is intended to satisfy sales demand from 2013 to 2017. The Strategy is based on a rate of sale of 180 lots per annum. The majority of the staged sales releases (14) are located within Central cell. In terms of the proposed staged sales releases within the western precinct (west of Marmion Avenue), these are proposed to commence in June 2015, earlier than anticipated in the approved Project Cashflow which identified commencement of sales activity in 2017. The TPRC will subsequently be outlining the cash flow implications of this proposal as part of the planning for the 2013/14 budget process.

Sales 42,791,362 33,862,782 -8,928,580

Other 450,890 401,890 -49,000

TOTAL INCOME 43,242,252 34,264,672 -8,977,580

Land Development 36,461,427 29,763,905 -6,697,522

Other 8,687,943 6,993,435 -1,694,508

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 45,149,370 36,757,340 -8,392,030

Non Operating/write back items 150,680 133,692 -16,988

Opening Balance 13,465,258 13,012,597 -452,661

Net Surplus 11,407,460 10,386,237 -1,021,223

Projected Estimate Variation

Annual Budget



Public Art Implementation Plan The TPRC were provided with a Public Art Implementation Plan (PAIP), which identifies the methodologies for delivering public art within urban developments. The plan considered the process, budget, and location of public art and included a masterplan for consideration. The delivery of public art within the Phase 1 area will be managed by the project landscape architect. Sustainability Initiatives Plan Review The TPRC have opted for shared bores to be provided as an alternative system to the Third Pipe Scheme. This was trialled within Stage 4 was well received by purchasers. Based on this, the TPRC approved implementation of shared bores to all front loaded lots within Stage 5. The report also covered the implementation of other initiatives including:

• Waterwise Landscape Packages • Solar Panels Rebate • Fibre Optic Service • Community Development • Waste Recycling (Housing Construction) • Enviro Development Certification - A consultant will shortly be appointed.

It is anticipated most of these options will be taken up by Purchasers as construction of homes are completed. Department of Housing/BGC Put Options - Shared Equity Mr Grahame Searle (Director General) from the Department of Housing made a presentation titled ‘Opening Doors to Affordable Housing’, which outlined the following:

• Housing designed for low to moderate incomes; • The procurement model; • Partnerships; • The Expression of Interest process; and • The built form and shared equity process.

The Council agreed to enter into a general Land Contract with Department of Housing for Lots which are the subject to a Put Option Deeds with the Buckeridge Group of Companies, on the basis of a written undertaking with the Department of Housing (DOH) that the lots are used for the Department of Housing shared equity scheme. In the event that any of the subject lots cannot be used for the DOH shared equity scheme, or sold by the DOH on the open market, the TPRC will purchase the lots from DOH at the market value.



Other Items of Business The meeting also considered:

• Central Precinct Design Guidelines • Bulk earthworks and Civil Works Tenders; • General Governance Matters


Section 3.61(1) of the Local Government Act deals with the establishment of Regional Local Government by two or more Local Governments, for any purpose for which a Local Government can do things under the Local Government or any other Act.


As outlined, the Town will start to see proceeds returned from the development from 2014, with $585k from 2014, $1.25 million in 2015, increasing to potentially $3.6 million per annum in 2020, based on increases in sales prices over that duration.


Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital assets to ensure their sustainability for future generations.


Consultation is being undertaken progressively by the Tamala Park Regional Council, and in accordance with statutory requirements.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That the report relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meeting of the Tamala Park Regional Council held on 21 February 2013 be received. Carried 9/0



CR13.33 UNDERGROUND POWER PROGRAM - RESULTS FORM A SURVEY OF PROPERTY OWNERS

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To report the results of a survey of property owners who do not have an underground power service in their street, on their propensity to pay for the installation of underground power.

BACKGROUND:

Previous reports on report on underground power refer: Date Item no. Purpose December 2006 CCS06.133 Review of UGP Strategy; Comprehensive Report including history of

previous projects. December 2009 GC09.97 Application to Round 5 of the SUPP; policy options for Town funding,

Survey March 2012 CR12.36 Endorsement of a survey of Property Owners; Background on SUPP and

the reviews by the ERA June 2012 CR12.99 Endorsement of a survey of Property Owners; Costings; Cashflows, Funds Specifically, the June 2012 decision of Council was that:

"(i) a survey be undertaken of those property owners within the Town who do not have underground power to evaluate their propensity to pay for underground power;

(ii) the survey incorporate a proposed subsidy by the Town of one third of the costs; (iii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to engage a research company to design

and undertake the survey and an amount of $20,000 be included in the 2012/13 Budget for this purpose."

Underground Power Survey Area



The Survey form and information brochure is shown in attachment two and was developed in conjunction with the research consultants and Elected Members. The survey was mailed on Thursday 6 December 2012 and remained open until Friday 25 January 2013. A small number of additional responses have been received after the closing date and are incorporated in the results presented in this report.

DETAILS:

Willingness to Pay The total statistical population of the survey area is 4,360 properties. The Town received a total of 1846 responses, which represents 42% of the survey area population. The headline result is that out of the total responses received (1,846), 45% indicate a willingness to pay. Breaking this down by suburb, there is a greater willingness to pay from property owners in Floreat, at 50.6%, than in Wembley and West Leederville at 36.3% and 39.5% respectively.

Total Responses Total Survey Area Population

Included in the survey area population are 1,434 residential strata titled units. We found that there is less propensity to pay for the installation of underground power from these owners, with only 31.5% of the responses in favour, that’s 11.3% of all residential strata title owners in the survey area. Conversely, when we isolated the responses from single residence home owners (i.e. those with ordinary 'green title' homes), the responses were more favourable. 51% of the responses received were in favour, equating to 24% of all single residential property owners in the survey area. The final analysis was to examine the single residential property owner responses by suburb. We found greater support in Floreat than in Wembley and West Leederville.

Single Residential Property Owners

Responses In favour

Total Responses

Total Population

% Responses

in favour

% Population in favour

Floreat 484 934 1945 52% 25% Wembley 78 162 372 48% 21% West Leederville 24 53 118 45% 20% Total 586 1149 2435 51% 24%

Responses, 1846, 42%

No Response, 2512, 58%

Respondants Willing to Pay,

831, 19.1%



We further analysed the data by spatially mapping the responses to examine whether there were small pockets of support, which may enable the Town to pursue a smaller project. Responses were sporadic and mixed and we were unable to identify a particular area for this purpose. Other Survey Questions In addition to 'willingness to pay', two other pertinent questions were asked in the survey regarding the perceived level of importance and support for using the Town's cash reserves.

Q. How important do you feel it is to have underground power in your local area?

Q. Do you support or oppose the Town of Cambridge using funds from the Town's cash reserves (estimated at 12.5 million) to install underground power?

