MINUTES Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes

Held on Tuesday 25 June 2019 at 6:00pm City of Rockingham Council Chambers

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 2

City of Rockingham Ordinary Council Meeting 6:00pm Tuesday 25 June 2019 CONTENTS

1. Declaration of Opening/Announcement of Visitors 4

2. Record of Attendance/Apologies/Approved Leave of Absence 4

3. Responses to Previous Public Questions Taken on Notice 5

4. Public Question Time 5

5. Applications for Leave of Absence 11

6. Confirmation of Minutes of the Previous Meeting 11

7. Matters Arising from Minutes of Previous Meeting 11

8. Announcement by the Presiding Person without Discussion 11

9. Declaration of Member’s and Officer’s Interest 11

10. Petitions/Deputations/Presentations/Submissions 11

11. Matters for which the Meeting may be Closed 12

12. Receipt of Minutes of Standing Committees 12

13. Officers Reports and Recommendations of Committees 12

Planning and Engineering Services Committee 13 PD-036/19 Final Approval Scheme Amendment No.164 to Town Planning Scheme No.2 - Schedule No.11 Development Contribution Plan No.2 13 PD-037/19 Proposed Modification to Building Envelope 34 PD-038/19 Proposed Street Naming Theme - ‘Oasis Baldivis’ 43 PD-039/19 Proposed Road Closure - Portion of Parkin Street, Rockingham (Final Support) 49 PD-040/19 Proposed Road Closure - Portion of Charles Street, East Rockingham 56 PD-041/19 Proposed Small Bar, Restaurant and Micro-Brewery 64 PD-042/19 Proposed Scheme Amendment No.170 - Rezoning from 'Rural' to 'Special Residential' 88 PD-043/19 Joint Development Assessment Panel Application - Proposed Service Station 101 PD-044/19 Safety Bay Shoalwater Foreshore Master Plan - ‘Design Drivers’ 131 EP-016/19 Site Selection for the Future Southern and Central Suburbs Enclosed Dog Parks 149 EP-017/19 WALGA Quote W18/19-78 - Supply of One New Landfill and Earthworks Compactor with Optional Service and Maintenance Agreements 158 Corporate and Community Development Committee 163 CS-010/19 Adoption of the 2019/2020 Budget Setting of Rates and Related Issues (Absolute Majority) 163 GM-015/19 WALGA 2019 Local Government Convention and Annual General Meeting 170

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 3

GM-016/19 Petition – Proposal to change the method of filling the office of mayor (Absolute Majority) 173 CD-011/19 Recommendation from the City Safe Advisory Committee Meeting held on 9 May 2019 180 CD-012/19 Tender T18/19-32 – Provision of concept and detailed design services for four buildings and landscaping areas at the Baldivis District Sporting Complex 184 CD-013/19 Rockingham Education and Training Advisory Committee change of representation (Absolute Majority) 188 CD-014/19 Recommendation from the Sports Advisory Committee Meeting held on 6 May 2019 191

14. Receipt of Information Bulletin 194

15. Report of Mayor 195

MR-006/19 Meetings and Functions Attended by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor 195

16. Reports of Councillors 198

17. Reports of Officers 198

18. Addendum Agenda 198

19. Motions of which Previous Notice has been given 198

20. Notices of Motion for Consideration at the Following Meeting 198

21. Questions by Members of which Due Notice has been given 198

22. Urgent Business Approved by the Person Presiding or by Decision of Council 198

23. Matters Behind Closed Doors 198

24. Date and Time of Next Meeting 198

25. Closure 198

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 4

City of Rockingham Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 – Council Chambers

1. Declaration of Opening

The Mayor declared the Council Meeting open at 6:00pm, welcomed all present, and delivered the Acknowledgement of Country.

2. Record of Attendance/Apologies/Approved Leave of Absence

2.1 Councillors Cr Barry Sammels (Mayor) Rockingham Ward Cr Deb Hamblin (Deputy Mayor) Safety Bay Ward Cr Chris Elliott Comet Bay Ward Cr Mark Jones Comet Bay Ward Cr Joy Stewart Rockingham Ward Cr Andrew Burns Rockingham Ward Cr Leigh Liley Safety Bay Ward Cr Katherine Summers Safety Bay Ward 2.2 Executive Mr Michael Parker Chief Executive Officer Mr Peter Ricci A/Director Planning and Development Services Mr Sam Assaad Director Engineering and Parks Services Mr John Pearson Director Corporate Services Mr Peter Doherty Director Legal Services and General Counsel Mr Alison Oliver A/Director Community Development Ms Jelette Edwards Manager Governance and Councillor Support Mr Peter Le Senior Legal and Councillor Liaison Officer Ms Sue Langley Governance Officer Mr Aiden Boyham City Media Officer Mr Tom Kettle Administration Officer – Governance and Councillor Support Ms Chelsea Pitchers Work Experience Student – Living Waters Lutheran College 2.3 Members of the Gallery: 35 2.4 Apologies: Nil 2.5 Approved Leave of Absence: Cr Lee Downham Baldivis Ward Cr Matthew Whitfield Baldivis Ward

