town of cottesloe

TOWN OF COTTESLOE

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN THE

War Memorial Hall, Cottesloe Civic Centre, 109 Broome Street, Cottesloe 6:00pm Tuesday, 23 February 2021

MATTHEW SCOTT Chief Executive Officer 26 February 2021

DISCLAIMER

No responsibility whatsoever is implied or accepted by the Town for any act, omission, statement or intimation occurring during council meetings. The Town of Cottesloe disclaims any liability for any loss whatsoever and howsoever caused arising out of reliance by any person or legal entity on any such act, omission, statement or intimation occurring during council meetings. Any person or legal entity who acts or fails to act in reliance upon any statement, act or omission made in a council meeting does so at that person’s or legal entity’s own risk. In particular and without derogating in any way from the broad disclaimer above, in any discussion regarding any planning application or application for a licence, any statement or intimation of approval made by any member or officer of the Town of Cottesloe during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not taken as notice of approval from the Town. The Town of Cottesloe wishes to advise that any plans or documents contained within the agenda or minutes may be subject to copyright law provisions (Copyright Act 1968, as amended) and that the express permission of the copyright owner(s) should be sought prior to their reproduction. Members of the public should note that no action should be taken on any application or item discussed at a council meeting prior to written advice on the resolution of council being received. Agenda and minutes are available on the Town’s website www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 23 FEBRUARY 2021

Page (i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

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

2 DISCLAIMER ............................................................................................................. 1

3 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY PRESIDING MEMBER WITHOUT DISCUSSION ......................... 1

4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ........................................................................................... 1

4.1 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE ..................... 1

4.2 PUBLIC QUESTIONS ......................................................................................... 1

5 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME ......................................................................................... 7

6 ATTENDANCE ........................................................................................................... 8

6.1 APOLOGIES ..................................................................................................... 8

6.2 APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................................ 8

6.3 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................... 8

7 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS .................................................................................... 8

8 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ................................................................................... 9

9 PRESENTATIONS .................................................................................................... 10

9.1 PETITIONS ..................................................................................................... 10

9.1.1 PETITION OPPOSING THE PROPOSAL TO CLOSE CAR PARK NO. 1 10

9.2 PRESENTATIONS ............................................................................................ 10

9.3 DEPUTATIONS ............................................................................................... 10

10 REPORTS ................................................................................................................ 11

10.1 REPORTS OF OFFICERS ................................................................................... 11

DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY SERVICES .......................................................... 12

10.1.1 OUTCOME OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION - COTTESLOE VILLAGE DRAFT PRECINCT PLAN 12

10.1.2 COUNCIL SUBMISSION TO STATE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT RE: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AT LOT 500 (STRATA LOTS 1-7), 120 MARINE PARADE COTTESLOE, FOR NINE (9) STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT 19

CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES .............................................................. 41

10.1.3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MEETINGS PROCEDURE) LOCAL LAW 41

10.1.4 ORDINARY ELECTION - APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER 47


Page (ii)

10.1.5 PURCHASING POLICY 51

10.1.6 DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL TOURISM TRAILS 54

10.1.7 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY 2020 TO 31 DECEMBER 2020 AND 1 JULY 2020 TO 31 JANUARY 2021 57

ENGINEERING SERVICES ......................................................................................... 62

10.1.8 BEACH ACCESS PATH RATIONALISATION 62

10.1.9 20A DEANE STREET - CROSSOVER PROPOSAL 74

10.1.10 RECREATION PRECINCT MASTERPLAN 80

EXECUTIVE SERVICES .............................................................................................. 84

10.1.11 QUARTERLY INFORMATION BULLETIN 84

10.1.12 APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED OFFICER FOR RECEIVING COMPLAINTS UNDER THE MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND CANDIDATES 86

10.2 RECEIPT OF MINUTES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES .......... 90

10.2.1 RECEIPT OF FORESHORE PRECINCT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - 11 FEBRUARY 2021 90

10.2.2 RECEIPT OF AUDIT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 15 FEBRUARY 2021 91

11 ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ....... 92

11.1 COUNCILLOR MOTION - COVE S15 STEPS - STAGING ...................................... 92

11.2 COUNCILLOR MOTION - VERGE VALET - RE-USE ALTERNATIVES ...................... 93

12 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE INTRODUCED BY DECISION OF MEETING BY: .......................................................................................................... 94

12.1 ELECTED MEMBERS ....................................................................................... 94

12.2 OFFICERS ....................................................................................................... 94

13 MEETING CLOSED TO PUBLIC .................................................................................. 94

13.1 MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED .................................... 94

13.1.1 DUTCH INN PLAYGROUND UPGRADE - TENDER RECOMMENDATION 94

13.1.2 DEANE STREET RETAINING WALL TENDER 95

13.1.3 PLUMBING SERVICES TENDER 96

13.2 PUBLIC READING OF RESOLUTIONS THAT MAY BE MADE PUBLIC ................... 96

14 MEETING CLOSURE ................................................................................................ 96


Page 1

1 DECLARATION OF MEETING OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Presiding Member announced the meeting opened at 6:04pm.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the Whadjuk Nyoongar people, Traditional Custodians of the land on which we meet today, and pay my respects to their Elders past and present. I extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples here today.

2 DISCLAIMER

The Presiding Member drew attention to the Town’s Disclaimer.

3 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY PRESIDING MEMBER WITHOUT DISCUSSION

The Presiding Member announced that the meeting is being recorded, solely for the purpose of confirming the correctness of the Minutes.

4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

4.1 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

4.2 PUBLIC QUESTIONS

Janet Reudavey – 156b Marine Parade, Cottesloe – questions not related to item on the agenda

Carpark 1

Q1. Has funding been obtained for the refurbishment and do we know the cost yet?

A1. As this stage the Town has not received confirmation of funding for any of the foreshore redevelopment plans.

Q2. Is Council required to notify the public who use that carpark of the intended closure?

A2. The current design of the foreshore does not have closure of Carpark 1, it is a reduction in the number of bays. At this stage the Town is not at the 100% design phase. There is no immediate intention to make any changes to Carpark 1 or to the foreshore.

Q3. What is proposed for Carpark 2?

A3. As per the Foreshore Masterplan that was adopted by Council in 2019, the plan is to expand Carpark 2 to provide additional parking and to offset some of the parking that would be lost in Carpark 1 should that plan be implemented.


Page 2

Q4. The Map depicting the Artist’s impression of the refurbished path adjacent to the children’s playground appears to have cars parked in a sand dune which is misleading.

A4. The Map depicting the Artist’s impression in regards to the carpark is an artist’s impression and the artist may not have got it exactly right. There is no intention to close Carpark 1 in the immediate future.

Beach Access Paths

Q5. Why was there No Beach Map attached to the survey to enable better understanding?

A5. The maps were added to the website after the Town received some concerns from residents that there were no maps of the beach paths.

Q6. Why have the Blue Notices indicating closure of the Access Path been removed?

A6. The Town took the blue signs down because the consultation period is now over. The matter is before Council this evening for Council’s consideration.

Patricia Carmichael – 14-116 Marine Parade, Cottesloe – Item 10.1.1

Overarching Statement

This Agenda item states there are ''No Policy Implications" however State Planning Policy 7.2 (SPP 7.2) must be recorded as it is a legislated State Government document which overrides all local government policies.

On further reading I understand that the Policy SPP 7.2 will also form part of the Local Development Plan (LDP) for this area as noted with the Baverstock redevelopment proposal at 126 & 128 Railway Street Cottesloe (2018).

I request Council staff in future provide a LINK(S) to any POLICY(IES) as reported in an Agenda, whether they are Local Government or State Legislated Policies, or both. This would save valuable time Google searching for these important policies which are designed to reshape Council future planning.

Will Council be discussing these areas of concern in the future decision-making process:

Q1. Restricting HIGH rise with the potential of overshadowing eg. "Impact on the Amenity."

A1. The item before Council tonight is to consider the public consultation feedback. It is not actually requesting Councillors to make any decisions in regards to the precinct plan itself. In relation to the question Q1, Council will consider any application received but there is not one before Council at the moment.

Q2. Parking loss - where will new parking bays be located?


Page 3

A2. I am not aware of any iminent proposal to reduce parking in the precinct. If a Development Application comes before Council it would have to consider any impact including parking.

Q3. Will Draft (2) of the Precinct Plan at some time in the future include a Traffic Management Plan (TMP)?

A3. That is something that would need to be considered in the finalisation of the Precinct Plan. I do not believe it is in the current draft Precinct Plan but it is something that would have to be considered in the future.

Stephen Mellor (on behalf of the Cottesloe Residents and Ratepayers Association) – Providing in Writing and Read out by Mr Mellor

Anderson Pavilion

Q1. Has CSRFF Grant funding application been successful?

Q2. The scale of the pavilion is reduced by about 50% from original concept. Has the scope of intended users of this facility been reduced? – is the Seaview Golf Club no longer a user?

Q3. Will stage 1 building therefore now have a larger ‘footprint’ – not an answer I was given previously – and that the pavilion will be built ‘in one go’ rather than expanding in stages over time?

Q4. Will female change facilities now be included in Stage 1?

Q5. Locating the new pavilion further East appears to require the removal of a very majestic tree. Is this so?

Q6. Will consideration be given to parking on South side of Jarrad Street with access for deliveries/ACROD viewing places and mowing contractors?

Moving Oval East

Q1. Will this require tree removal and ‘eating’ into the embankment on the Broome Street side as I surmise?

Q2. If so where will the spectator seating go as a result?

Q3. Will the playground be removed/relocated?

Car parking

Q1. Can the Town really afford to remove the planned 204 Car parking spaces (No 5 on original plan) in light of the intended reduction of capacity in Car Park 1?

Q2. Thus far, it looks as though the Seaview Golf Club has not been otherwise affected by the concept plans and therefore can the reinstatement of the (No 5) parking be reconsidered?

Skate Park

Q1. Has the Skate Park consultant been appointed and made aware of the Recreational Precinct as a possible location for consideration?


Page 4

10.2.1 RECEIPT OF FORESHORE PRECINCT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - 11 FEBRUARY 2021

Sometime after the FPAC 19 November Committee meeting, FPAC and Council have provided out of session feedback on the preliminary design and the following changes have been made in developing the attached 85% detail design drawings:

• Provision of a toilet block adjacent (south) to the play area – This is only indicative to preserve a footprint for such a facility and detail design will be developed at a later stage after the foreshore redevelopment is complete. The required services are within the vicinity of this location.

In reading the minutes of the 15 December 2020 OCM I can see no discussion on or justification to include a new Toilet Block. Clause 3d of the December Substantive Resolution appears to approve the inclusion of the Toilet Block without such scrutiny.

Q1. Does the Council support without analysis, Officer Report, Council discussion or public advice or consultation the inclusion of a Toilet Block in this location?

For information toilets approximate ‘Google’ distances from the proposed location are:

• NCSLC – 500m

• Civic Centre Napier St toilets – 400m

• Indiana – 200m

• Future Car Park 2 Development – 200m

• We object to any building on the Foreshore Precinct and in the Cottesloe Beach Precinct

• Registered Heritage site.

• The Chair of the February 2021 FPAC meeting stated the Toilet Block will be subject to Public consultation.

Q2. Will this be the case?

Q3. Where can the public review the full 85% Foreshore design beyond the thumbnail plan?

Q4. Will the complete 100% design be available for public review and consultation?

Q5. Has the Skate Park consultant been appointed and been made aware of the ‘on hold’ play area in the Foreshore Precinct Masterplan?

Due to the number of questions, Mr Mellor was advised the above questions would be taken on notice.


Page 5

Stephen Mellor – 8 Graham Court, Cottesloe – Item 10.1.3

I would like it put on record that my submission for this item was not ‘late’ as described, but that it was lost within the computer systems at the ToC. How this occurred has not been established. I am pleased though it has been ‘considered’ but I wonder by whom and when.

The Council is being told there are no recommended changes required.

Q1. Should not you the Council discuss/decide this?

In an email response from the Director Corporate and Community Services I quote:

The principle of this is quite straightforward in that if a question has been responded to previously, and if there is no new or further information relating to the matter, the answer is the same as first given, regardless of whether the person asking is satisfied with the response. Asking the same question again will not produce a different response.

The point of my submission exactly – new or further information.

Q2. Will the Council request the inclusion of words clarifying this clause in line with the principle of my submission?

Mr Mellor’s questions were taken on notice.

The following questions were provided in writing prior to the meeting. Responses will be provided in a letter and included the next Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda.

Lindsay Mollison – 174 Little Marine Parade, Cottesloe – Boundary realignment 176-178 Little Marine Parade

Q1: Is The Council Aware of an associated Development/Planning application for these sites, namely https://www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au/Profiles/cottesloe/Assets/ClientData/Advertised_Plans_-_Proposed_Two_Storey_Dwelling_-_176-178_Little_Marine_Parade__Cottesloe_DA4070.pdf?

Q2: Is the Council Aware that the proposal exceeds numerous codes in the State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes Volume 1 and how these will affect my amenity in particular in relation to its overshadowing and bulk, and the consequent loss of my amenity through its visual bulk and loss of sky and sun views?

Q3: Is the Council aware that I will have SEVERE limitation of sun light due to shading of my backyard – close to 75 % of that space (see the PROPOSAL documents). The ability to see ANY sky and sunlight from the back yard and east and north east windows will be severely restricted at ALL times particularly to the north and north east. My ability to see sky and views from the front and north west windows of my home to the north and north west will be severely restricted at ALL times by the PROPOSAL. My thriving rear garden with various fruit trees and vegetables will be

https://www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au/Profiles/cottesloe/Assets/ClientData/Advertised_Plans_-_Proposed_Two_Storey_Dwelling_-_176-178_Little_Marine_Parade__Cottesloe_DA4070.pdf




Page 6

decimated. The amenity of my home, study, dining room, balcony and rear garden will be severely adversely affected.

STANDING ORDER 8 – QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CR TUCAK VIA EMAIL 18 FEBRUARY 2021

Q1: Is it correct the Town's 2018 consultation on closing Car Park One it its entirety, had 217 submissions, of which 183 where Cottesloe residents, being 2.5% of Cottesloe's approximately 7,300 residents, and those 183 contained several form-letters?

A1: In response to the Car Park One Opportunities Plan, advertised in January 2018, 217 submissions were received, with 208 before the closing date, and 9 after the closing date, with 84% of submissions being received from Cottesloe residents/businesses. Copies of all the submissions received are contained in the attachments to the minutes of March 2018 Ordinary Council Minutes (https://www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au/council-meetings/ordinary-council-meeting/27-march-2018/2).

Q2: Is it correct the only Councillor voting against the 2018 Resolution to "Endorse the full removal of Car Park One..." was Councillor Michael Tucak?

A2: Below is an extract from the Minutes of 27 March 2018 Ordinary Council Minutes (https://www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au/council-meetings/ordinary-council-meeting/27-march-2018/2)

COUNCIL RESOLUTION Moved Cr Young, Seconded Cr Thomas That Council: 1. Thank the community for their submissions, which were very helpful in assessing the issues; 2. Endorse the full removal of Car Park One, subject to detailed design of works on the current foreshore scope-of-works and the preparation of a Foreshore Master Plan; 3. Consider the comments from the Car Park One community consultation in the detailed design of the works on the current foreshore scope-of-works; 4. Develop a project brief for redevelopment of a Foreshore Master Plan, to include consideration of Car Parks One and Two, Marine Parade, the pool feasibility and the current foreshore works; with the Master Plan works to commence following the completion of the detailed design of the current foreshore works and the first stage of the pool feasibility tender, bike plan and pedestrian transport; 5. Investigate funding models for the works to be undertaken this year and the scope for amendment of Regulation 2A of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (concerning prohibition of paid parking on the foreshore) CARRIED: 8/1 For: Mayor Angers and Crs Pyvis, Harkins, Rodda, Young, Thomas, Sadler and Boulter Against: Cr Tucak

Q3: Is it correct that in the Town's consultations on the Masterplan, only 337 responses were made to the April-May 2019 consultation (4.6% of Cottesloe residents), 27 people participated in the June 2019 Workshops and around 200

https://www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au/council-meetings/ordinary-council-meeting/27-march-2018/2





Page 7

responses were made to the September 2019 consultation (less than 3% of Cottesloe residents)?

A3: Public consultation on the Foreshore Master Plan was completed in three (3) phases

Phase 1 – Identifying and Validating Aspirations – Two (2) surveys were undertaken through April and May 2019, Survey 1 generated 377 completed surveys and Survey 2 generated 177 completed surveys.

Phase 2 – Community Engagement Workshop and Public Display – A Community Panel of 34 randomly selected community members from a pool of some 54 applicants (via a publically advertised expression of interest) were invited to attend an intensive Foreshore Master Planning workshop. Of the 34 invited participants, 29 were able to attend said workshop. At the conclusion of the Master Plan Workshop the broader public were invited to view the plans and discussions had during the workshop (open house), approximately 45 people attended this open house.

Phase 3 – Public Consultation of Preferred Options - 239 formal responses were received to a survey on the Draft Master Plan. A further 64 survey were registered but did not show any comments or selections.

(Source: Town of Cottesloe Foreshore Master Plan [Report], 6 November 2019, https://www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au/foreshore-masterplan.aspx.)

5 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME

Stephen Mellor – 8 Graham Court, Cottesloe – Item 10.1.2

Mr Mellor spoke in support of the officer’s recommendation for item 10.1.2

Patricia Carmichael – 14-116 Marine Parade, Cottesloe – Item 10.1.6

Ms Camichael spoke about the issues with some of the paths in winter and suggested further review was required before the proposed closures.

Michael Finn – Items 10.1.9 and 13.1.2

Mr Finn outlined the issues caused when the footpath in Deane Street was removed and also requested that the proposed retaining wall in Deane Street respects the 100 year old heritage planting of trees and foliage in the area.

Kevin Morgan – 1 Pearse Street, Cottesloe – Items 8.1.1 and 10.1.10

Mr Morgan gave his views on the Recreation Precinct Plan with regard to the upgrade of the football oval and the proposal for a toilet block in the foreshore area west of Marine Parade.