22%

6% 11%

20%

36%

3% 1%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

No.

Of R

espo

nses

The Level of Importance of UGP

70%

20% 8%

1% 0

200 400 600 800

1000 1200 1400

No.

Of R

espo

nses

Support to utilise Reserves/ELA



Comments received During the period of the survey, a number of comments were received from affected property owners outlining their views. Two main issues emerged.

Cost "too prohibitive, the estimate and cost escalation from previous projects costs too excessive." Equity "It's simply not fair and equitable to ask property owners to pay more than 50%, based on previous State Underground Power Projects only requiring 50% from property owners."

Other comments include that some property owners are at the stage of life where they would not necessarily realise the befit of underground power, and that the Town should not be paying for Western Power's infrastructure. It should be noted that the Town has not subsidised property owners in the three previous Underground Power projects implemented by the Town through the State Underground Power Program (SUPP). If the Council was to consider increasing the financial subsidy, it is recommended that all property owners in the Town be canvassed about using Town funds in this way. Response Rates Council has not formed a position on what an adequate response for the survey might be to advance to the next stage. To assist the discussion, the following table is provided outlining the previous underground power projects delivered by the Town under the State Underground Power Program.

Project Project Date

No. of Properties

Response Rate

Survey Results -

Willingness to pay

Funding Share

Average Property

Wembley (Pilot Project) Jun-98 1,166 38% 68% 33% $1,190

Nth Wbley/West Leederville* Jan-99 1,981 61% 72% 50% $1,610

Daglish/Jolimont Feb-99 24 refer above refer above 50% $1,950

City Beach Aug-04 1,630 49.30% 77.40% 50% $3,500

Remaining Area (Dec 2012 Survey)

Dec-12 4,360 45% 42% 60% $8,000

Possible change to Government policy The March 2012 report to Council made reference to two impending State Underground Power Program reviews by both the Minister for Energy and the Treasurer. Of note, both reports highlight an alternate model based on a differential contribution from property owners, which in turn is based on the median house price of the project area. Put simply, it suggests that property owners in higher valued project areas would pay more than those in lower valued areas.



A similar concept was contemplated at workshops convened by the Economic Regulatory Authority (now the Public Utilities Office), which was attended by Local Government representatives. In the lead up to the State Election, both the Government and the Opposition will be monitored for their policy position on the State Underground Power program moving forward. Options moving forward and basis for the recommendation The previous commentary in this report has indicated that overall, support is not overwhelming and that there is no particular subset of the survey area where the majority of property owners indicated strong support for the proposal. However, Council may consider that there is merit in proceeding to do a detailed design and costing of a small project area, at the very least to ascertain current costings. This exercise would assist in considering future proposals, whether under the State Underground Power Program or a revised Town of Cambridge approach. Round 6 of the State Underground Power Program (SUPP) Despite the current review of the underground power program, it is anticipated that the Guidelines for Round Six Major Residential Projects will be released later this year along with a call for expressions of interest from local governments. Round six may commence from 2015.




In 2012, the Town met with the State Underground Power Program unit of Western Power to discuss the preliminary project parameters for undergrounding power to the remaining areas of the Town. A basic desktop analysis suggests that the total cost of the project would be in the vicinity of $47.5 million, but that this estimate could be reduced to $41.5 million if an alternate internal cost recovery model was adopted by Western Power. In addition, with a contribution by Western Power of 10% (recognising the financial benefit they would enjoy from underground power to reduce their overhead power costs), the cost to the Town/Property Owners would be approximately $37.4 million. Consistent with the March 2012 decision of Council, a one third contribution by the Town would require $12.5 million from the Town's reserves and the Endowment Lands Account, with the balance of $25 million being funded by the property owners.


The Strategic Plan states: “Financial Sustainability - Ensure strategies are in place for maintaining the Town's wealth. We will plan to prudently invest the land proceeds due to the Town over the next five years, such that both current and future generations benefit.”




The Town will consult with the community to obtain feedback on alternatives to assist decision making, using surveys, advertisements' etc.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Underground Power Survey Summarised Results 2. Underground Power Survey and Information Brochure


That:- (i) it is concluded that there is not sufficient support to proceed to the next stage of the

Town's underground power proposal, to undertake full design and costing for installing underground power to the remainder of the whole Town without underground power;

(ii) the results of the survey be noted and that all property owners surveyed be advised

accordingly; (iii) future proposals for underground power be only considered through the State

Underground Power Program, ie not an independent Town initiated program. Committee Meeting 18 February 2013 Amendment Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That clause (iii) of the motion be deleted. Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) it is concluded that there is not sufficient support to proceed to the next stage of the



accordingly. Council Meeting 26 February 2013 Amendment Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Bradley That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) the residents who have not responded to the initial survey in the two pockets of West of

the Forum as detailed on the accompanying plans be surveyed by door knock or phone



call to obtain a conclusive result regarding their propensity to pay two thirds of the cost in respect of the installation of underground power. Senior residents are to be fully informed of their concession entitlements.

During discussion, Members agreed that this item be deferred for further investigation. Cr Walker therefore withdrew his amendment. COUNCIL DECISION: That consideration of the item relating to Underground Power Progam be deferred for further investigation. FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 26 February 2013) Irrespective of the survey, it is the intent of the Town to continue to submit applications to the SUPP. During the recent election campaign, the Liberal Party on 3 March 2013 made the following policy statement:

• $30million to expand State Underground Power Program over next four years • Increases total investment in underground power program to $40million • Commitment will complete Round 5 of the program and start Round 6 • Liberals’ plan will deliver significant benefits to private residents, local government

authorities and the State Government Source: http://www.wa.liberal.org.au/article/liberals%E2%80%99-underground-power-expansion

The current Round of the State Underground Power Program (SUPP), which commenced in 2012, was expected to cost around $77M to provide underground power to approximately 8,200 households. It was anticipated that this would take three to four years to implement. Assuming four years, the SUPP budget required would be as follows: Round Five Current Budget

2013/2014 $M

Year 2 $M

Year 3 $M

Year 4 $M

Total $M

State $5 $5 $5 $5 $20 Western Power $5 $5 $5 $5 $20 Local Government*

$10 $10 $10 $10 $40

Total $20 $20 $20 $20 $80 *funds raised though underground power charges to property owners Without further information, it is difficult to suggest from the policy statement above whether there is an uplift in the level of funding. For instance, does the policy statement incorporate both Western Power's and the State Government's contributions. On the face of it, it appears that the Government's intentions are to continue the SUPP with the same level of funding. There is also no mention of taking a differential approach to the SUPP, as was suggested in the SUPP review reports presented to the Minister for Energy and Treasurer in 2011 (refer previous report to Council CR12.36, March 2012).

http://www.wa.liberal.org.au/article/liberals%E2%80%99-underground-power-expansion�



COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: (REFERRED BACK RECOMMENDATION) That:- (i) it is concluded that there is not sufficient support to proceed to the next stage of the



accordingly. Committee Meeting 18 March 2013 Amendment Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) an update on Government policy be provided for the October 2013 Council meeting. Amendment carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) it is concluded that there is not sufficient support to proceed to the next stage of

the Town's underground power proposal, to undertake full design and costing for installing underground power to the remainder of the whole Town without underground power;

(ii) the results of the survey be not ed and t hat all property owners surveyed be

advised accordingly; (iii) an update on Government policy be pr ovided for the October 2013 Council

meeting. Carried 9/0


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\MARCH 2013\D AU.DOCX 179

AUDIT COMMITTEE The report of the Audit Committee meeting held on Monday 18 March 2013 was submitted as under:


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Audit Committee open at 4.05 pm


Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Colin Walker (Presiding Member) 4.05 pm 4.27 pm Mayor Simon Withers 4.05 pm 4.27 pm Cr Rod Bradley 4.08 pm 4.27 pm Cr Alan Langer 4.05 pm 4.27 pm Stephen Briehl (Community Representative) 4.05 pm 4.27 pm Observers: Nil Officers: Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance and Contracts Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) Also in attendance: Santo Caselli, Internal Auditor Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 4.27 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Nil




That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Audit Committee held on 20 November 2012 as contained in the November 2012 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.


Nil

7. REPORTS



AU13.1 INTERNAL AUDIT - COMPLIANCE RETURN, CASH VERIFICATION AND COMPLETED AUDITS REVIEW

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider the internal audit which in accordance with the Audit Plan covered:- • a review of the 2012 Compliance Audit Return and ensure the information in the return

reflects the Town's compliance status. • the identification of all areas where cash is being received on behalf of the Town by

external parties and to assess controls, accountability and proper recording of transactions;

• follow up of previously completed internal audits which covered the following operational

areas:

• Bonds and Deposits • Accounts Receivable/Debtors • Human Resources • Procurement • Rates • Information Technology • Wembley Golf Course

BACKGROUND:

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, specifically Regulation 5 (2) (c) requires the CEO to: "undertake reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report to the local government the results of those reviews." In order to satisfy this requirement, an internal audit process has been established to cover all areas of the Town's financial management systems within this time frame. The following audits presented for consideration:- 1. Compliance Return 2. Quarterly Cash Verification Audit for the quarters ended December 2012. 3. Follow Up of Completed Internal Audits Issues Outstanding The Town engaged the services of auditors, Santo Casilli Accounting and Auditing Services to undertake the Internal Audit Program and their reports are included as an attachment to this report.



DETAILS:

A summary of the findings is provided below. Management comments are shown in italics:- Compliance Return The Town submits to the Department of Local Government, on an annual basis, a Compliance Audit Return to indicate whether it has complied with legislation in conducting its operations during the year. The Audit concluded that the 2012 Legislative Compliance Return information was satisfactorily compiled and there were no areas of non-compliance reported.

Quarterly Cash Verification

1. The audit concluded that satisfactory controls are in place over cash receipting and proper procedures are being followed to safeguard cash.

2. The cash verification process included auditing Bold Park Aquatic Centre, Administration Centre, Wembley Golf Course professional shop and tavern operations, The Boulevard Centre, Quarry Amphitheatre and Wembley Community Centre.

3. Only minor discrepancies were noted where daily bank receipts reported by the cash register did not match the cash collected. These occurrences fall within the acceptable tolerance for variations and are not of a material amount.

Variations for the Wembley Golf Course were followed up by the Manager of Finance with the general manager and management are continuing to monitor these discrepancies via daily spot cash counts.

Follow Up of Completed Audits As part of the Internal Audit Strategic Plan, a follow up audit was undertaken on completed audits to determine that recommended action has been satisfactorily completed within the required time frames as stated by management. It was found that: 1. Of the existing thirty nine outstanding findings, only seven remain of which five are

considered to be low risk and two are considered to be medium risk (see summary listing attached).

2. Audit has agreed to extend the due date they will be continually followed up to ensure

they are satisfactorily implemented. 3. A summary of the number of outstanding items by operational area are as follows:

Bonds and Deposits (two findings - low risk) • Need to clear outstanding unclaimed bond money - undertake a program to

clear long outstanding bond money. Implement a process that allows ongoing review and timely clearance of future bond money.



• Formal procedures to be implemented for follow up of works completion and

refunding of bonds - the Town to undertake a more proactive approach to identify completed works and refund of cash bonds. Strengthen existing bond process to enable early identification of works completion.

Response Procedures are in place for the inspection of completed construction works and assessment of bond refunds. This process has been hampered by builders not notifying the Town when works have been completed which then requires the Town to carry out inspections to identify completed works which is a time consuming task. Recently introduced legislation now requires builders to notify the Town when works have been completed. This will enable a more efficient process to be introduced for new bonds whereby a standard bond refund request letter can be generated to the builder upon receiving the completed works notification. With respect to old outstanding bonds, existing system reports are currently being reviewed to determine whether they can be modified and used to populate a standard bond refund request letter in order to expedite refunds. A consultant from Technology One has been booked to investigate whether the existing Proclaim system can address this.

Accounts Receivable (two findings - low risk)

• Inactive debtor accounts - inactive debtor accounts where there have been no transactions for a period of more than twelve months and have a nil balance owing.

• Duplicate debtors - Town develop debtor creation instructions to avoid possibility of duplicate debtors. Upgrade search facility in Proclaim to enable in depth searches to be conducted.

Response Current procedures for creating debtors require that a search be conducted to establish that the debtor does not already exist. The search facility functionality is basic and an upgrade has not been progressed due to the limitation of the current software (Proclaim classic). A major upgrade scheduled for later this year to Proclaim CI, should address these issues in full.

Human Resources (one finding - medium risk)

• Staff performance evaluations to be completed at review date. Report long outstanding evaluations to the Chief Executive Officer.

Response Procedures have been implemented whereby staff responsible for evaluations are now being reminded by human resources prior to the staff evaluation due date. A report is being prepared of outstanding staff evaluations for the Chief Executive Officer for actioning.

Procurement (one finding - low to medium risk)

• Contract performance reviews - include as part of the contract management process the need for contract managers to formally report on supplier performance during the contract period.



Response Policies and templates have been produced by the contracts officer and have been submitted to executive management for review and approval.

Council Rates (one finding - low risk)

• Written procedures for all aspects of rates processing such as pensioners, interim rating, month end processing etc to be in place.

Response Written procedures are in progress and are currently eighty percent complete and will be finalised by year end.


Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, “The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake review of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report to the Local Government the results of those reviews". Internal controls are administered in accordance with administration policies and procedures.