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 5

3. Responses to Previous Public Questions Taken on Notice

Nil

4. Public Question Time

6:01pm The Mayor opened Public Question Time and invited members for the Public Gallery to ask questions. The Mayor noted that this was the only opportunity in the meeting for the public to ask questions.

4.1 Mr Paul Sexton, Safety Bay – Micro Brewery Proposal

The Mayor invited Mr Sexton to present his questions to the Council. Mr Sexton asked the following questions: 1. Who has a say for this micro-brewery proposal? Surely this would only be applicable to affected residents within a certain radius. For example: someone leaving near the Safety Bay Bowling Club shouldn’t be entitled to a say. Someone leaving near the bowling club make (sic) think it’s a good idea. However, if micro-brewery was built outside their house, I’m sure their opinion would be different. What is the radius allowing residents to have a say for or against this proposal? The Mayor advised that consultation was conducted in accordance with the City’s “Community Consultation Planning Procedure” which included 285 landowners and residents within approximately 300m from the property receiving letters. Signs were also erected on the site and notices were placed on the City’s website. There is no restriction on who can lodge a submission. 2. The Proposed opening hours of 10am–10pm is not suitable for a quiet residential area. This will give us no break from increased traffic and noise. 10pm is too late for a residential area and must be significantly reduced! Families living near Lot 166 with school going children go to bed at around 8.00pm to 9.00pm every night. We go to bed at 9.00pm every night and need to get up early each day for work. If the proposed closing time is 10.00pm, people will be buying last orders and by the time the patrons actually leave, it will be more like 11pm. We do not want to hear loud noise, as Patrons under the influence of alcohol start shouting every night. As the proposed closing time is 10pm, Patrons under the influence of alcohol will be hanging around our homes probably for 1 hour after closing time and potentially causing trouble and property damage to our homes. The Mayor advised that although this reads as a statement and does not pose a question, please note that the business is not proposed to operate 7 days per week, but Wednesday to Sunday only. Also, the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 specify different allowable noise levels for different times of the day and night. The applicant’s Acoustic Report confirms the premises can comply with the assigned noise levels under the Noise Regulations. It should also be noted that responsibility for patron behaviour rests with the licensee of the premises.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 6

3. Noise being introduced by the Council and Micro-Brewery. We do not want loud music (High noise dBA) playing (heavy base noise/vibrations) at different times during the day and evening.  What are the proposed allowable noise limits for this brewery?  How will these noise limits be monitor and enforced by the council?  Will the brewery pay for the noise monitoring and enforcement requirements? The traffic noise levels on Safety Bay Road are already very high (and) this micro-brewery will make the matter much worse. The Mayor advised that as mentioned previously, the Noise Regulations specify allowable noise levels for different times of the day and night. City officers will advise what the decibel noise levels are. Should the City receive complaints about noise emitted from the premises, the City will investigate and take the necessary action to ensure compliance with the Noise Regulations. 4. Drunk Driving Risks are being introduced by the Council and Micro-Brewery Drunk driving is highly likely, as being a back street brewery, people will think there is less chance of being breathalysed by the police. Has the Council assessed the increasing risk of fatalities due to:  Safety Bay Road is already very busy - Increase traffic will increase the risk  Parked cars on the roadside blocking a drivers view of pedestrians will increase the risk  Patrons being under the influence of alcohol walking across the busy road without looking will increase the risk.  School Children will be crossing this road. The Mayor advised that this proposal is no different to the restaurants and small drinking establishments already operating throughout the City including those in proximity to Safety Bay Road. As with all licensed premises, patrons must observe the law. 5. Has the Council performed a risk assessment? The Mayor advised, No. 6. Maximum 60 Patrons & Parking  How will the brewery prevent more than 60 patrons being present and how can this be guarantee?  If the proposal is for 60 patrons maximum, they will need more than 14 car parking spaces and will probably be parking outside our house.  We do not want to have cars parking outside of our properties, creating noise and nuisance every night. The Mayor advised that in the event that approval is granted, patron numbers will be limited to 60 and the applicant is required to comply with terms of the approval at all times. Failure to do so will result in compliance action. Car parking for the proposal is generally compliant with Town Planning Scheme No.2, and if required, there is marked on-street parking available in proximity on Safety Bay Road. Any unauthorised parking complaint received by the City will be investigated and enforced, as appropriate.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 7