Lindsay Mollison – 174 Little Marine Parade, Cottesloe – Boundary realignment 176-178 Little Marine Parade

Mr Mollison spoke about the proposed boundary realignment of 176-178 Little Marine Parade and the issues this would cause.

https://www.cottesloe.wa.gov.au/foreshore-masterplan.aspx


Page 8

6 ATTENDANCE

Elected Members

Mayor Philip Angers Cr Lorraine Young Cr Caroline Harben Cr Helen Sadler Cr Melissa Harkins Cr Michael Tucak Cr Kirsty Barrett Cr Paul MacFarlane Craig Masarei

Officers

Mr Matthew Scott Chief Executive Officer Mr Shane Collie Director Corporate and Community Services Ms Freya Ayliffe Director Development and Regulatory Services Mr Shaun Kan Director Engineering Services Mr Wayne Zimmermann Manager of Planning Mr Ed Drewett Coordinator Statutory Planning Ms Gayle O’Leary Planning Officer Ms Mary-Ann Winnett Governance Coordinator

6.1 APOLOGIES

Nil

6.2 APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

6.3 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

OCM014/2021

Moved Cr Sadler Seconded Cr Young

That Cr Tucak be granted a leave of absence from 24 February 2021 to 15 March 2021.

Carried 9/0

7 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Cr Angers declared a FINANCIAL INTEREST in item 10.1.1 by virtue “My wife and I own a toy store in Station Street."

Cr Barrett declared an IMPARTIALITY INTEREST in item 10.1.9 by virtue “The applicant is known to me."

Cr Barrett declared an IMPARTIALITY INTEREST in item 10.1.10 by virtue “One of my children is a member of the football club."


Page 9

Cr Harben declared an IMPARTIALITY INTEREST in item 10.1.2 by virtue “The architect on the project is known to me."

Cr MacFarlane declared an IMPARTIALITY INTEREST in item 10.1.9 by virtue “I know one of the residents who lives in Deane Street.”

8 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

OCM015/2021

Moved Cr Masarei Seconded Cr Young

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Tuesday 15 December 2020 be confirmed as a true and accurate record subject to the following amendments:

• Remove the second paragraph under Councillor Rationale on page 61.

• In point 3m, on page 67, change ‘Point m’ to ‘Point l’.

• Add ‘Carried 9/0’ under point 8 of the Substantive Motion on page 69.

That the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on Friday 15 January 2021 be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

That the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 27 January 2021 be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

COUNCILLOR AMENDMENT

Moved Cr Tucak No Seconder, Lapsed

Add a 4th bullet point: “Noting that Cr Tucak did not knowingly vote in support of Item 10.2.1 paragraph 3 which was put to the vote as sub-paras ‘3(a) to 3(e)’.

SUBSTANTIVE MOTION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Tuesday 15 December 2020 be confirmed as a true and accurate record subject to the following amendments:

• Remove the second paragraph under Councillor Rationale on page 61.

• In point 3m, on page 67, change ‘Point m’ to ‘Point l’.

• Add ‘Carried 9/0’ under point 8 of the Substantive Motion on page 69.

That the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on Friday 15 January 2021 be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

That the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 27 January 2021 be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

Carried 8/1


Page 10

9 PRESENTATIONS

9.1 PETITIONS

Section 9.4 - Procedure of Petitions

The only question which shall be considered by the council on the presentation of any petition shall be -

a) that the petition shall be accepted; or

b) that the petition not be accepted; or

c) that the petition be accepted and referred to a committee for consideration and report; or

d) that the petition be accepted and dealt with by the full council.

9.1.1 PETITION OPPOSING THE PROPOSAL TO CLOSE CAR PARK NO. 1

Cr Tucak tabled a petition from the group www.savecottcarpark1.com opposing any proposal to close Car Park 1 with the number of signatories being 586 and the total electors being 74.

OCM016/2021

COUNCILLOR MOTION

Moved Cr Harkins Seconded Mayor Angers

That the petition be accepted and referred to the Foreshore Precinct Advisory Committee for consideration and report.

Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Angers, Crs Harben, Sadler, Masarei, Harkins, Tucak, Barrett and

MacFarlane Against: Cr Young

9.2 PRESENTATIONS

Nil

9.3 DEPUTATIONS

Nil

http://www.savecottcarpark1.com/


Page 11

10 REPORTS

10.1 REPORTS OF OFFICERS

OCM017/2021

Moved Mayor Angers Seconded Cr Young

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

That Council adopts en-bloc the following Officer Recommendations contained in the Agenda for the Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2021:

Item # Report Title

10.1.4 Ordinary Election - Appointment of Electoral Commissioner

10.1.5 Purchasing Policy

10.1.7 Monthly Financial Statements for the period 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2020 and 1 July 2020 to 31 January 2021

10.1.11 Quarterly Information Bulletin

10.1.12 Appointment of Authorised Officer for Receiving Complaints under the Model Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates

10.2.1 Receipt of Foreshore Precinct Advisory Committee Minutes - 11 February 2021

10.2.2 Receipt of Audit Committee Minutes - 15 February 2021

13.1.2 Deane Street Retaining Wall Tender

13.1.3 Plumbing Services Tender

Carried 9/0


Page 12

DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY SERVICES

10.1.1 OUTCOME OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION - COTTESLOE VILLAGE DRAFT PRECINCT PLAN

File Ref: SUB/2798 Applicant(s) Proponents: Town Of Cottesloe and Shire of Peppermint Grove Attachments: 10.1.1(a) Memorandum of Understanding - Cott Village

Precinct Plan (Formerly ILAP) [under separate cover]

10.1.1(b) Schedule of Submissions – Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan [under separate cover]

10.1.1(c) Minutes - Cott Village Precinct Plan - Steering Group Meeting 5 (17.12.2020) [under separate cover]

Responsible Officer: Matthew Scott, Chief Executive Officer Author: Wayne Zimmermann, Principal Planner Author Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Cr Angers declared a FINANCIAL INTEREST in item 10.1.1 by virtue “My wife and I own a toy store in Station Street."

Mayor Angers left the meeting at 6:52pm.

Cr Young assumed the Chair at 6:52pm.

SUMMARY

This report provides an update on the background to the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan and outlines the main views raised in public submissions on the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan. The public submission period for the Draft Precinct Plan closed on 3 May 2020 and forty (40) submissions were received during the advertising period. Forty (40) submissions were received and assessment has revealed that over 70% of submissions support the Draft Precinct Plan.

The report also indicates the next steps to be taken to progress the project and seeks the support of Council in the direction being taken on the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan.

BACKGROUND

The Cottesloe Draft Village Precinct Plan is a joint project between the Town of Cottesloe and the Shire of Peppermint Grove. It was triggered by a request for a scheme amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 3 (LPS3) received in April 2019 from Element on behalf of the land owner of 7 and 11 (Lots 50 and 35) Station Street, Cottesloe. The purpose of the amendment was to allow for an increase in building height of up to 10 storeys (35 metres) and to facilitate changes to built form controls. The proposed scheme amendment has been held in abeyance pending the finalisation of the Cottesloe Draft Village Precinct Plan.

The study area for the Cottesloe Draft Village Precinct Plan spans two local government areas and includes land and facilities which are managed by State Government independent of local government, including the residual railway lands surrounding Cottesloe Rail Station,


Page 13

which has previously been identified for infill development. The Cottesloe Draft Village Precinct Plan study boundary extends west to Curtin Avenue and spans the railway and Stirling Highway. It also extends from Webb Street in the south to Vera Street in the north and includes the Cottesloe Central Shopping Centre and the Grove Library. It is considered well suited for a transit orientated development.

Council at its meeting on 27 August 2019 agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Town and the Shire of Peppermint Grove and nominated Cr Young and Cr Sadler to represent the Town on a project Steering Group formed to assist in providing direction for delivery of the project (Attachment A). The aim of the project is to establish an overarching strategic planning framework for the Precinct ahead of a number of significant likely/imminent development proposals. The Precinct Plan is expected to be finalised within the next two to three years.

The Town of Cottesloe Council at its meeting on 26 November 2019 unanimously approved a Draft Cottesloe Village Precinct Plan for community comment and further consultation. The Draft Precinct Plan was developed with input from a number of specialist consultants and following two community surveys and two community workshops. The surveys and workshops provided complementing data on the community - their values, their perception of the place and their views on the future shape of the town/activity centre.

The draft Precinct Plan was advertised for public comment and the public submission period closed on 3 May 2020. Forty (40) submissions were received and the views presented will help guide more detailed planning of the precinct and sub-precincts in the study area.

Assessment of submissions has been prolonged due to many of the submissions covering matters and issues relating to both the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan and the Local Planning Strategy review, which were advertised concurrently. This has required the careful assessment of submissions to decipher those aspects of the submissions that relate to the Draft Precinct Plan and to identify the grounds for support and objection.

The assessment of the submissions is detailed in Attachment B. It has revealed that over 70% of the submissions are generally in support of the Draft Precinct Plan. This in conjunction with the findings of public workshops held in the early stage of the project indicates a public desire for the Precinct Plan to be progressed to enable design principles and controls to be in place to guide future development in the precinct.

The progress of the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan has also been awaiting the preparation and release by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) of State Planning Policy 7.2 Precinct Design (SPP 7.2), associated Guidelines and amendments to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to give effect to precinct structure plans. SPP7.2 Precinct Design will become operational upon gazettal on 16 February 2021 and will provide additional guidance for the planning of the Cottesloe Village Precinct.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

• This report is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023.

• Priority Area 4: Managing Development


Page 14

• Major Strategy 4.2: Consider undeveloped Government owned land for higher density development provided there is both public support and benefit for the Cottesloe community.

• This report is consistent with the Town’s Corporate Business Plan 2020 – 2024.

• Priority Area 4: Managing Development.Major Strategy 4.2: Oversee the proper, orderly Planning of sites within the community recognising Heritage, Height controls and neighbour considerations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

• There are no perceived policy implications arising from the officer’s recommendation.

• Statutory Environment

• Local Government Act 1995

• Planning and Development Act 2005

• Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

• Directions 2031 and Beyond

• Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Strategy (2008)

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

• Resource requirements are in accordance with the existing budgetary allocation.

• There are no perceived financial implications arising from the officer’s recommendation.

STAFFING IMPLICATIONS

• There are no perceived staffing implications arising from the officer’s recommendation.

• Environmental Sustainability Implications

• There are no perceived sustainability implications arising from the officer’s recommendation.

CONSULTATION

• Two survey questionnaires, one focusing on resident and users of the area and another focusing on local businesses we were made available online through the two Councils’ websites in October 2019. Two community forum workshops were also held on October 26 and October 29, 2019. The main findings of this community engagement process were:

The overriding concerns discouraging people from frequenting the Town Centre are lack of variety of stores/services, and traffic and parking issues.

The Town Centre is seen to be safe and clean, but found lacking in vibrancy.


Page 15

The public domain is seen to be in a poor state due to lack of maintenance and lack of community facilities.

The train station is poorly connected to the Town Centre, it is underutilised and considered an eyesore.

There is a strong desire to retain the ‘village’ feel and small, owner-operated shops in the Town Centre, among both residents and business owners.

Business community is keen to see a boost in local population to increase patronage – favouring walk-up apartments as the urban densification policy.

In terms of a future urban densification strategy, residents have a strong preference towards restricting high rise to specific locations.

Business owners envisage the future Cott Village to have high density, while retaining the ‘village’ feel and human scale and with community spaces.

Both residents and the business community desire a greater variety of shops and services to cater for all age groups.

• Advertising of the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan (Part 1) commenced in December 2019 and was originally due to conclude on 3 April 2020. This was subsequently extended to 3 May 2020 due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Advertising of the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan occurred in the following formats:

Newspaper notices;

The Town of Cottesloe email newspaper;

The Town of Cottesloe website;

Surveys (available online and paper); and

Flyers.

• A meeting was held on 4 August 2020 with the Minister for Transport, Planning & Lands to inform the Minister of the project and seek support for a collaborative approach to the project given that the State Government owns a major portion of the landholdings in the precinct area, particularly west of the railway line. The Minister advised that she supported the project and directed that DPLH arrange for a Project Working Group to be formed, including the relevant State Government agencies, to help progress the project and overcome any obstacles from a State Government perspective.

• The progress of the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan has also been awaiting the preparation and release by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) of State Planning Policy 7.2 Precinct Design (SPP 7.2), associated Guidelines and amendments to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to give effect to precinct structure plans. SPP7.2 Precinct Design will become operational upon gazettal on 16 February 2021 and will provide additional guidance for the planning of the Cottesloe Village Precinct.


Page 16

OFFICER COMMENT

The Town received forty (40) submissions, including three duplicate submissions. Feedback was provided in the form of completed submission forms, scanned letters, emails, and annotated copies of parts of the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan. Some submitters indicated difficulty in responding to the document and raised concerns with the format and content of the document, including the planning terminology used. The variety of formats in which feedback was invited and the concurrent advertising of the Local Planning Strategy review caused some confusion to submitters in responding to the document. This has made it challenging in collating and quantifying the responses received.

Submissions received from the community were varied, with over 70% of the submissions generally supporting the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan. The main views raised in submissions supporting the Draft Precinct Plan include:

• the creation of a business hub within the village centre;

• provision for higher density mixed - use precincts;

• provision of infill residential development to help meet the State Government density targets as well as a high level of amenity and increased activity and vibrancy;

• provision of a diversity of residential development;

• better connectivity between east and west Cottesloe by exploring solutions to the railway crossing problem for vehicles and pedestrians;

• further investigation into the sinking of the railway line and redevelopment of State Government owned land immediately to the west of the railway station;

• minimising overshadowing of Napoleon Street and Station Street;

• improved pedestrian and cyclist access across Stirling Highway; and

• Cottesloe Village Centre becoming a connected local hub with a community focus and village ambience.

The main issues raised objecting to the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan includes:

• The proposed 10 storey and 6 storey heights for some sub-precincts being unacceptable due to overshadowing, loss of views from existing development, diminishing liveability due to disconnection with ground level activities, and setting a precedent for the rest of the neighbouring suburbs.

• Some of the proposed designated density allocations (e.g. R-AC4) will not provide enough incentive for redevelopment of properties and should be amended to incentivise.

• The need to ensure the interfaces of development with the existing laneways is carefully considered as these need to provide for an active safe environment for public use both day and night.

• The redevelopment of the two Council car parks on Station Street into apartment buildings as this will create a lack of car parking space in the area which will put pressure onto Forrest Street and other streets for extra car parking.


Page 17

• The additional residents that will be introduced to the area putting further strain onto what is already inadequate road infrastructure in the area.

A report on the findings of the submissions, along with an update of the current situation regarding the proposed Scheme Amendment to LPS No.3 (7 & 11 Station Street), was presented to a meeting of the Steering Group on 17 December 2020. A copy of the Minutes of the Steering Group meeting is detailed in Attachment C.

As per the outcome of the meeting with the Minister for Transport, Planning & Lands a Project Working Group, titled ‘Project Facilitation Group’ (PFG) has been formed and the inaugural meeting of the PFG is proposed to be held in February/March of this year. This will provide an opportunity to inform the relevant State Government agencies on the key design principles that both Local Government’s intend to apply to the Cott Village Precinct area and to obtain input from the agencies on the State Government projects that are likely to impact on the Precinct area. It will also seek to obtain a commitment from all members of PFG to:

• Work collaboratively in undertaking projects impacting on the draft Precinct Plan;

• Consult closely with the Town and the Shire in undertaking any projects; and

• Enable design-led outcomes to be carefully considered in all associated projects.

At this stage it is intended to engage a consultant to undertake detailed design studies, possibly by April/May 2021 to develop specific design guidelines including preferred land uses for each Sub-Precinct followed by community consultation to obtain feedback and refine as necessary. The community is to be instrumental in setting up the qualities against which the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan is to be assessed and measured. If necessary the design principles once developed can be referred to the Cottesloe Design Advisory Committee for comment and feedback.

The detailed design and engagement phase may also include the evaluation of optional futures or possible scenarios for the future of the Cottesloe Activity Centre. The purpose is to not only exclude unacceptable options, but also to inform stakeholders as to the available choices and outcomes – the inevitability of change and implication.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council:

1. NOTES the submissions received and the views provided in the submissions, on the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan.

2. Supports the next steps to be taken to progress the project as outlined in the minutes of the Steering Group Meeting of 17 December 2020.


Page 18

OCM018/2021 COUNCILLOR MOTION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Tucak Seconded Cr Sadler

THAT Council:

1. NOTES the submissions received and the views provided in the submissions, on the Cottesloe Village Draft Precinct Plan.

2. Supports the next steps to be taken to progress the project as outlined in the minutes of the Steering Group Meeting of 17 December 2020.

3. Seek and progress the involvement of the Town’s Design Advisory Panel in preparation of the design principles for development projects in the Cottesloe Village, at the earliest opportunity, prior to engaging external design consultants, and thereafter as appropriate.

Carried 8/0

COUNCILLOR RATIONALE:

The Steering Group have deferred engaging design consultants for detailed design studies and specific design guidelines, so as to allow the Project Facilitation Group to provide input and guidance on proposed design guidelines, and allow discussion with the Town’s Design Advisory Panel. The Panel’s input at this stage can provide valuable assistance to the PFG in shaping the PFG’s design guidelines, ahead of engagement of external design consultants.

Mayor Angers returned to the meeting at 6:53pm.


Page 19

10.1.2 COUNCIL SUBMISSION TO STATE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT RE: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AT LOT 500 (STRATA LOTS 1-7), 120 MARINE PARADE COTTESLOE, FOR NINE (9) STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

File Ref: SUB/2798 Applicant(s) Proponents: Planning Solutions on behalf of Gary Dempsey

Developments Attachments: Nil Responsible Officer: Freya Ayliffe, Director Development and Regulatory

Services Author: Wayne Zimmermann, Manager of Planning Author Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Cr Harben declared an IMPARTIALITY INTEREST in item 10.1.2 by virtue “The architect on the project is known to me."

SUMMARY

A significant development application for Lot 500 (Strata Lots 1-7) Marine Parade, Cottesloe has been referred by the State Development Assessment Unit (SDAU) to the Town for comment. The SDAU assesses development applications of State or regional significance for determination by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The purpose of this report is to provide a Council submission to SDAU on the significant development application.

The development application proposes the demolition of a three (3) storey mixed use building and its replacement with a nine (9) storey mixed use building comprising of two levels of basement car parking, a ground floor commercial tenancy (café/restaurant), eight (8) levels of apartments (total 16 apartments – one being a dual key apartment) and a roof terrace with roof structures above, including a photovoltaic array.