This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s priority area of ‘Capacity to Delivery’ and corresponding goal of ‘Open and Transparent Governance’.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Compliance Return 2012. 2. Quarterly Cash Verification Audits December 2012. 3. Follow Up of Completed Internal Audits 2010-2011 and 2011-2012- List of Outstanding

Findings (7) COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Bradley That the Internal Audit Reports relating to:- • Compliance Return • Quarterly Cash Verification Audit • Follow Up of Completed Internal Audits 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 be noted and endorsed. Carried 9/0



AU13.2 PROVISION OF EXTERNAL AUDIT SERVICES

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To appoint new external auditors for the Town for a period of three years as required under the Local Government Act 1995.

BACKGROUND:

Section 7.3 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires Councils to appoint a person or persons to be the auditors of the municipality. Under Section 7.3 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government Audit Regulations, only natural persons (not firms) can be registered as Local Government Auditors. Accordingly, only partners of the successful tendering firm can be appointed as auditors. Section 7.6 of the Local Government Act 1995 also requires that the appointment be made for a period not exceeding 5 years. The Town’s current auditors', Macri Partners contract for the provision of external audit services has expired. Consequently, the Town is now required to call tenders for a reappointment of auditors. Subsequently, the Town in accordance with its procurement policies approached and issued a "Request for Tender" to all audit firms on the WALGA preferred supplier panel, namely:

• Deloitte • AMD • Paxon Group • PricewaterhouseCoopers • Macri Partners • UHY Haines Norton • Grant Thornton

A three year contract, with an option to extend for a further two years at the discretion of the Town, is being offered for audit services for the financial years ending 30 June 2013, 2014 and 2015.

DETAILS:

Requests for Tender were sent out on Friday 8 February 2013 with submissions closing at 2.00 p.m. on Wednesday, 27 February 2013. Quotes were received from the following audit firms:

• Macri Partners • Grant Thornton • UHY Haines Norton



Evaluation Criteria The Quotes were evaluated using the WALGA Purchasing and Tender Guide 2005. The evaluation considered weighted qualitative criteria and non-weighted compliance which identified the preferred organisation. The confidential attachment to this report details the assessment applied to the submissions received, together with a summarised copy of prices submitted. The qualitative criteria used in assessing submissions were as follows:

Submissions received met the above criteria with all firms demonstrating they are capable of delivering external audit services. All three respondents have an extensive current local government client base. Reference checks were conducted for Grant Thornton and Haines Norton with the nominated referees, and favourable feedback was received. The only variations between the submissions received are the cost of delivering the service and provision of hours. Although Macri Partners' submission provided for the least amount of hours, this could be attributed to familiarity of the Town's processes and procedures and the volume of work involved. In addition, Macri Partners provide a number of "value added" services for which no fees are charged. Based on the result of the evaluation, against the selection criteria, Macri Partners was identified as the preferred organisation for the following reasons:- 1. Their submission satisfies the Compliance Criteria 2. Their submission ranked the highest on the weighted criteria; and 3. They were the lowest price offer and represent the best value for money for the Town.

Based on this assessment, it is recommended that the quote submitted by Macri Partners be accepted. Macri Partners' submission indicates that they are a very experienced audit firm particularly in the Local Government sector with eighteen local government audit clients, eleven of which are city councils including City of Armadale, City of Gosnells, City of Swan, City of Belmont and the City of Melville. Furthermore, the standard of service and level of expertise provided by Macri Partners during the past five years has been of a high standard and conducted by staff experienced in local government operations. If the audit committee is of the mind to change auditors from a good governance perspective then it is recommended that Grant Thornton be selected, based on capability and price.

Criteria WeightingCapacity 35%Demonstrated Experience in Completing Similar Services 40%Demonstrated Understanding of the Required Tasks 25%Total 100%




The provision of audit services is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1995. Section 7.3 of the Act states:- “A local government is to, from time to time whenever such an appointment is necessary or expedient, appoint a person, on the recommendation of the audit committee, to be its auditor.” The local government’s auditor is to be a person who is — (a) a registered company auditor; or (b) an approved auditor.


The audit fees charged per annum for conducting the external audit review for the Town have been budgeted for in the 2012/2013 budget.


To report is consistent with the Strategic Plan's priority area of open and transparent governance.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration of the “Not Required” consultation assessment criteria listed in the policy, consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Evaluation Matrix (Confidential)


That by AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:- (i) the request for quote for external audit services submitted by Macri Partners for:

• $19,000 (ex GST) for 2012/13 • $20,000 (ex GST) for 2013/14 • $21,000 (ex GST) for 2014/15

be accepted, and Anthony Macri be appointed as Auditor for the Town of Cambridge for the 2013-2015 triennium;

(ii) the successful audit firm be required to enter into a formal contract for the provision of

audit services for the 2013-2015 triennium.



Committee Meeting 18 March 2013 During discussion, Members agreed that, in order to provide good governance, a change in External Auditor was preferred, as the current auditor has been providing external audit services to the Town for a number of years and the difference in the total price between Macri Partners and Grant Thornton was not significant. (It was noted that Grant Thornton's average hourly rate was less than Macri Partners, but that the hours allocated to audit was greater. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Bradley That by AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:- (ii) the request for quote for external audit services submitted by Grant Thornton

for:

• $24,000 (ex GST) for 2012/13 • $25,000 (ex GST) for 2013/14 • $26,000 (ex GST) for 2014/15

be accepted, and G rant Thornton be appoi nted as Auditor for the Town of Cambridge for the 2013-2015 triennium;

(ii) the successful audit firm be r equired to enter into a f ormal contract for the

provision of audit services for the 2013-2015 triennium. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0

COUNCIL MINUTES 26 MARCH 2013

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\13 MINUTES\March 2013\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 189

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

10.1 SURF CLUB BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT CITY BEACH - REVIEW OF SURF CLUB LEASED SPACE

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To seek Council approval to a proposed design and tender process for the surf club leased area component of the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach.

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 26 February 2013 (CR13.8 refers), Council decided that:

"(i) the size of the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club's leased area of the building remains at the current design intent of 1,610 m2 of enclosed building and 170 m2 of internal courtyard;

(ii) the budget for the construction of the surf club's proportion of the overall project

cost be set at $6.56m, inclusive of fees and contingencies, excluding any allowance for furniture, fixtures and equipment to be funded by the surf club;

(iii) funding for the construction, fees and contingencies for the surf club leased area

aspect of the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach project be applied in the following priority order:

a. Town contribution of $4,500,000; b. CSRFF grant of $950,000; c. Lottery West grant of $950,000; and d. Contribution of $160,000 direct from the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club

($6.56m in total); (iv) any significant cost increases beyond the allowance within contingencies during

design and construction be resolved by Council regarding funding; (v) design and tender documentation to proceed on this basis; and (vi) a report be presented to the next Council meeting on whether the City of Perth Surf

Lifesaving Club has signed the agreement for lease." The City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club (the Club) have continued to express their desire to achieve a larger building than the enclosed area of 1,610 m2 approved by Council. The Administration has been in discussions with the Club on this issue to determine if there is a proposal that could be brought to Council for approval.