7. Zone  A Bar (Micro-Brewery) is not suitable for a quiet residential area.  Lot 166 may be zoned commercial, but does that apply to the serving of alcohol and increasing the health and safety risks of nearby residents? The Mayor advised that the proposal is a permissible land use that the Council can approve under the Commercial zoning of the property. The Officer Report before the Council tonight has concluded that the residential amenity of adjacent owners and occupiers can be maintained through consideration of the information submitted with the application and through compliance with recommended conditions to be imposed on the Planning Approval.

4.2 Mr Brenko McKeown, Cooloongup – Shopping Trolleys/Offensive Bins The Mayor invited Mr McKeown to present his question to the Council. Mr McKeown asked the following question: 1. Are trolleys and offensive bins Council issues? The Mayor advised that they are Council issues. The public can report shopping trolleys to Council and officers can impound them. Shops can be fined for trolleys not being collected. Offensive bins can also be reported to the City.

4.3 Mr Damien Blason, Waikiki – Various matters The Mayor invited Mr Blason to present his questions to the Council. Mr Blason asked the following questions: 1. I am wondering if Cr Summers has received an apology from the two Councillors who walked out during her Notice of Motion during the March 2019 Council meeting? The Mayor took the question on notice. 2. With relation to governance, may I ask how a Councillor who left the March 2019 Council meeting early can second the minutes which is acceptance they are true and correct? The Mayor took the question on notice. 3. Does the Council have a percentage criteria for acceptance of petitions from the public? Being very generous the Ako petition represents less than 0.65% of ratepayers and the latest vote for the Mayor petition less than 0.35% of ratepayers. The Mayor took the question on notice.

4.4 Mr James Mumme, Shoalwater – Various matters The Mayor invited Mr Mumme to present his questions to the Council. Mr Mumme asked the following questions: PD-044/19 Safety Bay/Shoalwater Foreshore – Sector 1 We all know the dual use path along Arcadia Drive. The Officer’s report says that this “path…cause(s) the view over the coast to be obscured by existing vegetation.” 1. How can a dual-use path obscure the view over the coast? I’d point out that many houses on Arcadia Drive are double storey and the view is most obscured by Norfolk Island pines or the acacia scrub. The Mayor took the question on notice.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 8

Officers go on to propose a second north-south dual-use path within the dune environment. I think this is a mistake – the dunes are only 70 metres wide; one third of that dune system has already been destroyed: there is already a fine dual-use path and people can walk along the beach; a path through the dunes will increase weeds and be threatened by erosion; it will destroy about one sixth of those dunes – our wildlife has already lost most of its coastal habitat to development. 2. Officers conclude “the community are generally drawn to its natural environmental character which they want retained and enhanced.” I don’t understand – why think of destroying more of our bush unnecessarily? The Mayor took the question on notice. Disconnection between Council and Community Recently the Mayor wrote, “It is the role of the Council and/or the City to represent the views of the community…” (in response to my question about the 24 storey height policy at the April 2019 meeting). However over one third of the issues raised in community submissions on the proposed 24 storey policy were ruled not relevant. At the April 2019 meeting I asked what does this fact say to Council about how planning does not relate to the community? The Mayor’s response was “The subject matters were not relevant to the Policy amendment. Consequently, there was no value in giving them consideration.” It seems there is a disconnect between planners and community. 3. What does the fact that one third of issues were irrelevant say to Council about how planning issues and processes are understood by the community? The Mayor took the question on notice. At the meeting I also asked who decided on the “intended future character” of the Waterfront. The response was “…Council has decided that a 24 storey building may be appropriate within the intended future character of the area.” 4. Does Council have any suggestions for improving how it represents the views of the community or is Council happy with the current situation where over one third of issues can be ‘irrelevant’? Who decided on the “intended future character” for the Waterfront or did the desire to have a 24 storey building come before the intended future character? The Mayor took the question on notice. PD-043/198 Community views on the Proposed Brewery 144 Submissions were received most were in favour. 32 were from residents living nearby and most of those were opposed and gave reasons. 5. If Council is “to represent the views of the community”, does Council need to a method of comparing the views of those who present an argued case and are most likely to be affected with the views of those who live miles away? The Mayor referred to his previous response to Mr Sexton regarding the 300m radius and receiving submissions from outside the radius. Submissions are taken into consideration, to my knowledge there is no weighting of submissions.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 9