The documents for the development application are contained in the following links:

1. Proposed Development Application Plans - 120 Marine Parade Cottesloe (Appendix 3)

2. Applicant Development Applicant Report

3. Applicant Architectural Design Statement (Appendix 4)

4. Applicant R-Codes Volume 2 Assessment (Appendix 1)

5. Proposed Landscaping Plans (Appendix 5)

6. Applicant Transport Impact Statement (Appendix 6)

7. Applicant Access Management Plan (Appendix 7)

8. Applicant Proposed Waste Management Plan (Appendix 8)

9. Applicant Sustainability Report (Appendix 9)

10. Applicant Cover Letter

11. Applicant Acoustic Report (Appendix 10).PDF

12. Applicant Economic Benefit Statement (Appendix 12).PDF

https://consultation.dplh.wa.gov.au/reform-design-state-assessment/apartments-commercial-cottesloe/user_uploads/proposed-development-application-plans---120-marine-parade-cottesloe--appendix-3-.pdf

https://consultation.dplh.wa.gov.au/reform-design-state-assessment/apartments-commercial-cottesloe/user_uploads/applicant-development-applicant-report.pdf

https://consultation.dplh.wa.gov.au/reform-design-state-assessment/apartments-commercial-cottesloe/user_uploads/applicant-architectural-design-statement--appendix-4-.pdf

https://consultation.dplh.wa.gov.au/reform-design-state-assessment/apartments-commercial-cottesloe/user_uploads/applicant-r-codes-volume-2-assessment--appendix-1-.pdf

https://consultation.dplh.wa.gov.au/reform-design-state-assessment/apartments-commercial-cottesloe/user_uploads/proposed-landscaping-plans--appendix-5-.pdf

https://consultation.dplh.wa.gov.au/reform-design-state-assessment/apartments-commercial-cottesloe/user_uploads/applicant-transport-impact-statement--appendix-6-.pdf

https://consultation.dplh.wa.gov.au/reform-design-state-assessment/apartments-commercial-cottesloe/user_uploads/applicant-access-management-plan--appendix-7-.pdf

https://consultation.dplh.wa.gov.au/reform-design-state-assessment/apartments-commercial-cottesloe/user_uploads/applicant-proposed-waste-management-plan--appendix-8-.pdf

https://consultation.dplh.wa.gov.au/reform-design-state-assessment/apartments-commercial-cottesloe/user_uploads/applicant-sustainability-report--appendix-9-.pdf

https://consultation.dplh.wa.gov.au/reform-design-state-assessment/apartments-commercial-cottesloe/user_uploads/applicant-cover-letter.pdf

https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonline.planning.wa.gov.au%2Fdata%2Fsdau_transfer%2FSDAU-010-21%2FApplicant%2520Acoustic%2520Report%2520(Appendix%252010).PDF&data=04%7C01%7CShane.Downes%40dplh.wa.gov.au%7C36b1a161816f4aa39cc808d8b5e2a8af%7C1077f4f66cad4f1d99949421a25eaa3f%7C0%7C0%7C637459332382773939%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=hV%2FC3%2F4rjIg3NtWBJDDnv2bnPevf3KNEtNOYxykM9xU%3D&reserved=0

https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonline.planning.wa.gov.au%2Fdata%2Fsdau_transfer%2FSDAU-010-21%2FApplicant%2520Economic%2520Benefit%2520Statement%2520(Appendix%252012).PDF&data=04%7C01%7CShane.Downes%40dplh.wa.gov.au%7C36b1a161816f4aa39cc808d8b5e2a8af%7C1077f4f66cad4f1d99949421a25eaa3f%7C0%7C0%7C637459332382783893%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=JNqPPtpKfT%2FRYrwz1SpTDK4MRzPog94A2xY1t3vNs5c%3D&reserved=0


Page 20

13. Applicant Heritage Impact Statement (Appendix 11).PDF

14. Applicant Response to DRP minutes (Appendix 13).PDF

BACKGROUND

Zoning MRS: Urban

LPS: Foreshore Centre zone

Use Class: Mixed Use

Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No. 3 (LPS 3)

Lot Size: 561m2

Existing Land Use: Mixed Use

Value of Development: $22.75 million

Owner: 120 Marine Parade Pty Ltd

A conceptual development proposal was submitted to the Town for consideration and advice in May 2019 which proposed 6 levels (basement for car/motorbike/bicycle parking) and five floors comprising 10 residential apartments. The application was considered under a pre-lodgement process including submission to the Town’s Design Advisory Panel. Comments and advice on the proposal was provided to the applicant however, a final application was never submitted for determination.

https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonline.planning.wa.gov.au%2Fdata%2Fsdau_transfer%2FSDAU-010-21%2FApplicant%2520Heritage%2520Impact%2520Statement%2520(Appendix%252011).PDF&data=04%7C01%7CShane.Downes%40dplh.wa.gov.au%7C36b1a161816f4aa39cc808d8b5e2a8af%7C1077f4f66cad4f1d99949421a25eaa3f%7C0%7C0%7C637459332382793853%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=7SMrCmRw2AmvEFzhWskyFua%2BPvUsqI5Yl4qNevkJ%2FtY%3D&reserved=0

https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonline.planning.wa.gov.au%2Fdata%2Fsdau_transfer%2FSDAU-010-21%2FApplicant%2520Response%2520to%2520DRP%2520minutes%2520(Appendix%252013).PDF&data=04%7C01%7CShane.Downes%40dplh.wa.gov.au%7C36b1a161816f4aa39cc808d8b5e2a8af%7C1077f4f66cad4f1d99949421a25eaa3f%7C0%7C0%7C637459332382803814%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=qsS32QrqIjPkN4jO%2F4vPDslo%2FNv%2Brzh9%2FFlTFY2kFZw%3D&reserved=0


Page 21


There are no perceived strategic implications arising from the officer’s recommendation.


Page 22

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

There are no perceived policy implications arising from the officer’s recommendation.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

• Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015,

• Planning and Development Act 2005 - Part 17 Special provisions for COVID-19 pandemic relating to development applications;

• Local Planning Scheme No. 3;

• Residential Design Codes.


There are no perceived financial implications arising from the officer’s recommendation.


There are no perceived staffing implications arising from the officer’s recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

There are no perceived sustainability implications arising from the officer’s recommendation.

CONSULTATION

The application was not advertised by the Town as the Council is not the determining authority. The application is a significant development application for Lot 500 (Strata Lots 1-7) Marine Parade, Cottesloe that has been referred by the State Development Assessment Unit (SDAU) to the Town for comment as required under Part 17 of the planning and Development Act 2005. SDAU has advised that although the submission period closed on 29 January 2021 it has granted Council an extension to comment until the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 February 2021. SDAU has further advised verbally that approximately 1000 submissions were received during the advertising period, with approximately 80% objecting to the proposed development application and 20% supporting the proposal.

OFFICER COMMENT

Local context and site characteristics

The subject site is located on Marine Parade directly opposite Cottesloe Beach. It is situated between two local landmarks being Cottesloe Beach Hotel approximately 130 metres to the south and the Ocean Beach Hotel approximately 300 metres to the north. The height of existing development along this section of the beachfront ranges from two to six storeys.

The Cottesloe train station is approximately 900 metres south-east of the site which is approximately a 12 minute walk. The immediate surrounds generally comprise a mixture of


Page 23

commercial and residential development, including restaurants, cafes, shops and various types of accommodation.

There is currently a three storey mixed use building on the site comprising a retail outlet on the ground floor and six apartments located on the second and third storeys. The site has a gentle slope upwards from Marine Parade with a level difference from front to rear of approximately 400mm.

Strategic Planning Framework

Perth and Peel @ 3.5 million

This is the overarching spatial framework applicable to the Perth and Peel regions. It provides guidance on where development should occur to ensure sustainable urban growth, protect the environment and heritage and make the most effective use of existing infrastructure. The proposed development is inconsistent with aim of this strategic planning document as it provides only a marginal increase in the residential density of the site and does not adequately satisfy housing choice and diversity requirements for this locality, adversely impacts on the existing public infrastructure along the Cottesloe foreshore through overshadowing and traffic conflict, and adversely impacts on views to and from a State heritage listed site.

Central Sub-Regional Framework

The Central Sub-Regional Framework is one of four sub-regional planning framework arising from Perth and Peel @ 3.5 million. It provides the spatial framework which is to guide local governments in achieving optimal urban consolidation over the long term.

The implementation actions of the Central Sub-Regional Framework include to ‘promote growth in diversity and density of employment and residential development, where appropriate, in the employment network of activity centres’. Cottesloe Beach is not identified as an ‘activity centre’ but as a ‘Metropolitan attractor’ that creates transport and other planning needs. The Cottesloe Town Centre is the designated activity centre under the Central Sub-Regional Framework and consequently the development should be located in the Town Centre.

State Planning Policy No.2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy

The proposed development conflicts with State Planning Policy No.2.6 of the Western Australian Planning Commission in respect to building height. SPP 2.6 specifies that:

• Maximum height limits should be specified as part of controls outlined in a local planning scheme and/or structure plan, in order to achieve outcomes which respond to the desired character, built form and amenity of the locality.

• When determining building height controls in a local planning scheme and/or structure plan, building heights should have due regard to the following planning criteria:

development is consistent with the overall visual theme identified as part of land use planning for a locality or in an appropriate planning control instrument such as a local planning strategy;

development takes into account the built form, topography and landscape character of the surrounding area;


Page 24

the location is part of an identified coastal node;

the amenity of the coastal foreshore is not detrimentally affected by any significant overshadowing of the foreshore; and

there is overall visual permeability of the foreshore and ocean from nearby residential areas, roads and public spaces.

• The Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Strategy sets out the long term planning directions for Cottesloe, including the beachfront precinct and sets the development objectives for this area including appropriate building height and form of development. Local Planning Scheme No.3 includes controls to deliver these objectives. The proposed development does not satisfy the criteria in SPP 2.6 as it is contrary to both the Local Planning Strategy and the Local Planning Scheme in terms of building height, built form, overshadowing and visual permeability of the foreshore and ocean.

• Local Planning Strategy

The Town of Cottesloe’s Local Planning Strategy was endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission in January 2008 and a review of the strategy is currently being undertaken. The Local Planning Strategy sets out the long term planning directions for Cottesloe, including the recommended approach and actions to address changes that are necessary for the future development of the local government area over the next 10 to 15 years.

The Local Planning Strategy recognises the beachfront precinct along Marine Parade from Eric to Forrest Streets as a specialised node of commercial activity essentially serving the beach recreational, entertainment and holiday trade. It emphasises the future of the beachfront is dependent on the combined local and regional role of this recreational activity node and the need for sensitive land use and development planning. The Strategy supports some mixed use redevelopment focused on beachfront activity whilst restricting permanent residential land use predominating in the area and facilitating the provision of better tourist/visitor facilities along with more short-term accommodation.

The development objectives for the beachfront area include:

• Mixed-use redevelopment focused on beachfront activity;

• The provision of a mixture of land uses with an active commercial/recreational street- front that is not displaced by residential; and

• A built edge to Marine Parade, orientation to a pedestrian promenade, and amenity and built form controls including height and setbacks in respect of views, overshadowing, privacy and urban design.

Although the proposed development includes a commercial tenancy on the ground floor to be used as a café/restaurant with an active interface with Marine Parade, the predominant use in the proposed development is private residential apartments. This is contrary to the objectives and future planning under the Local Planning Strategy for development of the beachfront precinct along Marine Parade.

Cottesloe Beach Foreshore Master Plan

The Town has endorsed a Master Plan for improvements to the Cottesloe Beach foreshore adjacent to the site. The Master Plan will guide the enhancement and management of the


Page 25

foreshore in the future. Although the proposal will provide some activation along the Marine Parade frontage through a proposed alfresco dining forecourt and possible parklet, the height of the building and vehicle access arrangements will have adverse impacts on the amenity of the area (through overshadowing, loss of views and privacy) and cause serious traffic, pedestrian and cyclist movement and safety issues.

Part 17 of the Planning and Development Act 2005

The proposal has been assessed against the key considerations for the determination of this application under Part 17 of the PD Act, as follows:

The Purpose and Intent of the Local Planning Scheme

The purposes of Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS3) include:

• Set out the local government’s planning aims and intentions for the Scheme area;

• Zone land within the Scheme area for the purposes defined in the Scheme; and

• Control and guide land use and development.

The aims of the Scheme include:

• To promote the Local Planning Strategy;

• Provide opportunities for housing choice and variety in localities which have a strong sense of community identity and high levels of amenity;

• Ensure that land uses and development adjacent to Marine Parade are compatible with the residential and recreational nature of their setting and the amenity of the locality;

• Ensure that new development is compatible with the conservation significance and aesthetic value of heritage places and areas and coastal landscape; and

• Recognise the principle of the maintenance and enhancement of important views to and from public places.

The proposal conflicts with the aims of LPS3 as it will result in adverse impacts from the increased building height, including overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of views (including views of a heritage place on the State Register) and reduced amenity for residents and the general public in this important coastal locality. It also fails to deliver appropriate opportunities for housing choice, particularly for holiday and short-stay purposes in a recognised tourist area.

Building height

The proposed 9 storey development plus a roof terrace (33.7 metres to top of roof structures, including a photovoltaic array) is contrary to the requirements of the Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS 3) as it exceeds the building height limit of a maximum of five (5) storeys (21 metres above natural ground level) by 12.7 metres. The proposed development application cannot be approved under LPS 3 as there is no discretion under the Scheme to vary the maximum building height.

The height of the development would overshadow adjacent properties, reduce the light and privacy of existing adjacent buildings and adversely impact on the public domain and amenity particularly the coastal foreshore area. The accuracy of overshadowing diagrams


Page 26

submitted with the current application is questioned. The initial application when it was submitted proposed the same height and similar floor layouts and configuration to the current application however, the shadow diagrams in the initial application depicted a much more extensive area of overshadowing of the foreshore, beach and adjacent buildings. The current application fails to justify or explain the significant reduction in overshadowing from the initial application.

Previous sentiments expressed by the Cottesloe community were that building heights along the coastal foreshore east of Marine Parade should be restricted to a maximum 5-storeys in this location. This position has not changed and is strongly echoed in the community response to the current proposal.

Setbacks from Street and other lot boundaries

Under Schedule 15 of LPS3 all development above a height of 12 metres is to be setback a minimum 4 metres from Marine Parade. The balconies of the fourth to ninth floors of the proposed development project into this setback area and are located 2.06 metres from the front boundary. This will increase the building bulk and overshadowing of Marine Parade and the Cottesloe foreshore area which will adversely impact on the public domain.

Also under Schedule 15 of LPS3 all development above a height of 12 metres is to be setback a minimum of 4metres from the rear eastern boundary. The proposed development does not comply with this requirement as it proposes a rear setback of 3.5 metres from the first to ninth floors which will increase the overshadowing impacts on adjacent properties to the east.

The proposed development has a nil setback to all floors along the southern boundary of the site. This conflicts with the building control diagram 3 for SCA2 in Schedule 15 of LPS3 which indicates that buildings on Lots 1, 500 and 3 Marine Parade, above 12 metres be stepped back along the southern boundaries so that upper levels do not add to the shadow of the 3rd storey according to the angle of the sun in winter at noon on 21 June (winter solstice). The development as proposed will therefore result in increased overshadowing of adjoining and adjacent properties including parts of the beach foreshore which will adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

Vehicle access and Parking

Under clause 6.4.3.5(c) of LPS3 no vehicular ingress or egress to Marine Parade is permitted except in the case of Lot 500, where temporary access directly from Marine Parade may be approved, but only in the event that rear vehicular access is not at the time possible. Such temporary access must be immediately closed and the rear access implemented if rear access becomes available through the redevelopment of adjoining Lots 1 or 3, and in this regard, any redevelopment of Lots 1, 3 or 500 shall grant a 4 metre wide rear cross-easement for vehicular access to each of the other lots, prior to the occupation of any such redevelopment.

Vehicle access to and from Marine Parade is proposed via a single vehicle width crossover and no alternative vehicle access plan or arrangement has been provided to demonstrate how rear access can be achieved in future redevelopment of the adjoining lots. The proponent acknowledges that access could (theoretically) be provided from the rear of the site in the future and the rear of the ground floor is proposed to be constructed at grade


Page 27

with no permanent structures in the rear setback area and a 4 metre height clearance to the first floor.

The proponent is seeking a variation to the rear access requirement claiming that providing access from the rear would require the removal of the 1.5 metre wide deep soil zone across the rear of the property which is proposed to include trees to soften the rear elevation and this would result in more driveway areas and a poorer design outcome. This variation is not supported as it is contrary to clause 6.4.3.5(c) and Schedule 15 of LPS3 and will result in a permanent access arrangement that is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Cottesloe Foreshore Master Plan to remove and restrict vehicle access to Marine Parade for development along this portion of the foreshore.

The proposed vehicular access arrangements for the development include a vehicle lift to provide access to the two basement levels of car parking (27 car parking bays) plus 6 ground floor parking bays. The car lift operation requirements coupled with access to and from the site is via a single driveway from Marine Parade, will cause traffic conflict and delay to vehicles using this section of Marine Parade and create an unsafe environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

The proposed waste management arrangements for the development application are unacceptable as they are reliant on the waste collection vehicle reversing into the single driveway and loading the waste adjacent to the car lift. This will block any other vehicle access to and from the site while this is occurring. In addition both the Transport Impact Statement and the Access Strategy submitted in support of the application clearly indicate that the pathway for the movement of the waste vehicle to and from the site will cross the existing median strips adjacent to the site on Marine Parade and may cause serious delays to safe traffic movement on Marine Parade. Furthermore no allowance has been made for the 6x660 litre waste bins to be transported through the car lift on collection days (40 mins of usage in and out) and the pick-up area for these bins appears to be inadequate.

Orderly and Proper Planning and Preservation of Amenity

The proposal is considered contrary to the orderly and proper planning as it will result in adverse impacts from the increased building height, including overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of views (including views of a heritage place on the State Register) and reduced amenity for residents and the general public in this important coastal locality.

Impact on Views

Lot 500 is located in relatively close proximity (approximately 180 metres to the west) of the Cottesloe Civic Centre which was made a Permanent Entry on the State Heritage Register in 1997. The height and bulk of the proposed development will adversely impact on important views to and from the Cottesloe Civic Centre. This conflicts with the objective of the Foreshore Centre zone under Clause 4.2.3(d) of LPS3 and the endorsed Conservation Plan for the Cottesloe Civic Centre.

In addition the height, reduced setbacks and building bulk of the proposed development will adversely impact on views and privacy of adjacent residential development which is predominantly 2 storeys. Should the proposal be approved it will set a precedent for similar or higher development on adjoining and nearby lots along Marine Parade which will result in an cumulative adverse impact on views along the beachfront and to and from the Civic Centre.


Page 28

Use of the Development

Lot 500 is zoned “Foreshore Centre Zone” and is located in ‘Special Control Area 2’ (SCA2) in LPS3. The aims and objectives of the Scheme for the zone and SCA2 include providing opportunities for housing choice and variety and a limited range of commercial shopping. Clause 6.4.3.1(d) of the Scheme requires in SCA2 that development should provide a minimum of 25% of the total multiple dwellings proposed comprising a maximum plot ratio area of 70m2 and 25% shall comprise a maximum plot ratio of greater than 70m2 but not greater than 90m2.