DETAILS:

1. Indicative Budget for Larger Building The Council approved covered building area of 1,610 m2 has been developed/titled as Option S. An indicative project budget has been developed for a larger building footprint of 1,790 m2 of enclosed building area on a layout that is preferred by the Club. This layout (called Option T) is shown attached with the approved Option S/1,610 m2 building for reference. The indicative budget for this option is as follows (inclusive of fees and 15% contingencies):

Item Description Council Approval, Feb 2013, Option S 1,610 m2 enclosed

area

Indicative Budget, Option T 1,790 m2

enclosed area

1 Surf Club building, inclusive of surf club apron space $ 5.46m $ 5.78m 2 Temporary accommodation during construction $ 0.17m $ 0.17m 3 Surf Club building share of services and headworks $ 0.24m $ 0.24m 4 Demolition of existing Surf Club Building $ 0.14m $ 0.14m 5 50% share of cost of seawall $ 0.55m $ 0.55m Total $ 6.56m $ 6.88m

It is to be noted that the budget figures above include 50% of the budget cost of the seawall as being ascribed to the notional Surf Club leased area component of the overall project budget for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach. The remaining 50% of the seawall budget would need to come from the Town's funding. The seawall is a fundamental need for the construction of the surf club building and as such, recognition should be made that the Town is directly contributing $4.5m plus the remaining 50% of the seawall (ie $5.05m in total) towards these works. As can also be seen, there is a $320,000 increase in costs to achieve a larger building. The Club has proposed a series of measures that would not increase funding contributions from the Town or existing CSRFF grant but could potentially result in a larger footprint building being undertaken. These measures include:

• The project budget allocation for temporary accommodation is capped at $50,000, with the Club bearing all risk for any costs above this allocation (saving of $120,000 to project);

• The construction budget design contingency is reduced from 10% to 7.5% (project saving of $ 130,000); and

• Increase in Club contribution from $160,000 to $230,000. Based on this proposal, a revised project budget for the surf club building could be:

Item Description Indicative Budget, Option T 1,790 m2

enclosed area 1 Surf Club building, inclusive of surf club apron space $ 5.65m 2 Temporary accommodation during construction $ 0.05m 3 Surf Club building share of services and headworks $ 0.24m 4 Demolition of existing Surf Club Building $ 0.14m 5 50% share of cost of seawall $ 0.55m Total $ 6.63m



Funding would be required as follows: Town of Cambridge $ 4.50m (no change) CSRFF $ 0.95m (no change) Lotterywest $ 0.95m (no change) Surf Club $ 0.23mTotal $ 6.63m

($70,000 increase)

The Town has received advice from the Club that it would make the contribution as detailed and carry the risk of temporary accommodation exceeding project budget. Attachment 2 refers to communication from the Surf Club in this regard. Again, as discussed above, it is also to be recognised that the Town will also be funding a further $0.55m for the remaining 50% of the seawall. 2. Proposed Design and Tender Process Whilst it would be simpler to continue design and tender on a larger building, on the assumption that tenders will be consistent with this estimate, it is recognised that there are risks involved in this and that Council may feel that it effectively 'locks in' a larger building. It is proposed then that two concepts continue through design, Option S of 1,610 m2 approved by Council and Option T of 1,790 m2 preferred by the Club. Tenders for construction would be called once Council is satisfied with the overall Business Case for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach. Tenders would then be called on both designs with clear indication to bidders that only one design, if approved, would continue to construction. At the time of tenders being assessed, the Administration would have certainty surrounding the project budget and would be able to make a recommendation to Council. In essence, the Club have requested, that if the recommended tender for a larger building can be funded as described above (ie the Club contribution increasing and Town of Cambridge contribution remaining as approved); that Council would accede to a larger building being constructed. In terms of progressing two designs through to tender, there will be marginal increase in design fees, primarily incurred by the Architect, Structural and Civil Engineers. All other consultants would have very minor fee imposts, given the nature of the changes between Options S and T. At the time of issuing this Report, the Architect and Design Teams have not yet been able to finalise this fee variation. It is estimated, based solely on the difference between documenting each design independently, that this fee would be less than $50,000. An update on this will be provided prior to Council considering this report. In any event, this fee variation will need to be included in final budgets for whichever building size proceeds to construction. If the fee cannot be covered within the indicative budgets above (ie through use of contingency or tender prices under budget), then funding would need to be met by the Club in this event. 3. Planning Approval In parallel with design, will be the process for seeking WAPC Planning Approval for the project. Advice has been given by our Architects that any application should only include one building layout and size and not an option for one or the other. It has been suggested that if the



application denotes the larger building with a footnote that it may reduce in size, this would be more preferred than a smaller building application with a footnote that it may increase in size. 4. Agreement for Lease The previous drafts of the Agreement for Lease (AFL) with the Club are no longer relevant to the current circumstances given the decisions made on the surf club building size and funding arrangements. The Town will need to update the AFL document to cater for current circumstances, as well as any decisions made from this report prior to seeking the Club's execution of the document. The document will need to clarify and provide certainty regarding the various development scenarios. 5. Discussion The Administration considers that reducing the project contingency by this amount is not a significant risk to the project at this stage. Sufficient understanding of the building, its layout and site conditions exist to allow this reduction to occur. It is believed that this proposal is worthy of consideration by Council as it removes concerns from the Club's perspective of their ability to grow in the future and supports their Business Plan which has been an issue of concern raised for some time. From an ongoing lease perspective, the anticipated change in annual maintenance costs borne by the Town on a larger area is minimal. As there is no material change in financial risk borne by the Town, the decision is neutral in that regard. Fully documenting two designs and seeking tenders on these two designs is a more preferred outcome than documenting one design or the other and seeking a 'variation' price to grow / shrink the building. It minimises cost risk to the project. As detailed in the February 2013 report on this matter, if the project budget cannot be met (which is likely only to occur once tenders are called rather than earlier), Council would be asked to consider the situation. Resolving the budget issue could involve some, or all of the following measures:

• Further reduction in contingency; • Reduction in the cost of fit out elements within the project scope; • Reduction in building area; • Increased funding from Town, Club or external grants.

In any event, if this situation arises, the Club would be consulted prior to a Council report being considered. The Club would need to be consulted during the tender assessment process. It is noted that the Club has indicated in its letter of 20 March 2013, that it currently has cash in reserve to meet the $160,000 contribution towards the 1,610 m2 building option. It is recommended that the Club make this contribution at the time of tender award such that the construction funding is totally secured and funding risk is removed from the construction process.