The size and composition of the multiple dwellings in the proposed 16 apartment development does not meet this requirement and only on apartment (60m2) is proposed through a dual key arrangement. This equates to approximately 6% of the development which is considerably less than the requirements of LPS3.

Although the proposed use of the ground floor is of a commercial nature (cafe/restaurant) the 7 metre depth from the Marine Parade frontage does not comply with the required minimum depth of 9 metres under Clause 6.4.3.5 of LPS3. Under LPS3 a café use is not defined but vehicle parking requirements for a restaurant is 1 car space for every 8 persons accommodated. The proposed cafe/ restaurant use of the commercial tenancy will have a capacity of approximately 40 persons based on an estimated seating area of 70m2.

The required car parking for this use is 5 car bays however, the application proposes two car bays and seeks approval to a parking shortfall of two car bays based on an existing parking shortfall of 5 bays for the current shop use on Lot 500. Under the circumstances the shortfall in car parking may be considered through cash-in-lieu arrangements.

Response to the Economic Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The economic benefits statement submitted in support of the proposal indicates that the development cost is $22.75 million and that it will provide 69 full-time equivalent direct and indirect jobs during the construction of the development (construction timeframe 18 months) and 8 on-going jobs. The scale of the job creation for the project it is considered marginal and rather insignificant in terms of meeting the criteria as a significant development that represents broad ranging benefits for the State. Apart from unsubstantiated claims that there is significant demand for the proposed apartments no other information has been provided to confirm that finance has been secured for the development and that the project is not relying on pre-sales.

State Planning Policies and Policies of the WAPC

• State Planning policy 7.0 - Design of the Built Environment (SPP 7.0)

SPP 7.0 sets out the objectives, measures, principles and processes which apply to the design and assessment of built environment proposals through the planning system. It is considered that the application has not provided sufficient justification to demonstrate that the proposed development meets the policy objectives as it:

Proposes residential development of form and scale inappropriate to the context and the existing character of the Cottesloe foreshore area which will have significant impacts on the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

Fails to adequately provide for the social, environmental and economic opportunities for new housing in a recognised important tourist locality.


Page 29

Proposes development that will adversely impact on and fails to fully respect views of and from a designated important local heritage site.

Fails to provide residential development that offers future residents the opportunities for better living choices and affordability when seeking a home in the locality.

• In terms of the 10 design principles in SPP 7.0 the proposal was presented to and assessed by the State Design Review Panel (SDRP) on two occasions and only two principles were met through this process, these being legibility and aesthetics of the proposal. The applicant has submitted a response to the SDRP assessment as part of the application and the following comments are provided to this response:

Context & Character

The response to the built form and envelope, particularly height is based on a solar analysis which has changed through the application process although the built form and height of the development has only marginally changed. Consequently the findings of the solar analysis are to be questioned. The response by the applicant therefore does not adequately demonstrate that the built form envelope will not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties through overshadowing. The analysis of views of the Civic Centre is also questionable as it only examines views from specific points within the Civic Centre grounds and fails to properly consider the views of the Civic Centre looking from the beachfront and from other viewpoints along Marine Parade.

In respect to the concerns raised by the SDRP about building mass and the undesirable precedent that will be set if this development is approved, the application clearly demonstrates that these concerns are valid and will not be removed should the proposal be approved.

Landscape Quality

The concerns raised by the SDRP regarding the required rear access in the future under LPS3 and the impact on the deep soil areas along the eastern boundary of the site when this occurs are still valid. The applicant’s response to this unacceptable as it is based on this not occurring and that vehicle access from Marine Parade will remain permanently in place after the development is approved. In respect to other landscaping provided it is considered that the window planter boxes will have servicing and maintenance issues and the location and types of street trees will need to be carefully planned given the need for safe vehicle and pedestrian movement and the coastal climatic conditions.

Built Form and Scale

Refer to Context and Character above.

Functionality & Build Quality

The proposed vehicular access arrangements for the development include a vehicle lift to provide access to the two basement levels of car parking (27 car parking bays) plus 6 ground floor parking bays. The car lift operation requirements coupled with access to and from the site via a single driveway from Marine Parade, will cause traffic conflict


Page 30

and delay to vehicles using this section of Marine Parade and create an unsafe environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

The Traffic Management Plan and the Transport Impact Statement submitted with the application confirm the major problems that will arise should the development application be approved. The proposed access to and from the basement car parks combined with other proposed access arrangements, including for waste management, clearly demonstrate that the traffic management of the development will result in major impacts on traffic circulation, access and safety and therefore it should not be approved.

Sustainability

The sustainability elements of the proposed development focus on the heating and cooling elements. It would be helpful to have provided information on the materials that are proposed to be used in the development and the impact of this on the environment.

Amenity

The height and bulk of the proposed development will overshadow the adjacent buildings and have a significant impact on the coastal foreshore and the associated public domain. It will also cause visual privacy issues with neighbouring properties and will adversely impact on important views to and from the Cottesloe Civic Centre. The applicant’s response does not demonstrate that these issues will be appropriately addressed.

Legibility

This element is adequately addressed.

Safety

The proposed vehicle and pedestrian access arrangements to and from the proposed development are unacceptable as explained under the ‘Functionality & Build Quality’ design principle.

Community

The size and composition of the multiple dwellings in the proposed 16 apartment development does not satisfy the housing choice and variety provisions under LPS3. The provision of only one apartment (60m2) through a dual key arrangement. This equates to approximately 6% of the development which is considerably less than the requirements of LPS3.

As mentioned under the ‘Amenity’ design principle the height and bulk of the proposed development will overshadow the adjacent buildings and have a significant impact on the coastal foreshore and the associated public domain. In addition it will adversely impact on important views to and from the Cottesloe Civic Centre.

The proposed development therefore fails to properly address this design principle and should not be supported.


Page 31

Aesthetics

The aesthetics of the design is understood to capture the ocean feeling of the locality. The size and shape of the balconies that encroach into the front setback area will result in some increase in overshadowing of the public domain. Also the roof deck area is likely to become a rather inhospitable environment for a large part of the time due to climatic conditions particularly the strong south-westerly and westerly winds that occur in this locality.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development is unacceptable and should not be approved for the following reasons:

• The proposed development is contrary to the State Planning Framework including State Planning Policy No.2.6 of the Western Australian Planning Commission in respect to building height and adverse impacts on amenity of the locality.

• The proposed development of nine storeys plus a roof terrace (33.7 metres to top of roof structures, including a photovoltaic array) is contrary to the requirements of the Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS 3) as it exceeds the building height limit of a maximum of five (5) storeys (21metres above natural ground level).

The proposed development application cannot be approved under LPS 3 as there is no discretion under the Scheme to vary the maximum building height.

• Lot 500 is zoned “Foreshore Centre zone” and is located in ‘Special Control Area 2’ (SCA2) in LPS3. The aims and objectives of the Scheme for the zone and SCA2 include providing opportunities for housing choice and variety and a limited range of commercial shopping. Clause 6.4.3.1(d) of the Scheme requires in SCA2 that development should provide a minimum of 25% of the total multiple dwellings proposed comprising a maximum plot ratio area of 70m2 and 25% shall comprise a maximum plot ratio of greater than 70m2 but not greater than 90m2. The size and composition of the multiple dwellings in the proposed 16 apartment development does not satisfy this requirement as only one dual key apartment (60m2) is provided.

• Under clause 6.4.3.5(c) of LPS3 no vehicular ingress or egress to Marine Parade is permitted except in the case of Lot 500, where temporary access directly from Marine Parade may be approved, but only in the event that rear vehicular access is not at the time possible. Such temporary access must be immediately closed and the rear access implemented if rear access becomes available through the redevelopment of adjoining Lots 1 or 3, and in this regard, any redevelopment of Lots 1, 3 or 500 shall grant a 4 metre wide rear cross-easement for vehicular access to each of the other lots, prior to the occupation of any such redevelopment.

Vehicle access to and from Marine Parade is proposed via a single vehicle width crossover and no alternative vehicle access plan or arrangement has been provided to demonstrate how rear access can be achieved in future redevelopment of the adjoining lots. The proponent acknowledges that access could (theoretically) be provided from the rear of the site in the future and the rear of the ground floor is proposed to be constructed at grade with no permanent structures in the rear setback area and a 4 metre height clearance to the first floor.


Page 32

The proponent is seeking a variation to the rear access requirement claiming that providing access from the rear would require the removal of the 1.5 metre wide deep soil zone across the rear of the property which is proposed to include trees to soften the rear elevation and this would result in more driveway areas and a poorer design outcome. This variation is not supported as it is contrary to clause 6.4.3.5(c) and Schedule 15 of LPS3 and will result in a permanent access arrangement that is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Cottesloe Foreshore Master Plan to remove and restrict vehicle access to Marine Parade for development along this portion of the foreshore.

• The proposed vehicular access arrangements for the development include a vehicle lift to provide access to the two basement levels of car parking (27 car parking bays) plus 6 ground floor parking bays. The car lift operation requirements coupled with access to and from the site is via a single driveway from Marine Parade, will cause traffic conflict and delay to vehicles using this section of Marine Parade and create an unsafe environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

The proposed waste management arrangements for the development application are unacceptable as they are reliant on the waste collection vehicle reversing into the single driveway and loading the waste adjacent to the car lift. This will block any other vehicle access to and from the site while this is occurring. In addition both the Transport Impact Statement and the Access Strategy submitted in support of the application clearly indicate that the pathway for the movement of the waste vehicle to and from the site will cross the existing median strips adjacent to the site on Marine Parade and may cause serious delays to safe traffic movement on Marine Parade. Furthermore no allowance has not been made for the 6x660 litre waste bins to be transported through the car lift on collection days (40 mins of usage in and out) and the pick-up area for these bins appears to be inadequate.

• Under Schedule 15 of LPS3 all development above a height of 12 metres is to be setback a minimum 4 metres from Marine Parade. The balconies of the fourth to ninth floors of the proposed development project into this setback area and are located 2.06 metres from the front boundary. This will result in some increase in overshadowing of the public domain which is unacceptable.

• Under schedule 15 of LPS3 all development above a height of 12 metres is to be setback a minimum of 4 metres from the rear eastern boundary. The proposed development does not comply with this requirement as it proposes a rear setback of 3.5 metres from the first to ninth floors which will increase the overshadowing impacts on adjacent properties to the east.

• Lot 500 is located in relatively close proximity (approximately 180 metres to the west) of the Cottesloe Civic Centre which was made a Permanent Entry on the State Heritage Register in 1997. The height and bulk of the proposed development will adversely impact on important views to and from the Cottesloe Civic Centre. This conflicts with the objective of the Foreshore Centre zone under Clause 4.2.3(d) of LPS3 and the endorsed Conservation Plan for the Cottesloe Civic Centre.

• The proposed development has a nil setback to all floors along the southern boundary of the site. This conflicts with the building control diagram 3 for SCA2 in Schedule 15 of LPS3 which indicates that building volumes on Lots 1, 500 and 3 Marine Parade, above


Page 33

12 metres be terraced so that upper levels do not add to the shadow of the 3rd storey according to the angle of the sun in winter at noon on 21 June (winter solstice). The height of the proposed development coupled with a nil setback on the southern boundary will therefore result in the building encroaching into the area of the winter solstice and cause increased overshadowing of adjoining and adjacent properties including parts of the beach foreshore which will adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

• Although the proposed use of the ground floor is of a commercial nature (cafe/restaurant) the 7 metre depth from the Marine Parade frontage does not comply with the required minimum depth of 9 metres under Clause 6.4.3.5 of LPS3.

• Under LPS3 a café use is not defined but vehicle parking requirements for a restaurant is 1 car space for every 8 persons accommodated. The proposed cafe/ restaurant use of the commercial tenancy will have a capacity of approximately 40 persons based on an estimated seating area of 70m2. The required car parking for this use is 5 car bays however, the application proposes two car bays and seeks approval to a parking shortfall of two car bays based on an existing parking shortfall of 5 bays for the current shop use on Lot 500. Although under the circumstances the shortfall in car parking may be considered by Council possibly through a cash-in-lieu arrangement, application has not proposed this as an option.

• The economic benefits statement submitted in support of the proposal indicates that the development cost is $22.75 million and that it will provide 69 full-time equivalent direct and indirect jobs during the construction of the development (construction timeframe 18 months) and 8 on-going jobs. The scale of the job creation for the project it is considered marginal and rather insignificant in terms of meeting the criteria as a significant development that represents broad ranging benefits for the State. Apart from unsubstantiated claims that there is significant demand for the proposed apartments no other information has been provided to confirm that finance has been secured for the development and that the project is not relying on pre-sales.

• The proposed development does not satisfy sentiments previously expressed by the Cottesloe community that building height along the coastal foreshore east of Marine Parade should be restricted to 5-storeys maximum building height in this location. This position has not changed and is strongly echoed in the community response to the current proposal.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority


Moved Cr Young Seconded Mayor Angers

1. THAT Council advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that it objects to the proposed nine (9) storey development for Lot 500 (Strata Lots 1-7) Marine Parade, Cottesloe for the following reasons:

a) The proposed development is contrary to the State Planning Framework including State Planning Policy No.2.6 of the Western Australian Planning


Page 34

Commission in respect to building height and adverse impacts on amenity of the locality.

b) The proposed development of nine storeys plus a roof terrace (33.7 metres to top of roof structures, including a photovoltaic array) is contrary to the requirements of the Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS 3) as it exceeds the building height limit of a maximum of five (5) storeys (21metres above natural ground level).

c) The proposed development application cannot be approved under LPS 3 as there is no discretion under the Scheme to vary the maximum building height.

d) Lot 500 is zoned “Foreshore Centre zone” and is located in ‘Special Control Area 2’ (SCA2) in LPS3. The aims and objectives of the Scheme for the zone and SCA2 include providing opportunities for housing choice and variety and a limited range of commercial shopping. Clause 6.4.3.1(d) of the Scheme requires in SCA2 that development should provide a minimum of 25% of the total multiple dwellings proposed comprising a maximum plot ratio area of 70m2 and 25% shall comprise a maximum plot ratio of greater than 70m2 but not greater than 90m2. The size and composition of the multiple dwellings in the proposed 16 apartment development does not satisfy this requirement as only one dual key apartment (60m2) is provided.

e) Under clause 6.4.3.5(c) of LPS3 no vehicular ingress or egress to Marine Parade is permitted except in the case of Lot 500, where temporary access directly from Marine Parade may be approved, but only in the event that rear vehicular access is not at the time possible. Such temporary access must be immediately closed and the rear access implemented if rear access becomes available through the redevelopment of adjoining Lots 1 or 3, and in this regard, any redevelopment of Lots 1, 3 or 500 shall grant a 4 metre wide rear cross-easement for vehicular access to each of the other lots, prior to the occupation of any such redevelopment.

f) Vehicle access to and from Marine Parade is proposed via a single vehicle width crossover and no alternative vehicle access plan or arrangement has been provided to demonstrate how rear access can be achieved in future redevelopment of the adjoining lots. The proponent acknowledges that access could (theoretically) be provided from the rear of the site in the future and the rear of the ground floor is proposed to be constructed at grade with no permanent structures in the rear setback area and a 4 metre height clearance to the first floor.

g) The proponent is seeking a variation to the rear access requirement claiming that providing access from the rear would require the removal of the 1.5 metre wide deep soil zone across the rear of the property which is proposed to include trees to soften the rear elevation and this would result in more driveway areas and a poorer design outcome. This variation is not supported as it is contrary to clause 6.4.3.5(c) and Schedule 15 of LPS3 and will result in a permanent access arrangement that is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Cottesloe Foreshore Master Plan to remove and restrict vehicle access to Marine Parade


Page 35

for development along this portion of the foreshore.

h) The proposed vehicular access arrangements for the development include a vehicle lift to provide access to the two basement levels of car parking (27 car parking bays) plus 6 ground floor parking bays. The car lift operation requirements coupled with access to and from the site is via a single driveway from Marine Parade, will cause traffic conflict and delay to vehicles using this section of Marine Parade and create an unsafe environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

i) The proposed waste management arrangements for the development application are unacceptable as they are reliant on the waste collection vehicle reversing into the single driveway and loading the waste adjacent to the car lift. This will block any other vehicle access to and from the site while this is occurring. In addition both the Transport Impact Statement and the Access Strategy submitted in support of the application clearly indicate that the pathway for the movement of the waste vehicle to and from the site will cross the existing median strips adjacent to the site on Marine Parade and may cause serious delays to safe traffic movement on Marine Parade. Furthermore no allowance has not been made for the 6x660 litre waste bins to be transported through the car lift on collection days (40 mins of usage in and out) and the pick-up area for these bins appears to be inadequate.

j) Under Schedule 15 of LPS3 all development above a height of 12 metres is to be setback a minimum 4 metres from Marine Parade. The balconies of the fourth to ninth floors of the proposed development project into this setback area and are located 2.06 metres from the front boundary. This will result in some increase in overshadowing of the public domain which is unacceptable.

k) Under schedule 15 of LPS3 all development above a height of 12 metres is to be setback a minimum of 4metres from the rear eastern boundary. The proposed development does not comply with this requirement as it proposes a rear setback of 3.5 metres from the first to ninth floors which will increase the overshadowing impacts on adjacent properties to the east.

l) Lot 500 is located in relatively close proximity (approximately 180 metres to the west) of the Cottesloe Civic Centre which was made a Permanent Entry on the State Heritage Register in 1997. The height and bulk of the proposed development will adversely impact on important views to and from the Cottesloe Civic Centre. This conflicts with the objective of the Foreshore Centre zone under Clause 4.2.3(d) of LPS3 and the endorsed Conservation Plan for the Cottesloe Civic Centre.

m) The proposed development has a nil setback to all floors along the southern boundary of the site. This conflicts with the building control diagram 3 for SCA2 in Schedule 15 of LPS3 which indicates that building volumes on Lots 1, 500 and 3 Marine Parade, above 12 metres be terraced so that upper levels do not add to the shadow of the 3rd storey according to the angle of the sun in winter at noon on 21 June (winter solstice). The height of the proposed development coupled with a nil setback on the southern boundary will therefore result in the building encroaching into the area of the winter solstice and cause increased


Page 36

overshadowing of adjoining and adjacent properties including parts of the beach foreshore which will adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

n) Although the proposed use of the ground floor is of a commercial nature (cafe/restaurant) the 7 metre depth from the Marine Parade frontage does not comply with the required minimum depth of 9 metres under Clause 6.4.3.5 of LPS3.

o) Under LPS3 a café use is not defined but vehicle parking requirements for a restaurant is 1 car space for every 8 persons accommodated. The proposed cafe/ restaurant use of the commercial tenancy will have a capacity of approximately 40 persons based on an estimated seating area of 70m2. The required car parking for this use is 5 car bays however, the application proposes two car bays and seeks approval to a parking shortfall of two car bays based on an existing parking shortfall of 5 bays for the current shop use on Lot 500. Although under the circumstances the shortfall in car parking may be considered by Council possibly through a cash-in-lieu arrangement, application has not proposed this as an option.

p) The economic benefits statement submitted in support of the proposal indicates that the development cost is $22.75 million and that it will provide 69 full-time equivalent direct and indirect jobs during the construction of the development (construction timeframe 18 months) and 8 on-going jobs. The scale of the job creation for the project it is considered marginal and rather insignificant in terms of meeting the criteria as a significant development that represents broad ranging benefits for the State. Apart from unsubstantiated claims that there is significant demand for the proposed apartments no other information has been provided to confirm that finance has been secured for the development and that the project is not relying on pre-sales.

q) The proposed development does not satisfy sentiments previously expressed by the Cottesloe community that building height along the coastal foreshore east of Marine Parade should be restricted to a maximum 5-storeys in this location. This position has not changed and is strongly echoed in the community response to the current proposal. Furthermore, though the Town is supportive of increased residential density, it is the Town’s preference and the WAPC’s policy that this increase in density occur within the Transit Orientated Development Area (TOD), not Marine Parade.

2. That this entire report be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Cr Tucak proposed an amendment to add points r) and s) to the motion. Following discussion, Cr Young and Mayor Angers (as mover and seconder of the motion) agreed to incorporate Cr Tucak’s amendments into the substantive motion.

r) The proposed development is inconsistent with the State Government’s Strategic Planning Framework for the Perth and Peel regions as it:

is located adjacent to the Cottesloe Beach foreshore which is not identified as an ‘activity centre’ but as a ‘Metropolitan attractor’ and such development should be located in the Cottesloe Town Centre which is the designated activity centre


Page 37

under the Central Sub-Regional Framework;

does not adequately provide housing choice and diversity requirements for this locality;

adversely impacts on the existing public infrastructure along the Cottesloe foreshore through overshadowing and traffic conflict; and

adversely impacts on views to and from a State heritage listed site.

s) The proposed development is inconsistent with State Planning Policy 7.0 Design of the Built Environment as it fails to satisfy the 10 Design Principles that underpin the policy, including Context and character and Built form and scale as outlined in Council’s report.

COUNCILLOR RATIONALE: 1. Point r) picks up comments in the Officer’s Report on the Sub-Regional Framework.

2. Point s) addresses the importance of ‘good design’ in significant State developments.

OCM019/2021


1. THAT Council advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that it objects to the proposed nine (9) storey development for Lot 500 (Strata Lots 1-7) Marine Parade, Cottesloe for the following reasons:

a) The proposed development is contrary to the State Planning Framework including State Planning Policy No.2.6 of the Western Australian Planning Commission in respect to building height and adverse impacts on amenity of the locality.

b) The proposed development of nine storeys plus a roof terrace (33.7 metres to top of roof structures, including a photovoltaic array) is contrary to the requirements of the Town of Cottesloe Local Planning Scheme No.3 (LPS 3) as it exceeds the building height limit of a maximum of five (5) storeys (21metres above natural ground level).

c) The proposed development application cannot be approved under LPS 3 as there is no discretion under the Scheme to vary the maximum building height.

d) Lot 500 is zoned “Foreshore Centre zone” and is located in ‘Special Control Area 2’ (SCA2) in LPS3. The aims and objectives of the Scheme for the zone and SCA2 include providing opportunities for housing choice and variety and a limited range of commercial shopping. Clause 6.4.3.1(d) of the Scheme requires in SCA2 that development should provide a minimum of 25% of the total multiple dwellings proposed comprising a maximum plot ratio area of 70m2 and 25% shall comprise a maximum plot ratio of greater than 70m2 but not greater than 90m2. The size and composition of the multiple dwellings in the proposed 16 apartment development does not satisfy this requirement as only one dual key apartment (60m2) is provided.

e) Under clause 6.4.3.5(c) of LPS3 no vehicular ingress or egress to Marine Parade is permitted except in the case of Lot 500, where temporary access directly


Page 38

from Marine Parade may be approved, but only in the event that rear vehicular access is not at the time possible. Such temporary access must be immediately closed and the rear access implemented if rear access becomes available through the redevelopment of adjoining Lots 1 or 3, and in this regard, any redevelopment of Lots 1, 3 or 500 shall grant a 4 metre wide rear cross-easement for vehicular access to each of the other lots, prior to the occupation of any such redevelopment.

f) Vehicle access to and from Marine Parade is proposed via a single vehicle width crossover and no alternative vehicle access plan or arrangement has been provided to demonstrate how rear access can be achieved in future redevelopment of the adjoining lots. The proponent acknowledges that access could (theoretically) be provided from the rear of the site in the future and the rear of the ground floor is proposed to be constructed at grade with no permanent structures in the rear setback area and a 4 metre height clearance to the first floor.

g) The proponent is seeking a variation to the rear access requirement claiming that providing access from the rear would require the removal of the 1.5 metre wide deep soil zone across the rear of the property which is proposed to include trees to soften the rear elevation and this would result in more driveway areas and a poorer design outcome. This variation is not supported as it is contrary to clause 6.4.3.5(c) and Schedule 15 of LPS3 and will result in a permanent access arrangement that is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Cottesloe Foreshore Master Plan to remove and restrict vehicle access to Marine Parade for development along this portion of the foreshore.

h) The proposed vehicular access arrangements for the development include a vehicle lift to provide access to the two basement levels of car parking (27 car parking bays) plus 6 ground floor parking bays. The car lift operation requirements coupled with access to and from the site is via a single driveway from Marine Parade, will cause traffic conflict and delay to vehicles using this section of Marine Parade and create an unsafe environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

i) The proposed waste management arrangements for the development application are unacceptable as they are reliant on the waste collection vehicle reversing into the single driveway and loading the waste adjacent to the car lift. This will block any other vehicle access to and from the site while this is occurring. In addition both the Transport Impact Statement and the Access Strategy submitted in support of the application clearly indicate that the pathway for the movement of the waste vehicle to and from the site will cross the existing median strips adjacent to the site on Marine Parade and may cause serious delays to safe traffic movement on Marine Parade. Furthermore no allowance has not been made for the 6x660 litre waste bins to be transported through the car lift on collection days (40 mins of usage in and out) and the pick-up area for these bins appears to be inadequate.

j) Under Schedule 15 of LPS3 all development above a height of 12 metres is to be setback a minimum 4 metres from Marine Parade. The balconies of the


Page 39

fourth to ninth floors of the proposed development project into this setback area and are located 2.06 metres from the front boundary. This will result in some increase in overshadowing of the public domain which is unacceptable.

k) Under schedule 15 of LPS3 all development above a height of 12 metres is to be setback a minimum of 4metres from the rear eastern boundary. The proposed development does not comply with this requirement as it proposes a rear setback of 3.5 metres from the first to ninth floors which will increase the overshadowing impacts on adjacent properties to the east.

l) Lot 500 is located in relatively close proximity (approximately 180 metres to the west) of the Cottesloe Civic Centre which was made a Permanent Entry on the State Heritage Register in 1997. The height and bulk of the proposed development will adversely impact on important views to and from the Cottesloe Civic Centre. This conflicts with the objective of the Foreshore Centre zone under Clause 4.2.3(d) of LPS3 and the endorsed Conservation Plan for the Cottesloe Civic Centre.

m) The proposed development has a nil setback to all floors along the southern boundary of the site. This conflicts with the building control diagram 3 for SCA2 in Schedule 15 of LPS3 which indicates that building volumes on Lots 1, 500 and 3 Marine Parade, above 12 metres be terraced so that upper levels do not add to the shadow of the 3rd storey according to the angle of the sun in winter at noon on 21 June (winter solstice). The height of the proposed development coupled with a nil setback on the southern boundary will therefore result in the building encroaching into the area of the winter solstice and cause increased overshadowing of adjoining and adjacent properties including parts of the beach foreshore which will adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

n) Although the proposed use of the ground floor is of a commercial nature (cafe/restaurant) the 7 metre depth from the Marine Parade frontage does not comply with the required minimum depth of 9 metres under Clause 6.4.3.5 of LPS3.

o) Under LPS3 a café use is not defined but vehicle parking requirements for a restaurant is 1 car space for every 8 persons accommodated. The proposed cafe/ restaurant use of the commercial tenancy will have a capacity of approximately 40 persons based on an estimated seating area of 70m2. The required car parking for this use is 5 car bays however, the application proposes two car bays and seeks approval to a parking shortfall of two car bays based on an existing parking shortfall of 5 bays for the current shop use on Lot 500. Although under the circumstances the shortfall in car parking may be considered by Council possibly through a cash-in-lieu arrangement, application has not proposed this as an option.

p) The economic benefits statement submitted in support of the proposal indicates that the development cost is $22.75 million and that it will provide 69 full-time equivalent direct and indirect jobs during the construction of the development (construction timeframe 18 months) and 8 on-going jobs. The scale of the job creation for the project it is considered marginal and rather insignificant in terms of meeting the criteria as a significant development that


Page 40

represents broad ranging benefits for the State. Apart from unsubstantiated claims that there is significant demand for the proposed apartments no other information has been provided to confirm that finance has been secured for the development and that the project is not relying on pre-sales.

q) The proposed development does not satisfy sentiments previously expressed by the Cottesloe community that building height along the coastal foreshore east of Marine Parade should be restricted to a maximum 5-storeys in this location. This position has not changed and is strongly echoed in the community response to the current proposal. Furthermore, though the Town is supportive of increased residential density, it is the Town’s preference and the WAPC’s policy that this increase in density occur within the Transit Orientated Development Area (TOD), not Marine Parade.

r) The proposed development is inconsistent with the State Government’s Strategic Planning Framework for the Perth and Peel regions as it:

is located adjacent to the Cottesloe Beach foreshore which is not identified as an ‘activity centre’ but as a ‘Metropolitan attractor’ and such development should be located in the Cottesloe Town Centre which is the designated activity centre under the Central Sub-Regional Framework;

does not adequately provide housing choice and diversity requirements for this locality;

adversely impacts on the existing public infrastructure along the Cottesloe foreshore through overshadowing and traffic conflict; and

adversely impacts on views to and from a State heritage listed site.

s) The proposed development is inconsistent with State Planning Policy 7.0 Design of the Built Environment as it fails to satisfy the 10 Design Principles that underpin the policy, including Context and character and Built form and scale as outlined in Council’s report.

2. That this entire report be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Carried 9/0

COUNCILLOR RATIONALE: 1. Point r) picks up comments in the Officer’s Report on the Sub-Regional Framework.

2. Point s) addresses the importance of ‘good design’ in significant State developments.


Page 41

CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

10.1.3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MEETINGS PROCEDURE) LOCAL LAW

File Ref: SUB/2798 Attachments: 10.1.3(a) Draft Town of Cottesloe Local Government

(Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021 [under separate cover]

10.1.3(b) Department of Local Government Submission [under separate cover]

10.1.3(c) Submission from Stephen Mellor [under separate cover]

Responsible Officer: Matthew Scott, Chief Executive Officer Author: Shane Collie, Director Corporate and Community Services Author Disclosure of Interest: Nil

SUMMARY

This report proposes the making of a new Town of Cottesloe (Meeting Procedure) Local Law pursuant to Section 3.12 (4) of the Local Government Act 1995.

BACKGROUND

The Town of Cottesloe currently has a Standing Orders Local Law as published in the Government Gazette on 12 July 2012. The Minister for Local Government has carriage of the powers conferred by the Local Government Act 1995 for the Standing Orders Local Law.

At Council’s meeting held on 24 November 2020, Council resolved to provide the required public notice of the intent to make the Town of Cottesloe (Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021. Public consultation was undertaken as part of the advertising process required by Section 3.12 (3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which is for a minimum of 42 days. The proposed Local Law was advertised on 5 December 2020, with a closing date for submissions of 22 January 2021.

Two submissions were received as part of the advertising process. While the submissions were both late there was value in considering them and the detail in them has subsequently been analysed and some changes made to the draft Local Law.


This report is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023.

Priority Area 6: Providing open and accountable local governance

Major Strategy 6.2: Continue to deliver high quality governance, administration, resource management and professional development.


Page 42

POLICY IMPLICATIONS



Local Government Act 1995

3.5. Legislative power of local governments

(1) A local government may make Local Laws under this Act prescribing all matters that are required or permitted to be prescribed by a local law, or are necessary or convenient to be so prescribed, for it to perform any of its functions under this Act.

3.12 Procedure for making a Local Law

(1) In making a Local Law a local government is to follow the procedure described in this section, in the sequence in which it is described.

(2A) Despite subsection (1), a failure to follow the procedure described in this section does not invalidate a local law if there has been substantial compliance with the procedure.

(2) At a council meeting the person presiding is to give notice to the meeting of the purpose and effect of the proposed local law in the prescribed manner.

(3) The local government is to —

(a) give local public notice stating that —

(i) the local government proposes to make a local law the purpose and effect of which is summarized in the notice; and

(ii) a copy of the proposed local law may be inspected or obtained at any place specified in the notice; and

(iii) submissions about the proposed local law may be made to the local government before a day to be specified in the notice, being a day that is not less than 6 weeks after the notice is given; and

(b) as soon as the notice is given, give a copy of the proposed local law and a copy of the notice to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister; and

(c) provide a copy of the proposed local law, in accordance with the notice, to any person requesting it.

(4) After the last day for submissions, the local government is to consider any submissions made and may make the local law* as proposed or make a local law* that is not significantly different from what was proposed.


Page 43

* Absolute majority required.

(5) After making the local law, the local government is to publish it in the Gazette and give a copy of it to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister.

(6) After the local law has been published in the Gazette the local government is to give local public notice —

(a) stating the title of the local law; and

(b) summarising the purpose and effect of the local law (specifying the day on which it comes into operation); and

(c) advising that the local law is published on the local government’s official website and that copies of the local law may be inspected at or obtained from the local government’s office.

(7) The Minister may give directions to local governments requiring them to provide to the Parliament copies of local laws they have made and any explanatory or other material relating to them.

(8) In this section —

making in relation to a local law, includes making a local law to amend the text of, or repeal, a local law.


Resource requirements are in accordance with the existing budgetary allocation and consist predominantly of officer time and advertising costs.


There are no perceived staffing implications arising from the officer’s recommendation aside from time allocation as required to undertake the review of the Local Law.



CONSULTATION

The formal consultation process is embedded in the legislation associated with the review of a Local Law. Consultation consists of two 6 week advertising periods notwithstanding that informal consultation on this particular Local Law was undertaken late in 2019.

As part of the advertising process the Department of Local Government made a late submission. The Department did make contact seeking an extension of time to make a


Page 44

submission. Their submission is helpful and picked up some minor matters which have seen some changes recommended to the draft Local Law.

A submission was also made from Mr Stephen Mellor and while it was received late it is clear that the submission was made within the required time.

OFFICER COMMENT

The purpose of this report is to:

1. Consider the submissions received on the proposed Town of Cottesloe (Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021.

2. Give notice to the purpose and effect of the Town of Cottesloe (Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021.

3. Make the Town of Cottesloe (Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021.

4. Authorise the Local Law’s gazettal in the Government Gazette.

5. Give local public notice, (after gazettal) of the making of the Local Law including the date upon which it is to come into operation.

6. Authorise the affixing of the Town’s Common Seal to the Local Law.

The purpose and effect of the proposed Town of Cottesloe Local Government (Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021 is as follows:

Purpose: To provide for the orderly conduct of the proceedings and business of the Council, and for the safe custody and use of the Council’s Common Seal.

Effect: To ensure that all Council meetings, committee meetings, and other meetings as described in the Local Government Act 1995, and the use of Council’s Common Seal, are governed by this Local Law unless otherwise provided in the Act, regulations or other written law.

The Local Law can now be finalised and will come into effect 14 days after its publication in the Government Gazette.

The Department of Local Government submission has resulted in some changes which are tracked in the attached draft Local Law. These are further explained and specifically set out in their submission which is also attached.

The submission by Mr Stephen Mellor is also attached with the points raised noted however there was no recommended changes to the draft Local Law resulting from Mr Mellor’s submission.

The Town of Cottesloe current Standing Orders Local Law review was commenced in late 2019. The updated Local Law and has been through 12 draft versions, numerous formal and informal meetings and is based on industry standard. It is considered that these final amendments recommended as a result of the Department of Local Government submission are not “significantly different” necessitating the Local Law process to be recommenced.


Page 45

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Absolute Majority


Moved Cr Young Seconded Cr Sadler

THAT Council:

1. THANKS those that provided submissions on the Town’s proposed Local Government (Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021;

2. ADOPTS by Absolute Majority the Town of Cottesloe (Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021 as attached to this report;

3. AUTHORISES the Local Law’s gazettal in the Government Gazette;

4. AUTHORISES the Local Public Notice advertisement, (after gazettal), of the making of the Local Law including the date upon which it is to come into operation; and

5. AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to affix the Town’s Common Seal to the Town of Cottesloe (Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021.



2. ADOPTS by Absolute Majority the Town of Cottesloe (Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021 as attached to this report along with the words “by absolute majority” added after “that is carried by the meeting” in Rule 5.4 (New Business of an Urgent Nature), and “procedural” added before the words “motion by the presiding member that is carried by the meeting”;


The requirement of an absolute majority on urgent items of which the public have not been given any advance notice provides an appropriate safeguard against the rule being misused. It is unclear whether the motion that must be carried is a substantive motion raised by the presiding member, or simply a procedural motion to first introduce the matter to a meeting.



That in Clause 6.7(6)(a) the following words are added at the end of the paragraph:

‘except where the question seeks new or further information.’


Page 46

OCM020/2021


THAT Council:

1. THANKS those that provided submissions on the Town’s proposed Local Government (Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021;

2. ADOPTS by Absolute Majority the Town of Cottesloe (Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021 as attached to this report;

3. AUTHORISES the Local Law’s gazettal in the Government Gazette;

4. AUTHORISES the Local Public Notice advertisement, (after gazettal), of the making of the Local Law including the date upon which it is to come into operation; and

5. AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to affix the Town’s Common Seal to the Town of Cottesloe (Meeting Procedure) Local Law 2021.

Carried by Absolute Majority 8/1


Page 47

10.1.4 ORDINARY ELECTION - APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER

File Ref: SUB/2798 Attachments: 10.1.4(a) Letter - Local Government Ordinary Election

2021 [under separate cover] Responsible Officer: Matthew Scott, Chief Executive Officer Author: Shane Collie, Director Corporate and Community Services Author Disclosure of Interest: Nil

SUMMARY

That in accordance with section 4.20(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Western Australian Electoral Commissioner be responsible for the conduct of the 2021 Town of Cottesloe Ordinary Election together with any other elections or polls which may also be required.