This report does not change the Council contribution to the Surf Club building. The ongoing maintenance cost impacts are minimal if a larger building was constructed.


The eventual development of the Surf Club Building will realise financial benefits to the Town which supports its objectives of maintaining quality accessible recreation facilities contained in the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. At this time, this report prior to being considered by Council would not necessitate Community Consultation. As part of the Development Approval process, Community Consultation will be undertaken for the whole Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Option S and T layouts. 2. Letter from City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club dated 20 March 2013.


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Langer That: (i) design for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach

continues on the basis of 1,610 m2 Enclosed Area (Option S) and 1,790 m2 of enclosed area (Option T) both being fully documented;

(ii) once a C ouncil decision is made to tender for construction, both designs be

tendered; (iii) if tender prices (and thus budget) are within funding expectations for Option T that

this be adopted for construction; (iv) the Club be consulted during the tender assessment process and prior to a

recommendation being considered by Council; (v) funding proposed for the construction, fees and cont ingencies for Option T is

noted and applied in the following priority order: (a) Town Contribution of $4,500,000 (b) CSRFF grant of $950,000 (c) Lottery West grant of $950,000 (d) contribution of $230,000 direct from the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club

($6.63m in total);



(vi) depending on t he design adopted for construction, that the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club's contribution to the building construction be paid to the Town within 7 days of construction tender being decided by Council and prior to award of construction contract;

(vii) the fee variation to document two designs be managed within the final budget for

the approved building or if necessary additional funding from the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club;

(viii) it be noted that the Agreement for Lease with the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club

requires further drafting prior to being able to be finalised; and (ix) the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club be required to execute the Agreement for

Lease within 30 days of it being finalised. Council Meeting 26 March 2013 During discussion, Cr MacRae suggested that the motion should be amended to provide further clarification on options. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Langer That the motion be amended to read as follows: That: (i) design for the Surf Club Building and the Commercial Development at City Beach

continues on the basis of 1,610m2 enclosed area (Option S) and 1,790m2

of enclosed area (Option T) for the Surf Club, both being fully documented;

(ii) the design work on O ption T be conditional on t he Club agreeing to fund the

additional costs of documenting two designs if that cost cannot be funded from the final budget for the approved building;

(iii) for both design options, the Town’s contribution to the Surf Club Building be

capped at $4.5 million; (iv) funding proposed for the construction, fees and contingencies for Option T be

noted and in the same manner as Option S, be applied in the following priority order:

(a) Town Contribution of $4,500,000 (b) CSRFF grant of $950,000 (c) Lottery West grant of $950,000 (d) contribution of $230,000 direct from the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club

($6.63m in total); (v) tenders for construction will be cal led for when Council is satisfied with the

Business Cases for the Surf Club Building and the Commercial Development at City Beach;



(vi) both design options for the Surf Club building will go to tender if the Club has executed the Agreement for Lease before Council approves the commencement of the tender process, otherwise only Option S will go to tender;

(vii) the Club be consulted up until the commencement of the tender process and the

Club be advised of its likely financial commitment under both Options S and T at the time the tender recommendation is prepared;

(viii) the Club be advised that the Council will not necessarily accept the lowest price

tender for the surf club building, that the tender assessment will be on the building works for the entire project and that Council's decision will be based, in part, on the ability of the tenderer to undertake the project; and

(ix) the Club's contribution to the building construction is be paid to the Town within 7

days of the construction tender being decided by Council and prior to the award of the construction contract.

Amendment carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That: (i) design for the Surf Club Building and the Commercial Development at City Beach

continues on the basis of 1,610m2 enclosed area (Option S) and 1,790m2

of enclosed area (Option T) for the Surf Club, both being fully documented;

(ii) the design work on O ption T be conditional on t he Club agreeing to fund the

additional costs of documenting two designs if that cost cannot be funded from the final budget for the approved building;

(iii) for both design options, the Town’s contribution to the Surf Club Building be

capped at $4.5 million; (iv) funding proposed for the construction, fees and contingencies for Option T be

noted and in the same manner as Option S, be applied in the following priority order:

(a) Town Contribution of $4,500,000; (b) CSRFF grant of $950,000; (c) Lottery West grant of $950,000; (d) contribution of $230,000 direct from the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club;

($6.63m in total); (v) tenders for construction will be cal led for when Council is satisfied with the

Business Cases for the Surf Club Building and the Commercial Development at City Beach;

(vi) both design options for the Surf Club building will go to tender if the Club has

executed the Agreement for Lease before Council approves the commencement of the tender process, otherwise only Option S will go to tender;

(vii) the Club be consulted up until the commencement of the tender process and the

Club be advised of its likely financial commitment under both Options S and T at the time the tender recommendation is prepared;



(viii) the Club be advised that the Council will not necessarily accept the lowest price tender for the surf club building, that the tender assessment will be on the building works for the entire project and that Council's decision will be based, in part, on the ability of the tenderer to undertake the project; and

(ix) the Club's contribution to the building construction is be paid to the Town within 7

days of the construction tender being decided by Council and prior to the award of the construction contract.

Carried 9/0



11. URGENT BUSINESS

11.1 METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW - POTENTIAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider the preferred options detailed in a Draft report entitled "Metropolitan Local Government Review - Exploring Potential Metropolitan Local Government Amalgamations" prepared on behalf of a group of twenty councils. Also, to consider the Town's position in relation to its preferred outcome and a possible submission to the Local Government Advisory Board for boundary changes.

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held in December 2012, the Council considered the final report and recommendations of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel (Robson Report) that was released for comment by the then Minister for Local Government, Hon John Castrilli, in October 2012. The Robson Report and its recommendations has been released for comment up to 5 April 2013. The Robson Report contained 30 recommendations and the Town's response to each of those recommendations was determined at its December 2012 meeting and they will be submitted as the Town's response. Recommendation 15(c) of the Robson Report proposed a reduction in the number of Councils in the Perth metropolitan area from 30 to 12. It was proposed in this recommendation that the Town of Cambridge would be combined into a new Western Suburbs Council based around Claremont. This would result in seven councils amalgamating with a combined population of 97,000 residents based on the Estimated Resident Population (ERP) as at 30 June 2011 published by the ABS. A table detailing some relevant statistics is provided below: Local Government Population Operating

Revenue Rates Operating

Expenditure Area Km2

Cambridge 26,775 $37.4m $19.5m $38.2m 22.0 Nedlands 22,144 $27.2m $17.8m $28.5m 20.6 Subiaco 18,866 $42.7m $18.6m $40.5m 7.1 Claremont 9,991 $15.2m $11.2m $15.4m 4.9 Mosman Park 9,363 $10.1m $7.1m $10.2m 4.3 Cottesloe 8,177 $10.1m $8.1m $10.6m 4.0 Peppermint Grove 1,658 $4.0m $2.3m $4.2m 1.5 Total 96,974 $146.6m $84.6m $147.6m 64.4

Source: ABS Estimated Resident Population (ERP) 2011 and Council Budgets 2012/13. Notes: 1. Operating revenue excludes capital grants and contributions, and asset disposals.