That in accordance with Section 4.61(2) of the Local Government Act 1995, the method of conducting the election be a postal election.

BACKGROUND

To assist in budget preparations the Western Australian Electoral Commission has provided Council with an estimate for the next scheduled Ordinary Election, scheduled for planned for 16 October 2021.

The current procedure required by the Local Government Act 1995 is that the Western Australia Electoral Commissioner’s written agreement is to be obtained before the vote is taken.

To facilitate the process, the letter received by the Town from the Western Australia Electoral Commissioner can be taken as agreement by the Commission to be responsible for the conduct of the 2021 Town of Cottesloe Ordinary Election, together with any other elections or polls that may also be required.





POLICY IMPLICATIONS




4.20. CEO to be returning officer unless other arrangements made


Page 48

(1) Subject to this section the CEO is the returning officer of a local government for each election.

(2) A local government may, having first obtained the written agreement of the person concerned and the written approval of the Electoral Commissioner, appoint* a person other than the CEO to be the returning officer of the local government for —

(a) an election; or

(b) all elections held while the appointment of the person subsists. * Absolute majority required.

(3) An appointment under subsection (2) —

(a) is to specify the term of the person’s appointment; and

(b) has no effect if it is made after the 80th day before an election day.

(4) A local government may, having first obtained the written agreement of the Electoral Commissioner, declare* the Electoral Commissioner to be responsible for the conduct of an election, or all elections conducted within a particular period of time, and, if such a declaration is made, the Electoral Commissioner is to appoint a person to be the returning officer of the local government for the election or elections.

* Absolute majority required.

(5) A declaration under subsection (4) has no effect if it is made after the 80th day before election day unless a declaration has already been made in respect of an election for the local government and the declaration is in respect of an additional election for the same local government.

(6) A declaration made under subsection (4) on or before the 80th day before election day cannot be rescinded after that 80th day.

4.61. Choice of methods of conducting election

(1) The election can be conducted as a —

postal election which is an election at which the method of casting votes is by posting or delivering them to an electoral officer on or before election day; or

voting in person election which is an election at which the principal method of casting votes is by voting in person on election day but at which votes can also be cast in person before election day, or posted or delivered, in accordance with regulations.

(2) The local government may decide* to conduct the election as a postal election. * Absolute majority required.

(3) A decision under subsection (2) has no effect if it is made after the 80th day before election day unless a declaration has already been made in respect of an election for the local government and the declaration is in respect of an additional election for the same local government.


Page 49

(4) A decision under subsection (2) has no effect unless it is made after a declaration is made under section 4.20(4) that the Electoral Commissioner is to be responsible for the conduct of the election or in conjunction with such a declaration.

(5) A decision made under subsection (2) on or before the 80th day before election day cannot be rescinded after that 80th day.

(6) For the purposes of this Act, the poll for an election is to be regarded as having been held on election day even though the election is conducted as a postal election.

(7) Unless a resolution under subsection (2) has effect, the election.


The estimated cost for the Western Australian Electoral Commission to conduct the 2021 election is $36,000 including GST, which has been based on the following assumptions:

• 6,100 electors

• Response rate of approximately 50%

• Five vacancies

• Count to be conducted at the premises of the Town of Cottesloe

• Appointment of a local Returning Officer

• Regular Australia Post delivery service to apply

Costs not incorporated in the estimate include:

• Non-statutory advertising (for example, additional advertisements in community newspapers and promotional advertising)

• Any legal expenses other than those that are determined to be borne by the Western Australian Electoral Commission in a Court of Disputed Returns

• Local government staff members to work in the polling place on election day

• Any additional postage rate increase by Australia Post


Council staff are required to assist the Western Australia Electoral Commission on the day of the count and other preliminary matters. These costs are funded from existing salary allocations.



CONSULTATION

Western Australian Electoral Commission


Page 50

OFFICER COMMENT

The Town’s previous elections have been held as postal elections and conducted by the Western Australian Electoral Commission. This method of conducting elections is the only way to ensure complete impartiality in the electoral process. The Electoral Commission effectively has a monopoly in conducting the elections as no other entity, aside from the local government itself, is permitted to conduct local government elections.

It is anticipated that electronic systems will be developed in the coming years for all elections. Until this time arrives it is recommended that the Town utilise the Western Australian Electoral Commission to conduct elections on behalf of the Town.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Absolute Majority

OCM021/2021

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION


That Council by Absolute Majority:

1. DECLARES, in accordance with section 4.20(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Electoral Commissioner to be responsible for the conduct of the 2021 Town of Cottesloe ordinary election together with any other elections or polls which may also be required.

2. DECIDES, in accordance with Section 4.61(2) of the Local Government Act 1995, that the method of conducting the election be as a postal election.

Carried by En Bloc Resolution by Absolute Majority 9/0


Page 51

10.1.5 PURCHASING POLICY

File Ref: SUB/2798 Attachments: 10.1.5(a) Proposed Policy V2 [under separate cover] Responsible Officer: Matthew Scott, Chief Executive Officer Author: Shane Collie, Director Corporate and Community Services Author Disclosure of Interest: Nil

SUMMARY

This report presents a minor review of the Town’s Purchasing Policy recommending that Council adopts an updated Purchasing Policy as attached.

BACKGROUND

Legislative change and some internal officer title changes has led to a review of the Town’s Purchasing Policy and the Purchasing Authority Limits.





This report is consistent with the Town’s Corporate Business Plan 2020 – 2024.

Priority Area 6: Providing open and accountable local governance.

Major Strategy 6.2: Ongoing review and updating of various Council Policies, Local Laws and Delegations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The report recommends that Council adopts an updated Purchasing Policy and revokes the current Policy.


Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (As amended) Sections 11A and 11 are applicable.

11A. Purchasing policies for local governments

(1) A local government is to prepare or adopt, and is to implement, a purchasing policy in relation to contracts for other persons to supply goods or services where the consideration under the contract is, or is expected to be, $250 000 or less or worth $250 000 or less.


Page 52

(2) A purchasing policy is to make provision for and in respect of the policy to be followed by the local government for, and in respect of, entering into contracts referred to in subregulation (1).

(3) A purchasing policy must make provision in respect of — (a) the form of quotations acceptable; and

(ba) the minimum number of oral quotations and written quotations that must be obtained; and

(b) the recording and retention of written information, or documents, in respect of —

(i) all quotations received; and (ii) all purchases made.

11. When tenders have to be publicly invited

(1A) In this regulation — state of emergency declaration has the meaning given in the Emergency

Management Act 2005 section 3.

(1) Tenders are to be publicly invited according to the requirements of this Division before a local government enters into a contract for another person to supply goods or services if the consideration under the contract is, or is expected to be, more, or worth more, than $250 000 unless subregulation (2) states otherwise.


The staffing implications are minimal with processes already in place which ensures a compliant and effective Purchasing system operates.



CONSULTATION

Nil.

OFFICER COMMENT

The key changes to the Purchasing Policy are listed below:

• Increase in the maximum non Tender threshold amount from $150,000 to $250,000 consistent with the recent amendments to the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

• Increase in the non Tender threshold limit for second tier staff from $50,000 to $150,000.


Page 53

• Inclusion of lower level limitations of Purchasing to officers included in the one Policy rather than a separate document. This has no impact and is an administrative matter.

• Update to include new titles of officers.

• The inclusion of a brief statement supporting, where feasible, positive social procurement and economic benefit in purchasing decisions.

It was considered that these changes above are very simplistic and therefore there was no need to circulate this matter to those elected members who are designated to review Policies prior to Council’s full consideration.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

OCM022/2021



THAT Council REVOKES the current Purchasing Policy adopted on 28 April 2020 and ADOPTS the new Purchasing Policy as attached.

Carried by En Bloc Resolution 9/0


Page 54

10.1.6 DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL TOURISM TRAILS

File Ref: SUB/2798 Attachments: 10.1.6(a) Project Brief - Secrets of the Sunset Coast

[under separate cover] 10.1.6(b) Destination Perth Perth Region Tourism

Organisation Inc 2020-21 Marketing Activities [under separate cover]

Responsible Officer: Matthew Scott, Chief Executive Officer Author: Shane Collie, Director Corporate and Community Services Author Disclosure of Interest: Nil

SUMMARY

For Council to consider participating in and making a contributing to a Regional Trails initiative with the Cities of Joondalup, Wanneroo, Stirling and the Town of Cambridge. The project is supported by the State Government agency Destination Perth and it is also recommended that the Town become a member of that Organisation.

BACKGROUND

The City of Joondalup has written to Council seeking participation in a Regional Trails Program tentatively titled “Secrets of the Sunset Coast”. The proposal seeks to highlight through connecting trails the approximate 60km of coastal area attractions including businesses between Cottesloe in the south and up towards Mindarie in the north.

The project is unique in that it seeks to highlight “hidden gems” that exist in close proximity to the coast. It is noted that Trails appeal to domestic visitors who are primarily self drive, confident travellers providing the visitor the capacity and freedom to determine the pace, the cost, the time and energy that they expend. The project is to be delivered by a consultant selected by Destination Perth.

The consultant’s brief for the project is to establish up to three trails with a view to developing further trails based on the success of these initial trails. The trails must be across the Sunset Coast Region. The trails should include Local Government areas of the Towns of Cambridge and Cottesloe and the Cities of Stirling, Wanneroo and Joondalup. The trails can include links back to the Perth City.

The consultant is required to research across the region for artists’ studios, makers’ yards, owner-operated retail outlets for artisans, interesting walks in parks and reserves, hidden historical locations, open gardens, good photo opportunity locations, special coffee shops, book shops, tattooists and individual and unique services where passionate people can be found.

The Project Brief (Attached) stipulates that the trails should be linked through a theme or themes which would be established around the business types and attractions which participate. These may target the demographics or the interests of the visitor such as cycling, using public transport, young children, active retirees, 30somethings. There should however, be consistency between the trails and some common elements which appeal to all visitors, eg good coffee providers, culture and history, photography opportunities etc.


Page 55

The management, launch and promotion of these trails is separate to this project and something that is highly likely to be the next undertaken.




Priority Area 3: Enhancing beach access and the foreshore.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

There are no perceived Policy implications arising from the officer’s recommendation.


Local Government Act 1995.


This initiative was developed by the City of Joondalup and then presented to other Local Government partners and Destination Perth as a potential collaborative project. Following a number of meetings and discussions a budget of $50,000 was created for this project proposed as follows:

City of Joondalup $10,000

City of Wanneroo $10,000

City of Stirling $10,000

Town of Cambridge $5,000

Town of Cottesloe $5,000

Destination Perth $10,000

Total $50,000

It is proposed that Destination Perth will oversee the management of this project. In addition to their financial commitment of $10,000, Destination Perth will bring to the project its marketing and publicity machine which is in place for projects such as this and has an audience outreach estimated at 200,000. Additionally, Destination Perth has many contacts with marketing consultants who have the experience to create and develop this initiative. It is proposed that Destination Perth will seek quotes and appoint the consultant.

The Town’s proposed contribution is presently not contained within the 2020/21 budget and therefore should Council become a financial contributor an Absolute Majority decision would be required for unbudgeted expenditure. This matter has been considered and is included as part of the current budget review.


Page 56





CONSULTATION

City of Joondalup.

OFFICER COMMENT

The project as proposed appears to have merit and the financial contribution requested is not large in terms of total amount, percentage of whole of project cost and what would be expected to be achieved. The objectives, deliverables and anticipated benefits are contained within the attachment to this report.

A particularly desired outcome is that the Town would create a website link and use other social media opportunities to have the trails information available in easily downloadable format. The promotion of “non iconic” small businesses, activities, events and other unique experiences makes this project attractive also being something different in the wake of the travel and other Covid related restrictions.

The project is supported and a contribution recommended.

Additionally Destination Perth is involved in a number of promotional activities which are seen as beneficial to the promotion of the Town and the region in general. Examples are attached in their 2021/21 Schedule of Marketing Activities. It is recommended that the Town become a member of Destination Perth which will see Cottesloe included in these promotional activities also. There is no cost associated with membership.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Absolute Majority (Rly)

OCM023/2021


Moved Cr Sadler Seconded Cr Masarei

THAT Council:

1. Participate in the Secrets of the Sunset Coast collaborative Tourism Trails project contributing the requested amount of $5,000 through the present budget review process.

2. Become a member of Destination Perth.

Carried 6/3


Page 57

10.1.7 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY 2020 TO 31 DECEMBER 2020 AND 1 JULY 2020 TO 31 JANUARY 2021

File Ref: SUB/2798 Attachments: 10.1.7(a) Monthly Financial Statements for the period 1

July 2020 to 31 December 2020 and 1 July 2020 to 31 January 2021 [under separate cover]

Responsible Officer: Matthew Scott, Chief Executive Officer Author: Wayne Richards, Finance Manager Author Disclosure of Interest: Nil

SUMMARY

It is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1995 that monthly and quarterly financial statements are presented to Council, in order to allow for proper control of the Town’s finances and ensure that income and expenditure are compared to budget forecasts.

The attached financial statements and supporting information are presented for the consideration of Elected Members. Council staff welcomes enquiries in regard to the information contained within these reports.

BACKGROUND

In order to prepare the attached financial statements, the following reconciliations and financial procedures have been completed and verified:

• Reconciliation of all bank accounts.

• Reconciliation of rates and source valuations.

• Reconciliation of assets and liabilities.

• Reconciliation of payroll and taxation.

• Reconciliation of accounts payable and accounts receivable ledgers.

• Allocation of costs from administration, public works overheads and plant operations.

• Reconciliation of loans and investments.






Priority Area 4: Managing Development.



Page 58

POLICY IMPLICATIONS




Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996


Resource requirements are in accordance with the existing budgetary allocation.






CONSULTATION

Senior staff.

OFFICER COMMENT

Financial Statements 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2020

The following comments and/or statements provide a brief summary of major financial/budget indicators and are included to assist in the interpretation and understanding of the attached financial statements:

• The net current funding position as at 31 December 2020 was $5,419,088 as compared to $6,537,165 this time last year.

• Rates receivables at 31 December 2020 stood at $1,903,693 compared to $1,598,389 this time last year as shown on page 25 of the attached financial statements.

• Operating revenue is more than year to date budget by $321,876 with a more detailed explanation of material variances provided on page 21 of the attached financial statements. Operating expenditure is $1,242,007 less than year to date budget due in main part to depreciation charges not having been posted, this will occur once the 2019/20 Annual Report has been audited and finalised.

• The capital works program is shown in detail on pages 34 to 35 of the attached financial statements.

• The balance of cash backed reserves was $9,115,023 as at 31 December 2020 as shown in note 7 on page 28 of the attached financial statements.


Page 59

List of Accounts Paid for December 2020

The list of accounts paid during December 2020 is shown on pages 36 to 42 of the attached financial statements. The following significant payments are brought to Council’s attention:

• $32,822.02 to Kott Gunning for legal services.

• $121,196.35 & $52,394.67 to Aspect Studios Pty Ltd for detailed design works at the foreshore.

• $26,501.30 to the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety for building services levies collected on their behalf.

• $145,007.34 to Menchetti Consolidated Pty Ltd for construction works at the foreshore.

• $25,493.05 & $25,737.352 to SuperChoice Services Pty Ltd for staff superannuation contributions.

• $88,852.89 to Solo Resource Recovery for waste collection and disposal services.

• $49,500.00 to shark barrier storage and maintenance costs.

• $519,104.78 to the Department of Fire of Emergency Services for an instalment of emergency services levies.

• $104,591.10 to Surf Life Saving WA for lifeguard services.

Investments and Loans

Cash and investments are shown in note 4 on page 23 of the attached financial statements. The Town has approximately 35% of funds invested with the National Australia Bank, 41% with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and 24% with Westpac Banking Corporation. A balance of $9,115,023 was held in reserve funds as at 31 December 2020.

Information on borrowings is shown in note 10 on page 31 of the attached financial statements. The Town had total principal outstanding of $3,298,441 as at 31 December 2020.

Rates, Sundry Debtors and Other Receivables

Rates outstanding are shown on note 6 on page 25 and show a balance of $1,903,693 outstanding as compared to $1,598,389 this time last year.

Sundry debtors are shown on note 6 on page 25 of the attached financial statements. The sundry debtors report shows that 20% or $10,386 is older than 90 days. A more detailed breakdown of debtors older than 90 days is shown on page 26. Infringement debtors are shown on note 6 on page 27 and stood at $432,024 as at 31 December 2020.

Budget amendments are shown on note 5 on page 24 of the attached financial statements. Financial Statements 1 July 2020 to 31 January 2021

The following comments and/or statements provide a brief summary of major financial/budget indicators and are included to assist in the interpretation and understanding of the attached financial statements:


Page 60

• The net current funding position as at 31 January 2021 was $5,333,446 as compared to $5,465,111 this time last year.

• Rates receivables at 31 January 2021 stood at $1,172,270 compared to $975,838 this time last year as shown on page 25 of the attached financial statements.

• Operating revenue is more than year to date budget by $462,519 with a more detailed explanation of material variances provided on page 21 of the attached financial statements. Operating expenditure is $1,579,098 less than year to date budget due in main part to depreciation charges not having been posted, this will occur once the 2019/20 Annual Report has been audited and finalised.

• The capital works program is shown in detail on pages 34 to 35 of the attached financial statements.

• The balance of cash backed reserves was $9,119,614 as at 31 January 2021 as shown in note 7 on page 28 of the attached financial statements.

List of Accounts Paid for January 2021

The list of accounts paid during January 2021 is shown on pages 36 to 42 of the attached financial statements. The following significant payments are brought to Council’s attention:

• $68,964.05 to the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation Safety for building service levies collected on their behalf.

• $95,818.31 to the Construction Training Fund for construction training levies collected on their behalf.

• $25,368.50, $25,030.44 & $26,340.91 to SuperChoice Services Pty Ltd for staff superannuation contributions.

• $43,200.40 to the Western Metropolitan Reginal Council for waste disposal fees.

• $74,075.96 to Rico Enterprises Pty Ltd for waste collection and disposal services.

• $48,138.02 to Roads 2000 Pty Ltd for road resurfacing works.

• $1,201,525.72 to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to reinvest surplus funds.

Investments and Loans

Cash and investments are shown in note 4 on page 23 of the attached financial statements. The Town has approximately 35% of funds invested with the National Australia Bank, 41% with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and 24% with Westpac Banking Corporation. A balance of $9,119,614 was held in reserve funds as at 31 January 2021.

Information on borrowings is shown in note 10 on page 31 of the attached financial statements. The Town had total principal outstanding of $3,298,441 as at 31 January 2021.


Page 61

Rates, Sundry Debtors and Other Receivables

Rates outstanding are shown on note 6 on page 25 and show a balance of $1,903,693 outstanding as compared to $1,598,389 this time last year.

Sundry debtors are shown on note 6 on page 25 of the attached financial statements. The sundry debtors report shows that 6% or $10,414 is older than 90 days. A more detailed breakdown of debtors older than 90 days is shown on page 26. Infringement debtors are shown on note 6 on page 27 and stood at $469,536 as at 31 January 2021.

Budget amendments are shown on note 5 on page 24 of the attached financial statements.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

OCM024/2021



THAT Council RECEIVES the Monthly Financial Statements for the period 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2020, and 1 July 2020 to 31 January 2021 as submitted to the 23 February 2021 meeting of Council.



Page 62

ENGINEERING SERVICES

10.1.8 BEACH ACCESS PATH RATIONALISATION

File Ref: SUB/2798 Attachments: 10.1.8(a) Beach Access Paths Consultation - Email

Submissions ~ Received 19 January 2021 to 8 February 2021 [under separate cover]

10.1.8(b) All Survey Comments Combined - Beach Access Path Possible Closure and Upgrade 2021 [under separate cover]

Responsible Officer: Matthew Scott, Chief Executive Officer Author: Shaun Kan, Director Engineering Services Author Disclosure of Interest: Nil

SUMMARY

Council is asked to consider the results received from the public consultation survey and approve the closure of the various path identified within the officer’s recommendation.

BACKGROUND

At the November 2020 Ordinary Meeting, Council endorsed a public consultation survey to seek feedback on the proposed treatment to the following paths:

a. Amalgamation of N10, N11 and N12 Paths through the permanent closure of N10 (“Dog Beach”) and N12 (“North Street”) with N11 (“Osprey”) to remain open;

b. Permanent closure of N2 (“Van Eileen”);

c. Permanent closure of C3 (yet un-named);

d. Permanent closure of path S11 (“Walbirriny” (healing));

e. Permanent closure of S6 (“Deep Six”); and

f. The final arrangement for path S4 (“Wearne”) and S5 (“Gibney Street”) will be subjected to consultation feedback on the options listed under recommendation seven within the officer’s comments and further engineering investigations.

The Beach Emergency Number (BEN) Signs will also be implemented on paths that remain open.

A total of 164 responses were received through the online survey portal that was open between 18 January 2021 and 8 February 2021. These results and a register summarising email submissions have been attached with this report.

Below is a visual summary of the proposed closures mentioned in points (a) to (e) and associated photographs showing the condition of each path:

Path Number

Condition Rating Comments Landmark

N12 2

North Street Roundabout


Page 63

70m N11 2

85m

N10 3 Should be closed as this path continually requires sand nourishment

70m

N9 2

Vera View Slow Point 130m

N8 2 150m

N7 1 Recently upgraded Grant Street 110m

N6 1 Needs sand at the bottom 180m

N4 2 Bottom treads need replacing 210m

N3 2 Needs sand at the bottom 35m

N2 5 Poor condition requiring replacement 85m

N1 3 70m

C4 2 35m

C3 5 storm damaged 100m

Unknown Path

Edge of northern terraces

40m

C2 1 northern side of Indiana’s

85m

C1 1 southern side of Indiana’s

280m S15 5 Upgrade in Progress

200m S14 1

130m S13 1

200m S12 1

100m


Page 64

S11 5 should be removed 85m

S10 1 100m

S9 3 70m

S8 5 should be removed 35m

S7 2 35m

S6 5 Should be removed joins into s7 70

S5 2

150m

S4 2 needs platform at bottom 2020/21 capital works

280m S3 4

220m S2 2

85m S1 1

Table One: Visual Summary of Proposed Closures

N2


Page 65

N10

N11


Page 66

N12

S6


Page 67

S8

S11



Priority Area 3: Enhancing beach access and the foreshore

Major Strategy 3.2: Continue to improve access to beach facilities.


Priority Area 1: Protect and enhance the wellbeing of residents and visitors.

Major Strategy 1.3: Continue to improve access and inclusion of aged persons and those with disabilities.


Page 68

POLICY IMPLICATIONS





There is no budget in the 2020/2021 financial year to undertake these path closures. This will be incorporated in the 2021/2022 budget.

The following table summarises the potential cost savings associated with each closure:

Path Renewal Maintenance (Per Annum)

N10 $180,000 $5,000 N12 $250,000 $5,000 N2 $200,000 $5,000 S6 $150,000 $5,000 S8 $180,000 $5,000 S11 $150,000 $5,000 C3 $200,000 $2,000 Total $1,310,000 $32,000


The works will be undertaken by both Town Staff and contractors will be engaged where required.


There are no perceived sustainability implications arising from the officer’s recommendation. The closure will allow for the installation of planting for dune stabilisation.

CONSULTATION

Town of Cottesloe Staff

Elected Members

Cottesloe Residents and Wider Community

The Wearne Hostel have been consulted on the proposed arrangements for the paths S4 and S5 adjacent to the aged care facility and are generally supportive of a universal access path being provided at this location. They are open to further discussions once the matter has been determined by Council.


Page 69

OFFICER COMMENT

The results have been analysed and can be summarised as follows:

• 55 percent have indicated that the preferred approach would be to provide universal access at S7 with S4 and S5 to remain in their current location. This is followed by the option of constructing a universal access closer to Gibney Street through either the closure of both S4 and S5 or closure and relocation of S4 only. Closure and relocation of S5 only was not strongly supported.

• 32 percent are supportive and 53 percent do not agree with the closure of N10 and N12 with all access at these paths be re-directed to N11;

• 40 percent support and 22 percent do not agree with the closure of N2;

• 38 percent support and 29 percent do not agree with the closure of C3, current inaccessible due to storm damage;

• 23 percent support and 27 percent do not agree with the permanent closure of S11; and

• 35 percent support and 28 percent do not agree with the permanent closure of S6

The outstanding percentages not mentioned within points two to six are have selected either neutral or undecided response options towards the various proposals. The in-support statistics are represented by those that either agree or strongly agree whilst the do not agree are denoted by those that have selected disagree or strongly disagree.

The following recommendations have been made for Council’s consideration based on community feedback received and the data obtained through the opinion survey:

• Amalgamation of N10, N11 and N12 Paths through the permanent closure of N10 (“Dog Beach”) and N12 (“North Street”) with N11 (“Osprey”) to remain open;

• Permanent closure of N2 (“Van Eileen”);

• Permanent closure of C3 (yet un-named);

• Permanent closure of path S11 (“Walbirriny” (healing));

• Permanent closure of S6 (“Deep Six”); and

• Proceed with the investigation of S7 as the preferred location to provide a universal access path given the strong support for this approach, noting the 130 metres distance from Gibney Street;

Should Council accept the officer’s recommendation, the following would be the long term access path layout along the Cottesloe Foreshore. The green highlight represents paths under further investigation to provide universal access.

Path Number

Condition Rating Comments Landmark

ND35 City of Nedlands 120m

N11 2

155m


Page 70

N9 2

Vera View Slow Point 130m

N8 2 150m

N7 1 Recently upgraded Grant Street 110m

N6 1 Recently Upgraded 180m

N4 2

210m

N3 2

115m

N1 3 70m

C4 2 135m

Unknown Path

Edge of northern terraces

40m

C2 1 northern side of Indianas

85m

C1 1 southern side of Indianas

280m S15 5 Upgrade in Progress

200m S14 1

130m S13 1

200m S12 1 Recently Upgraded

185m S10 1 Recently Upgraded

100m S9 3

115m S7 2

115m

S5 2

150m


Page 71

S4 2 280m

S3 4 220m

S2 2 85m

S1 1 Table Two: Revised Path Layout

Council is asked to particularly note the results pertaining to the amalgamation of N10, N11 and N12. Whilst there may be strong support for these paths to open, the recommendation to close N10 and N12 does not create unreasonable separation (less than 100 metres) with alternative paths within the vicinity as indicated below and shown in table One:

• With the closure of N12, there is the option to use NE35 (50 metres to the north within the City of Nedlands) and N11 (70 metres to the south); and

• With the closure of N10, adjacent paths are N11 (85 metres to the north) and N9 (70 metres to the south).

Reasons such as paths being proposed for closure carry heavy pedestrian volumes or are used daily, as indicated in the survey, do not appear to carry sufficient merit to maintain the current path layout. Council can amend accordingly but would need to carefully consider the impact on cost saving opportunities when doing so, as shown in the table within the financial implication section of the report.

Upon the confirmation of the final beach access path layout, the Town will then approach the State Government to progress the Beach Emergency Number (BEN) Signs program. This would achieve path identification consistency with a majority of other coastal Local Governments and reduce emergency response time.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority


THAT Council:

1. THANKS the community for taking the time to provide feedback;

2. APPROVES the following Beach Access Path arrangements:

a. Amalgamation of N10, N11 and N12 Paths through the permanent closure of N10 (“Dog Beach”) and N12 (“North Street”) with N11 (“Osprey”) to remain open;

b. Permanent closure of N2 (“Van Eileen”);

c. Permanent closure of C3 (yet un-named);

d. Permanent closure of path S11 (“Walbirriny” (healing));

e. Permanent closure of S6 (“Deep Six”); and


Page 72

f. Proceed with the investigation of S7 as the preferred location to provide a universal access path given the strong support for this approach, noting the 130 metres distance from Gibney Street;

3. NOTES the implementation of the BEN signs at each beach access path location following the closures recommended in Point Two.

OCM025/2021

COUNCILLOR MOTION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Young Seconded Cr Barrett

THAT Council:

1. THANKS the community for taking the time to provide feedback, noting that it has been very helpful to Council in the decision making process;

2. APPROVES the following Beach Access Path arrangements:

a. Permanent closure of N2 (“Van Eileen”);

b. Permanent closure of C3 (un-named);

c. Permanent closure of S6 (“Deep Six”);

d. Investigation of S7 as the preferred location to provide a universal access path given the strong community support for this approach, noting that the path should provide access to the beaches both north and south of the groyne and also noting the 130m distance from Gibney Street.

3. DEFERS consideration of the proposed amalgamation of paths N10, N11, N12 and S11 pending a Councillor briefing workshop April 2021, to give consideration of the following:

a. Patterns of use and the requirements of different user groups as evidenced by the community feedback;

b. The need for a variety of types of access paths including well-spaced, gentler (ie step-free) access to cater for differing levels of ability;

c. For each path mentioned in this paragraph, the cost of removal and rehabilitation as compared with the cost of upgrade, noting that some paths are in good condition; and

d. The current condition and maintenance requirements for each path mentioned in this paragraph (noting that some of the paths are in good condition);

4. REQUESTS the Administration to report, at the workshop, on the possibility of reinstating the ramp on the access stairs at the main beach.

5. NOTES the implementation of the BEN signs at each beach access path location following the closures recommended in point 2.

Carried 8/1


1. The closure of paths N2, C3 and S6 can be achieved without significant impact to users


Page 73

and was broadly supported in the community consultation process;

2. Investigating S7 as a possible access path should include consideration of access to the north and south of the current S7, as the community feedback and casual observations indicate that the beach to the south is more popular with beach users at particular times of the year and is currently only accessible from S7 via and narrow informal track;

3. The consultation process has been useful to Council in its decision making as it has identified patterns of use, different types of use and potential conflict between user groups;

4. While cost savings are achievable in adopting the full rationalisation as suggested by the Officer, these should be balanced against the benefits in providing easy access to cater for a variety of levels of ability and different user needs, noting that “staired” paths are less suitable for some users;

5. Further consideration by the Administration and a councillor Briefing workshop may give the opportunity to consider alternatives for these path including the possibility of low-key, less expensive and more easily accessible paths, which the community feedback has indicated are valued by the community.

6. Members of the community have asked for the ramp at main beach to be reinstated and it would be appropriate to consider this while considering access path user needs and rationalisation.


Page 74

10.1.9 20A DEANE STREET - CROSSOVER PROPOSAL

File Ref: SUB/2798 Attachments: 10.1.9(a) 20A Deane Street - Crossover Proposal [under

separate cover] 10.1.9(b) 20A Deane Street - Crossover Proposal - Existing

Contours [under separate cover] 10.1.9(c) 20A Deane Street - Crossover Proposal -

Proposed Contours [under separate cover] 10.1.9(d) 20A Deane Street - Crossover Proposal - Cross

Sections [under separate cover] 10.1.9(e) 20A Deane Street - Crossover Proposal -

Arborist Report [under separate cover] Responsible Officer: Shaun Kan, Director Engineering Services Author: David Lappan, Manager Projects and Assets Author Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Cr Barrett declared an IMPARTIALITY INTEREST in item 10.1.9 by virtue “The applicant is known to me."

Cr MacFarlane declared an IMPARTIALITY INTEREST in item 10.1.9 by virtue “I know one of the residents who lives in Deane Street.”

SUMMARY

Council will be asked to consider the revised crossover to 20A Deane Street to provide permanent access LOT 506, 20A Deane Street.

The revised crossover design has removed the requirement for stairs along the east-west portion of footpath, providing better access for pedestrians than the current situation.

An arborist report has been conducted and relocation of the crossover has been considered to further locate the crossover away from the tree protection zone of the Olive Tree.

Calculated volume of soil change for proposed crossover to be ~100m3

Volumes of cut for each respective area of verge are as follows:

Smoothing off verge to the West – 35m3

New crossover – 36m3

Allowing for new footpath gradient to the East – 30m3

BACKGROUND

Lot 506, 20A Deane Street has a substantial history surrounding proposed access.

As part of the original subdivision approval of 23 April 2014 (WAPC ref: 149321) a crossover was provided by the Town which was a shared access arrangement with the neighbouring lot (Lot 505). This was required to satisfy subdivision approval to both lots 505 and 506 in August 2015.


Page 75

In April 2017 the applicants applied to the Town for permission to install a crossover perpendicular to Deane Street into the centre of Lot 506. In May 2017 the Town refused this tunnel type access arrangement due to the fact that a crossover to the lot was already constructed and the proposed crossover created unacceptable risk to the Town in terms of liability and maintenance.

In April 2018 the applicant lodged an appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) against the Towns decision to refuse the crossover application.

In May 2018 a planning application was received with 2 options to resolve access to lot 506.

In October 2019 the State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the applicants appeal against the council’s refusal due to the significant adverse amenity impacts cause by the proposed works. The tribunal found that the streetscape and amenity impacts that would result from the excavation of over 90m³ of the Deane Street embankment would not be acceptable.


Page 76

In June 2020 a revised crossover plan was submitted to the Towns Engineering Department and presented at a council briefing forum as part of the Deane Street wall replacement tender recommendation.

A development application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft was received by the Town in September 2020.

At December 2020 Ordinary Meeting council refused the development approval with advice notes to the applicant regarding alternative vehicle crossover arrangements to the lot which would require less excavation in the Deane Street verge, preserve existing trees and vegetation, do not require stairs in the footpath and comply with Australian Standards.



Priority Area 1: Protecting and enhancing the wellbeing of residents and visitors

Major Strategy 1.6: Implement policies that protect existing trees and that actively seek to increase the tree canopy in Cottesloe.



Major Strategy 6.4: Enhance the Town’s ability to embrace and manage change.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS





Page 77


Resource requirements are in accordance with the existing budgetary allocation.


The cost of works reflected in the plan and any ancillaries required to achieve the Council endorsed design will be the responsibility of the applicant.





An arborist report has been conducted in support of the proposed crossover design, keeping outside the TPZ of the associated olive tree

CONSULTATION

A site meeting was held for the development application on Tuesday December 15 2020 prior to the ordinary council meeting.

No further consultation is deemed required under the revised crossover design.

OFFICER COMMENT

Following the December 2020 Ordinary Meeting, the applicant has discussed the requirements with the Town’s Engineering Department and is now requesting approval for the revised design (attached). This design is in line with preferred engineering option and furthermore removes the requirement for stairs that is required to provide connectivity to the western walkway just before Avonmore Terrace.

The attached Arborist Report, developed based on this revised design, has indicated that the risk of damage to the olive tree located in council verge adjacent to 20A Deane Street is unlikely.

On this basis, it would not be unreasonable to deem this proposed crossover design appropriate for the site. Council should note that there would always be some degree of cut regardless of design to provide vehicle access to Lot 506 from Deane Street.

The information below provided a comparison of the earthworks volume between the then tunnel access option to the attached revised design. It would be prudent to note the significant reduction:

• original tunnel type design required 90m³ of cut for crossover construction;

• proposed new design requires 36m³ to allow crossover construction; and

• the remaining soil removal is to allow for a safe footpath transition over the site and removal of redundant crossover.


Page 78

Should Council accept the officer’s recommendation, the applicant would then need to make a formal application for the crossover. This would stipulate the approval conditions and Council can either specify these terms or provide parameters for the Administration to consider. In the interest of fairness to the applicant, conditions would need to take into account the development design pending a submission for planning approval.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

Cr Masarei left the meeting at 7:29pm.

OCM026/2021

PROCEDURAL MOTION


That the meeting be adjourned for five (5) minutes.

Carried 8/0

The meeting was adjourned at 7:31pm.

Cr Masarei returned to the meeting at 7:36pm.

The meeting resumed at 7:36pm.


Page 79


THAT Council:

1. APPROVES the attached revised crossover design subject to the following conditions:

a. If the Olive Tree dies within 2 years of the crossover installation, a new tree of the same species and size shall be planted in the verge of lot 506, 20A Deane Street to the satisfaction of the Town at the cost of the applicant;

b. A tree of an approved species shall be planted within the verge of LOT 505, 28 Avonmore Terrace at the cost of the applicant in a position determined by the Town; and

c. The applicant will be responsible for the costs of maintaining the trees mentioned in points (a) and (b) for a period of two years.

2. NOTES that subject to the APPROVAL of Point One, the applicant would be required to submit a separate application to the Director of Engineering Services to formalise the decision of council for the installation of the proposed crossover to lot 506, 20A Deane Street.

OCM027/2021

COUNCILLOR MOTION

Moved Cr Young Seconded Cr Sadler

THAT Council:

1. APPROVES the attached revised crossover design subject to the following conditions:

a. If the Olive Tree dies within 2 years of the crossover installation, a new tree of the same species and size shall be planted in the verge of lot 506, 20A Deane Street to the satisfaction of the Town at the cost of the applicant;

b. A tree of an approved species shall be planted within the verge of LOT 505, 28 Avonmore Terrace at the cost of the applicant in a position determined by the Town; and

c. The applicant will be responsible for the costs of maintaining the trees mentioned in points (a) and (b) for a period of two years.

d. The applicant will be responsible for carrying out, and meeting the full cost of, all the works within (and in accordance with) the design plans attached with the officer's report that will include (but not limited to) footpath reconstruction, utility service adjustments, embankment earthworks and the cross over installation.