2. Operating expenditure includes depreciation. 3. Rates do not include waste charges. Some Councils do not levy a separate waste charge or do

not charge the full cost of waste in the charge such as Cambridge.



The Council rejected the Robson Report recommendation 15(c) to reduce the number of Councils to 12 and adopted the following response to that recommendation:

"Rejected. The Town proposes an alternative structure for local government in the metropolitan area whereby each council is of sufficient size to have a minimum level of capability and financial capacity to deliver a comprehensive range of services. The Town's proposal is less disruptive and a less expensive arrangement to implement. Not all local governments need to be the same size. In response to the Town’s grouping in the western suburbs, it is proposed that a three council model be implemented whereby each of the three councils will be of similar capability levels while still being at a size that retains local identity and connectedness to the community. This will have the effect of reducing the number of councils in the western suburbs by four from the current number of seven."

A plan has been prepared for the Town’s preferred arrangement and was attached to the Town's proposed response to recommendation 15(c).

DETAILS:

Alternative Map Process – Group of 20

1. Since that time a proposal was put forward for Councils that did not support the Robson Report recommendations to produce a proposal with an alternative model that is more acceptable than those that were recommended in the Robson Report. Accordingly, a group of 20 councils (including the Town of Cambridge) combined to engage a consultant, Planning Context, to develop and present alternative models for a possible future local government structure for the Perth Metropolitan Region and that one model is selected as being preferred. The cost to each council was $4,000.

2. A copy of the Draft report from the consultant was received late last week and if

consideration is to be given to its contents prior to the deadline for comment on 5 April 2013, it needs to be considered at this Council meeting. A copy of the Draft report is attached.

3. The Draft report outlines the six options considered with relevant data for each of these options. These options were prepared following a process of consultation with the individual councils that formed part of the group of 20 as follows:

Option A - 22 councils Option B - 20 councils Option C - 18 councils Option D - 16 councils Option E - 15 councils Option F - 9 councils (and possibly extended to the Robson Report's 12 councils option)

4. The Draft consultants report provides the details of how each option would be configured including maps. The options also detail possible boundary options that could also be considered. Only Option A has the Town of Cambridge retained as a separate entity.



Western Suburbs – Three Council Model

5. During the consultation period with the consultant, the Town proposed the three council model as an appropriate solution for the western suburbs consistent with the Town’s decision made in December 2012. In discussion with the Town of Claremont and City of Subiaco the boundary adjustment, principally between these two councils, was adjusted to better reflect their local needs. A copy of this revised map is attached.

6. Although this map for the western suburbs was submitted to the consultant it was not

presented as one of the preferred options. The consultants decided only to present full amalgamations and not boundary changes which were only considered as variations on the amalgamation proposals. This was very disappointing as informal discussions between the three participating western suburbs councils indicated that the three council model would generally be an appropriate solution for the western suburbs region in an amalgamation scenario. It is worth noting the councils of Cambridge, Claremont and Subiaco collectively represent 60% of the population in the western suburbs.

7. The reasons for the three council model as attached are:

• Reduce the number of councils in the western suburbs by four; • Restructuring the western suburbs in this manner would be less disruptive in the

community and at a lower cost than amalgamating all western suburbs councils; • Each of the three councils will be of a similar scale, size and financial capacity to deliver

a comprehensive range of services whilst retaining local identity and connections to the community; and

• Each of the local governments will become larger. 8. Details of the population of the proposed three council structure in the western suburbs are:

Current Proposed Difference % Inc G4 29,189 39,710 10,521 36% Cambridge 26,775 41,540 14,765 55% Subiaco 18,866 29,551 10,685 57% Nedlands 22,144 0 -22,144 Sub total 96,974 110,801 13,827 Stirling (Part) 13,827 0 -13,827 Total 110,801 110,801 0

Note: G4 is made up of Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park and Peppermint Grove.

9. Under this proposal Cambridge would gain 13,800 people from Stirling and 1,300 from Nedlands and cede a small number of 100 to Subiaco and 300 to the G4. Subiaco would gain 10,600 from Nedlands. The G4 would be a combination of Claremont 10,000 (25%), Mosman Park 9,400 (24%), Cottesloe 8,200 (21%), Peppermint Grove 1,700 (4%) and a part of Nedlands 10,300 (26%).

Alternative Map Workshop - Voting

10. The consultant for the group of 20 presented the six preferred options at a workshop held on 11 March 2013 with representatives from all these councils. The options were presented and then the Mayors of each council were invited to comment and then vote. Of the 20 councils 19 voted on the proposals (Claremont declined to vote).



11. As noted previously only Option A retained the Town of Cambridge as a single entity and none of the voting options presented the preferred three council model for the western suburbs although it was noted as a further possible boundary adjustment. The result of the voting was:

Options Primary

Vote Preference

Score Preference

Ranking A – 22 councils 3 80 5 B – 20 councils 2 65 4 C – 18 councils 3 52 2 D – 16 councils 3 50 1 E – 15 councils 7 54 3 F – 9 councils 1 98 6

12. The preference score is based on a preferential voting system where the Mayors were

asked to number their preferences 1 to 6 and the numbers added to get a combined total preference score. The lowest of the total of the preference score indicated the most preferred option. The preference ranking is the ranking based on the preference score.

13. The voting demonstrates that the group did not determine a clear preference for a preferred

model as the 16 council model, which was ranked highest on the preference score, only received three votes as a first preference from those in attendance. At no time was the meeting of Mayors asked to separately vote on this 16 council model as the preference of the group and the consultant has only relied on the votes that were cast to determine a recommendation.

14. This does not seem to be a robust process for determining such an important decision as a preferred structure for local government in metropolitan Perth. The methodology appears flawed and did not result in a clear option that the majority at the meeting would support. It is considered that the outcome is inconclusive and does not set a clear direction in relation to the number of councils in Perth.

15. The Town of Cambridge participated in the process on the basis that it would produce a

better outcome for the western suburbs than the Robson Report recommendation. This did not happen. Only one option would have produced a better result and the other five options presented all resulted in the same outcome as the Robson Report whereby the Town of Cambridge would be amalgamated with the other western suburbs council, to form one new council. This was not our understanding when we agreed to participate in the process.

16. The consultant has recommended that the 16 council model should be further investigated

in terms of the full strategic and financial impacts. This preferred model has been delivered as part of poor process to try and elicit a consensus from the group of 20 councils.

17. Regardless of the outcome of the group of 20 process it is clear that the larger councils in

Perth consider that the western suburbs should be amalgamated.

Town of Cambridge – Way Forward

18. It is recommended that the preferred option submitted by the consultant through the group of 20 process is rejected as it does not provide any better result for the western suburbs than the Robson Report.

19. Furthermore, it is recommended that the Town endorses the revised plan for the western

suburbs region proposing three councils and to formally proceed with a proposal to the



Local Government Advisory Board to undertake the boundary adjustments as they relate to the Town of Cambridge. The 2009 local government reform submission (updated for current circumstances) would be used as the basis for a submission.

20. The deadline for comments in relation to the Robson Report closes on 5 April 2013 and it is

proposed to indicate in that response that the Town will be submitting a boundary proposal for the government to consider. Authority should be given to the Mayor and CEO to finalise the boundary submission and submit it when complete at the earliest opportunity.

21. It is considered that the time is now right to formalise this boundary proposal as the Town’s

position has been widely known for some time. Certainly since the 2009 reform submission was lodged and the Town’s promotion in the media of the three council western suburbs model late last year. The government will soon be considering the results of the comments from the Robson Report and will be determining its position in relation to local government boundaries. It is important that the Town formally submits its proposal now to allow it to be given consideration at this critical time for the government’s deliberations for the structure of local governments.


The Robson Report proposed significant restructuring of local governments in its recommendations. Currently Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides poll provisions that could provide the community with an opportunity to vote on any proposed amalgamation. If the Government wanted to implement wide scale mergers it would be necessary to amend the current Local Government Act or introduce new legislation to put that into effect. The following provisions detailed in Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government outline the process for making a proposal to amend local government boundaries.

2. Making a proposal (1) A proposal may be made to the Advisory Board by —

(a) the Minister; or (b) an affected local government;(c) 2 or more affected local governments, jointly; or

or

(d) affected electors who — (i) are at least 250 in number; or (ii) are at least 10% of the total number of affected electors.

(2) A proposal is to — (a) set out clearly the nature of the proposal, the reasons for making the

proposal and the effects of the proposal on local governments; and (b) be accompanied by a plan illustrating any proposed changes to the

boundaries of a district; and (c) comply with any regulations about proposals.


There are no financial implications related to the recommendations of the Robson Report, however, if the recommendations are acted upon by the Government the financial implications will be considerable.



STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Any proposal to deliver significant structural reform on metropolitan local governments will have a significant impact on the Town's strategic plan and the capacity to deliver the major initiatives in the strategic plan based on the Town's vision of "Creating Communities of Choice". The Town has a development program of a number of major projects that could be at risk, or at least deferred while they are evaluated, if a decision was made to implement the amalgamations proposed. These projects include; the Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities at City Beach, Wembley Golf Course Hospitality and Recreation Trail, Bold Park Aquatic Centre Upgrade, Wembley Athletic Club Development, Lake Monger Recreation Club Upgrade, Lake Monger Improvements, West Leederville Urban Renewal, Quarry Amphitheatre Upgrade, Perry Lakes Rehabilitation and Underground Power.


The impact of the structural changes to local governments proposed in the Robson Report findings will have a significant impact on the community, therefore consideration needs to be given on how the community can have input into the Government's decision relating to any proposed structural changes.

SUMMARY:

The Robson Report made recommendations to reduce the number of Councils in the Perth Metropolitan area from 30 to 12. It is proposed that the Town of Cambridge would be amalgamated with all the western suburbs councils to create a new council based around Claremont. Comments on the recommendations close on 5 April 2013. A number of Councils (20) that were not satisfied with the Robson Report recommendations proposed that an alternative model be created that would be more acceptable to local governments in the Perth Metropolitan area. The Town agreed to participate on the basis that we could achieve a better result for the western suburbs area and promote the three council model previously endorsed by Council in December 2012. The process did not result in the expected outcome for the western suburbs following a flawed voting process whereby there was not an obvious preference presented by those councils at the workshop in March 2013. Nevertheless, based on tenuous rationale, a 16 council model has been suggested by the consultants managing the process. It is proposed that the Town reject the 16 council model and endorse a slightly modified three council model for the western suburbs. Further, it is proposed that a formal boundary submission be made to the Local Government Advisory Board for the proposed boundaries for the Town of Cambridge outlined in the three council model. Also, the Town should collaborate with the Town of Claremont and City of Subiaco to advance this model.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft report "Metropolitan Local Government Review - Exploring Potential Metropolitan Local Government Amalgamations"

2. Proposed Council Boundaries Map - Western Suburbs Region



COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

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

(i) the recommendation to reduce the number of councils to 16 i n the Perth metropolitan area as a preferred model from the process detailed in the attached Draft report “Metropolitan Local Government Review - Exploring Potential Metropolitan Local Government Amalgamations" be rejected;

(ii) the attached revised map for three councils in the western suburbs region be endorsed and subm itted to the State Government in response to the recommendations of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel in relation to the boundaries of local governments;

(iii) a boundary proposal be made to the Local Government Advisory Board in accordance with Section 2 of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 based on the map detailed in (ii) above as it relates to the proposed boundaries of the Town of Cambridge and that a submission be prepared updating the Town’s 2009 Local Government Reform Response;

(iv) the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to prepare and lodge a boundary proposal as detailed in (iii) above including the authority to make minor amendments to the proposed new boundary;

(v) The Town collaborate with the Town of Claremont and/or City of Subiaco to support and put into effect the three council map for the western suburbs as detailed in (ii) above or modified to meet the requirements of the boundaries between those two councils.

Carried 9/0



12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

12.1 BIRKDALE STREET COMMERCIAL CENTRE Submitted by Cr Bradley That Council acknowledges and applauds the efforts of the Director Infrastructure, Mr Chris Colyer, and his team, for the recently completed enhancements to the Birkdale St Commercial Centre. BACKGROUND: In support of the motion, Cr Bradley has submitted the following information: This project was not without controversy at first, but now, it is a real asset for the Town and, in particular, the Ratepayers, Residents and businesses in the vicinity. The high standard of workmanship to provide additional and convenient parking and pedestrian access makes visiting the locality a pleasure and the general updating of the area has created an attractive amenity. Mr Colyer and his team are congratulated on this accomplishment. COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Langer That Council acknowledges and applauds the efforts of the Director Infrastructure, Mr Chris Colyer, and his team, for the recently completed enhancements to the Birkdale St Commercial Centre. Lost /7 For: Crs Bradley and Carr Against: Mayor Withers, Cr Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar and Walker



13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS Nil 14. CLOSURE There being no further business, Mayor Withers thanked those present for their

attendance and declared the meeting closed at 8.42 pm.