2. NOTES that subject to the APPROVAL of Point One, the applicant would be required to submit a separate application to the Director of Engineering Services to formalise the decision of council for the installation of the proposed crossover to lot 506, 20A Deane Street.

3. REQUESTS the Administration to liaise with the applicants for the provision of pedestrian access as soon as possible.

Carried 8/1


Page 80

10.1.10 RECREATION PRECINCT MASTERPLAN

File Ref: SUB/2798 Attachments: 10.1.10(a) Recreation Precinct Masterplan - Attachment

One - Aecom Cottesloe Mp - 22.03.2019 [under separate cover]

10.1.10(b) Recreation Precinct Masterplan - Attachment Two - Revised Masterplan [under separate cover]

Responsible Officer: Matthew Scott, Chief Executive Officer Author: Shaun Kan, Director Engineering Services Author Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Cr Barrett declared an IMPARTIALITY INTEREST in item 10.1.10 by virtue “One of my children is a member of the football club."

SUMMARY

Council is asked to consider the rationalised Recreational Precinct Masterplan for the purpose of wider public consultation.

BACKGROUND

In 2018 AECOM was commissioned to develop a Recreation Masterplan to improve the functionality, aesthetics and use of space for Harvey Fields. A copy of the draft plan has been attached (Attachment One). Surrounding directly impacted residents and clubs within the Harvey Fields Precinct have since been consulted.

The unaffordable project cost of approximately $27 Million to deliver the full scope has triggered the rationalisation of the attached AECOM plan. This has produced a strategy that allows for the essential Precinct upgrades to be delivered in the medium to short term without comprising the opportunity for the remaining improvements to be done in the longer term (Attachment Two).



Priority Area 5: Providing sustainable infrastructure and community amenities

Major Strategy 5.2: Manage assets that have a realisable value.


Priority Area 1: Protect and enhance the wellbeing of residents and visitors.

Major Strategy 1.2: Continue to improve Community Engagement

POLICY IMPLICATIONS



Page 81



Local Government Regulations 1996


With the exception of the partial Anderson Pavilion building replacement component of the project, there are no funds to complete the other components within the rationalised design that is expected to cost in the order of $15 Million.




At this pre-concept phase, there are no perceived sustainability implications arising from the officer’s recommendation. This will be confirmed and properly managed in later design stages.

CONSULTATION

Directly impacted residents and clubs have been consulted on the AECOM Masterplan. The intent would be to put both the AECOM Plan and the rationalised design out to wider public consultation.

OFFICER COMMENT

Council is asked to note that the AECOM plan (Attachment One) in it’s entirety is unaffordable. The rationalisation of this plan has identified the following scope that can be achieved in the short to medium term without precluding the ultimate Masterplan from being considered in the distant future (Attachment Two):

• Stage 1: New Anderson Pavilion (through the recent CSRFF grant)

• Stage 2: Oval upgrade, adjacent spectator seating and the formalized carpark off Broome Street

• A grant could be source for the oval and spectator seating works through the football commission or Department of Local Government. The carpark would most likely be funded through municipal sources

• Stage 3: Terraced seating adjacent to the rugby field and formalized parking off Pearse Street

The widening of the oval to the east, removal of the second rugby field and relocation of the replacement Anderson Pavilion to the east avoid the impact to the golf course. The formalisation of carparking on the south-eastern corner of Harvey Fields near the Rugby Clubhouse improves traffic safety and optimises bay availability. Consideration should be given to the same formal parking arrangement along Pearse Street.


Page 82

It would be important to note that these modifications are at this stage only in principle. The Administration would need to consider all submissions received during the wider public consultation for a final layout to be justified to Council for consideration.

If Council is agreeable to the rationalised design, the Administration will provide a plan based on the rationalised principles and community engagement strategy to Council prior to this consultation occurring.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority


THAT Council:

1. ACCEPTS the rationalised principles indicated on the attached plan (Attachment Two) for the purpose of public consultation; and

2. NOTES that subjected to the APPROVAL of Point One, a community consultation strategy and a design based on the revisions shown in the plan being referred to in Point One to Council prior to commencing the public consultation.

OCM028/2021

COUNCILLOR MOTION

Moved Cr Barrett Seconded Cr Sadler

THAT Council:

1. DEFERS acceptance of the rationalised principles indicated on the attached plan (Attachment Two).

2. REQUESTS Administration consult with Key Stakeholders of the Anderson Pavilion and Harvey Field to align the rationalised Masterplan (where feasible) with their key priorities, requirements and deemed ‘essentials’ for the short to medium term.

3. REQUESTS Administration to CONSIDER providing additional safety barriers for protection from golf balls.

4. REQUESTS that Administration ENSURE appropriate Ambulance access and Universal Access.

5. REQUESTS Administration to RETAIN a playground facility within the precinct.

6. REQUESTS Administration to CONSIDER reincorporating the Basketball, tennis hit up area and cricket nets to maintain the multigenerational community space.

7. REQUESTS the inclusion of Formal and Informal Parking provisions to align with the AECOM Plan and feedback from Neighbours and Key Stakeholders.

8. REQUESTS the Administration to table this at the May 2021 Elected Member’s Workshop upon the completion of Points One to Seven.

Carried 9/0


Page 83


There is no urgency in approving this Masterplan given the financial constraints in its achievement.

It is vitally important the Masterplan is in line with the requirements and priorities of the key users prior to seeking wider Public Consultation.

Safety for users of the Sport Field is a key priority.

The Playground is well utilised by the Community and within our Public Open Space Strategy.

Community Consultation has indicated a desire to retain the tennis, cricket and basketball facilities.

Increasing formalised parking is costly and is at odds with the AECOM Plan and feedback already provided by the Community. If wider community feedback requests additional formalised parking, this can be easily added after consultation.


Page 84

EXECUTIVE SERVICES

10.1.11 QUARTERLY INFORMATION BULLETIN

File Ref: SUB/2798 Attachments: 10.1.11(a) Capital Works Quarterly Report December 2020

[under separate cover] 10.1.11(b) Town of Cottesloe - Resolution Database - 2013

to December 2020 [under separate cover] 10.1.11(c) CRM - Statistics - Jan 2021 [under separate

cover] 10.1.11(d) Development and Regulatory Graphs [under

separate cover] Responsible Officer: Matthew Scott, Chief Executive Officer Author: Matthew Scott, Chief Executive Officer Author Disclosure of Interest: Nil

SUMMARY

To provide Council information and statistics on key activities during the year on a quarterly basis, as requested by Council or recommended by the Administration.







POLICY IMPLICATIONS



Nil


Nil


Nil


Page 85


Nil

CONSULTATION

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

OCM029/2021



THAT Council notes the information provided in the Quarterly Information Bulletin (Attachments).



Page 86

10.1.12 APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED OFFICER FOR RECEIVING COMPLAINTS UNDER THE MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND CANDIDATES

File Ref: SUB/2798 Attachments: 10.1.12(a) Code of Conduct Breach - Form Template [under

separate cover] 10.1.12(b) Local Government (Model Code of Conduct)

Regulations 2021 - [00-a0-01] [under separate cover]

10.1.12(c) Model Code of Conduct Guidelines [under separate cover]

Responsible Officer: Matthew Scott, Chief Executive Officer Author: Matthew Scott, Chief Executive Officer Author Disclosure of Interest: Nil

SUMMARY

For Council to consider appointing an authorised person to receive complaints regarding Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates under the new model Code of Conduct and approving the required complaint form.

BACKGROUND

On the 3 February 2021, the new Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 came into effect. Though Council has three (3) months (3 May 2021) to become compliant with the new regulations (adopt a Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates and a process for handling complaints), the general principles (Division 2) and behaviour (Division 3) requirements of Council Members and Committee Members of these new regulations commenced as of 3 February 2021. Technically this means a potential breach of the behaviour requirements could have occurred, resulting in a possible complaint. Under clause 11, for a complaint to be made, it needs to be:

a) In writing on a form approved by the local government;

b) To a person authorised to received the complaint; and

c) Received within one (1) Month

In order to enable this to occur, Council needs to authorise the relevant form and authorise (appoint) one (1) or more persons to receive said complaint (and withdrawals of complaints) under clause 11(2) & (3).

Given a complaint must be received within one (1) month of the alleged breached, the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Affairs (DLGSC) have strongly recommended that all Local Governments approve a complaint form (attached) and authorise a person (or persons) to receive complaints by 24 February 2021.


Page 87

It should be noted that the author is not aware of any formal complaints of Councillor and/or Committee Member misbehaviour at the time of writing this report, and this item is purely to ensure no potential complaints could potentially lapse due to the lack of either:

a) An approved form; or

b) A person (or persons) authorised to receive a complaint.

Likewise, given Local Governments were advised there was three (3) months to become compliant with the new regulations, it was intended to have a detailed briefing with Council in March on the new requirements and the prospective Code of Conduct that will need to be adopted by Council; In the interim the Model Code of Conduct (attached) is in effect.






POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Until a new Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates is adopted (within the next 3 months) the Model Code of Conduct (attached) overrides the Councillor, Committee Members and Candidate obligations under the Town’s Code of Conduct.



Section5.120. Complaints officer

(1) The CEO may designate an employee of the local government to be its complaints officer.

(2) If an employee is not designated under subsection (1), the CEO is the local government’s complaints officer.

Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (attached)

11. Complaint about alleged breach

(1) A person may make a complaint, in accordance with subclause (2), alleging a breach of a requirement set out in this Division.

(2) A complaint must be made —

(a) in writing in the form approved by the local government; and

(b) to a person authorised under subclause (3); and

(c) within 1 month after the occurrence of the alleged breach.


Page 88

(3) The local government must, in writing, authorise 1 or more persons to receive complaints and withdrawals of complaints.







CONSULTATION

WALGA

Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC)

OFFICER COMMENT

As noted in the background, it was the intention for Administration to have a detailed briefing with Council of the implications and introduction of the new regulations and associated model Code of Conduct in March, given the Council has until 3 May 2021 to become compliant. This said, complaints under Division 3 of the new regulations (which deals with behaviour) could technically be received now, and the Council needs to adopt an appropriate form and authorise a person (or persons) to receive said complaints and also the withdrawal of a complaint.

The Department has issued a template of the appropriate complaint form, which has been formatted to meet the Town’s current style guide.

With regards to authorised persons, the regulation provides no direction, however the guidelines provided by DLGSC suggest the authorised person (or persons) could be:

a) The Mayor; or

b) Deputy Mayor (especially for complaints about or from the Mayor); or

c) The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or an officer delegated by the CEO; or

d) An External Consultant.

Currently the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is Council’s Complaints Officer, as per section 5.120 of the Local Government Act 1995, which deals with breaches of Rules of Conduct (Division 4 of the new Regulations, effectively the old Rules of Conduct Regulations). Noting this, it is recommended that the CEO (or his delegate) also be authorised to receive clause 11 complaints, so to provide consistency in dealing with complaints.


Page 89

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Absolute Majority

OCM030/2021



THAT Council, pursuant to Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021:

1. ADOPTS the attached Complaint about Alleged Breach Form, in relation to clause 11(2); and

2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer or his delegate to receive Division 3 complaints and withdrawal of same, relating to Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates, in relation to clause 11(3).

Carried by En Bloc Resolution by Absolute Majority 9/0


Page 90

10.2 RECEIPT OF MINUTES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES

10.2.1 RECEIPT OF FORESHORE PRECINCT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - 11 FEBRUARY 2021

Attachments: 10.2.1(a) Unconfirmed Minutes - FPAC - 11 February 2021 [under separate cover]

OCM031/2021


THAT Council NOTES the attached Unconfirmed Minutes of the Foreshore Precinct Advisory Committee Meeting.



Page 91

10.2.2 RECEIPT OF AUDIT COMMITTEE MINUTES - 15 FEBRUARY 2021

Attachments: 10.2.2(a) Unconfirmed Minutes - AC- 15 February 2021 [under separate cover]

OCM032/2021


THAT Council:

1. NOTES the attached Unconfirmed Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting.

2. ADOPTS the recommendations contained within the Audit Committee Minutes.

3. NOTES that the 2019/20 Annual Report, including the 2019/20 Annual Financial Statements will be presented to the March 2021 meeting of Council.



Page 92

11 ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

11.1 COUNCILLOR MOTION - COVE S15 STEPS - STAGING

The following motion has been proposed by Cr Tucak.

COUNCILLOR MOTION

THAT the Town investigate, in light of delays to the steps upgrade at S15 (Cove) resulting in work continuing past the end of summer and now occurring in autumn to finish by May 2021:

1. Keeping open the existing wooden slats ramp that run to the north, for the duration of the work replacing the east-west timber slats ramp with a new upper section of stairs, and new concrete seating/lookout area with shower/drink fountain, to allow surfers to access the Cove surf break via the route shown in the below diagram prior to work placing in the new lower section of stairs over the top of the existing concrete steps;

2. Minimise the time period for the work on the new lower section of stairs over the top of the existing concrete steps, during which surfers will not have access to the break;

3. In the alternative to 1 and 2, whether temporary access steps can be provided to the surf break from Mudurup Rocks or over the dune cliff to the south of the S15 path – including the precedent of Events Hire steps structure hired for a period of 20 weeks at Cottesloe Main Beach south of Indiana, which cost approximately $4,000 to hire;

4. To the extent required, reallocates that part of the $26,408 in savings from Foreshore Stage 2 works to achieving the above staging of works or temporary access steps,

and should the above approaches, or any others identified, not provide surfers access to the Cove surf break over the busy period of good surfing conditions commencing in March, that component of the works that would prevent such access to the surf break be postponed until November 2021.

Cr Tucak advised he wished to abandon this motion as works have commenced last week.

In accordance with Clause 10.12 of the Standing Orders Local Law 2012 the motion was abandoned ‘and shall not again be introduced without subsequent notice of motion being given to the CEO’.


Page 93

11.2 COUNCILLOR MOTION - VERGE VALET - RE-USE ALTERNATIVES

The following motion has been proposed by Cr Tucak.

COUNCILLOR MOTION


THAT Council investigate (given “re-use’ is the preferred method over “recycling” in the Waste Authority’s Hierarchy):

1. A weekly summary of upcoming Verge Valet collection locations (subject to residents consent to their collection being included in it), to allow more opportunities for re-use by others in the community being able to select re-usable items before the collection;

2. Small ‘pointer signs’ provided to residents booking Verge Valet that can be placed on nearby street corners before collection if there are re-usable items others can collect;

3. Whether a centralised location exists in Cottesloe that residents can bring re-usable items to and others can collect them from, instead of being collected by Verge Valet;

4. Whether a dedicated “re-usable items only” verge collection can occur each year, that allows residents to put re-usable items on their verges for others to collect, and if the items are not collected by others, the resident must bring them back in off the verge (it being intended that those items will not be collected by Verge Valet or the Town);

5. Other methods to increase easy and convenient opportunities for re-use of items by the community if the Verge Valet service is to continue, which does not allow re-use.


Page 94

12 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE INTRODUCED BY DECISION OF MEETING BY:

12.1 ELECTED MEMBERS

12.2 OFFICERS

13 MEETING CLOSED TO PUBLIC

13.1 MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED

OCM033/2021

MOTION FOR BEHIND CLOSED DOORS


That, in accordance with Standing Orders 15.10, Council discuss the confidential reports behind closed doors.

Carried 9/0

The public and members of the media were requested to leave the meeting at 8:16pm.

13.1.1 DUTCH INN PLAYGROUND UPGRADE - TENDER RECOMMENDATION

This item is considered confidential in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 section 5.23(2) (c) as it contains information relating to a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting.


THAT Council:

1. DEFERS the award of the Dutch Inn Playground Upgrade tender; and

2. REFERS the design back to the Public Open Space Working Group; and

3. NOTES that the matter will be brought back to the March 2021 Ordinary Council Meeting.

COUNCILLOR MOTION

Moved Cr Harkins Seconded Cr Barrett

THAT Council:

1. Endorse the Administration’s preferred Option Three and proceed with a budget amendment to award the Dutch Inn Playground tender to Tim Davies Landscaping and utilise $225,326 of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Federal Grant to fund the shortfall;

2. Subject to the acceptance of Point One, make an application to the Federal Government’s Local Road and Community Infrastructure Program to seek approval for the grant to be used for the purpose mentioned in Point One;


Page 95

3. Subject to the acceptance of Point Two by the Federal Government, APPROVE the award of the Dutch Inn Playground construction to Tim Davies Landscaping for a contract value of $396,325.39 (Excluding GST);

4. NOTES that the matter will be brought back to a separate Council meeting should the application mentioned in Point Two be unsuccessful; and

5. NOTES that subject to the APPROVAL of Point One, the budget for Capital Account 30.7031.2 – Dutch Inn Playground will increase to $440,326 (Comprising of $215,000 in Municipal Funds and $225,326 in Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Grant).

Lost 2/7 For: Crs Harkins and Barrett

Against: Mayor Angers, Crs Young, Harben, Sadler, Masarei, Tucak and MacFarlane

OCM034/2021

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATON AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION (FORESHADOWED)

Moved Cr Tucak Seconded Cr Young

THAT Council:

1. DEFERS the award of the Dutch Inn Playground Upgrade tender; and

2. REFERS the design back to the Public Open Space Working Group; and

3. NOTES that the matter will be brought back to the March 2021 Ordinary Council Meeting.

Carried 5/4

13.1.2 DEANE STREET RETAINING WALL TENDER


OCM035/2021



THAT Council in relation to Tender T06/2020 Council not accept any tender.



Page 96

13.1.3 PLUMBING SERVICES TENDER


OCM036/2021



THAT Council in relation to Tender T12/2019 not accept any tender.

Carried by En Bloc Resolution 9/0 OCM037/2021

MOTION FOR RETURN FROM BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

Moved Mayor Angers Seconded Cr Harkins

In accordance with Standing Orders 15.10 that the meeting be re-opened to members of the public and media, and motions passed behind closed doors be read out if there are any public present.

Carried 9/0

The public and members of the media returned to the meeting at 8:35pm.

13.2 PUBLIC READING OF RESOLUTIONS THAT MAY BE MADE PUBLIC

13.1.1 DUTCH INN PLAYGROUND UPGRADE - TENDER RECOMMENDATION

The resolution for item 13.1.1 was read aloud.

13.1.2 DEANE STREET RETAINING WALL TENDER


13.1.3 PLUMBING SERVICES TENDER


14 MEETING CLOSURE

The Mayor announced the closure of the meeting at 8:35pm.

town of cottesloe

Documents