PD-039/19 Road closure on Parkin Street Nowhere is there a clear statement of the purpose of this road closure. All we get is the community aspiration “to meet the needs of the growing population, with consideration of future generals”. 6. What is the purpose of this road closure? Mr Ricci advised that the portion of the road reserve which is proposed to be closed is surplus to requirements and will acquired by the abutting landowner from the State Government.

4.5 Mr Marlon Rainnie, Golden Bay – Verge Policy

The Mayor invited Mr Rainnie to present his question to the Council. Mr Rainnie asked the following question: 1. Can you please explain the current policy on detecting and policing of verge policy and will this change with the new policy? The Mayor advised that the method of detecting and policing the verge policy is by complaint or if staff notice it. This will not change with the new verge policy.

4.6 Ms Dawn Foster, Baldivis – Proposed Scheme Amendment No.170 – Rezoning from ‘Rural’ to ‘Special Residential’

The Mayor invited Ms Foster to present her questions to the Council. Ms Foster asked the following questions: 1. Scheme Amendment No.170 – Rezoning from ‘Rural’ to ‘Special Residential’. Why is it being rezoned as it was not previously in 2014? The Mayor advised that this is an item contained in the tonight’s Council agenda and will be considered later in the meeting. 2. In 2014 Maddren Way was only to be a pedestrian emergency access road, is this still the case? Mr Peter Ricci, A/Director Planning and Development Services advised yes, nothing has changed.

4.7 Mr Mal McFetridge, Safety Bay – Method of filling the office of Mayor

The Mayor invited Mr McFetridge to present his questions to the Council. Mr McFetridge asked the following questions: Mr McFetridge stated that there was a misunderstanding about section 2.12 of the Local Government Act 1995. He advised he only needed 250 signatures on the petition to compel Council to discuss this issue. The Mayor advised that the matter was previously brought to the November 2018 Council meeting. 1. The local government industry offers among others, the following opinion for electing the Mayor by the electors method. ‘Election of the Mayor by the electors would remove the internal politics of Councillors during the time leading up to the election of Mayor.’ (Source: City of Stirling’s Council minutes dated 7 March 2017, pages 284-285). Will Councillors put aside alliances with and allegiances to other Councillors and vote with their conscience with respect to changing the method by which the Mayor is elected from elected by the Councillors to elected by the electors? The Mayor advised that this is an item contained in the tonight’s Council agenda and will be considered later in the meeting and a decision made accordingly.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 10

2. Is it a reasonable thing to do by Councillors and fairer on the community if the vote to change the method by which the Mayor is elected by deferred to the July 2019 meeting of council allowing extensive community consultation to be carried out and Crs Whitfield and Downham to return to council, both Councillors being on leave of absence in June 2019 and who support the community, allowing them to be included in the debate? The Mayor advised that this matter was brought to Council in November 2018 with one Councillor being absent at that time and the matter was not deferred. 3. Cr Burns provided a list of 9 councils with a popularly elected Mayor that have been subjected to an inquiry. In a recent press statement the Minister for Local Government stated that in the past 18 years there have been inquiries into 21 councils which suggests that there have been 12 inquiries into councils with a Mayor elected by the councillors. Are councillors aware that if you read the inquiry documentation and press clippings of the nine councils Cr Burns lists, there is no evidence to suggest that popularly elected Mayor caused the inquiry? The Mayor advised that has he had just received the question tonight he has not had the opportunity to read those enquiries and was unaware of the figures. 4. If a Councillor argues that campaigning in a Mayoral election would be expensive could they please give examples of these costs, and an example the only reason a Mayoral candidate was successful was that they spent the most money on their campaign? The Mayor advised this would be one of the challenges Councillors may speak about tonight. 5. Will Councillors put their personal opinions, fears and assumptions aside when debating the merits or otherwise of having a Mayor elected by the community? The Mayor advised Councillors will put their personal opinions aside to represent the community. Their personal opinion does not dictate the way they vote. 6. Do Councillors trust our community to elect their own Mayor? Would you please let the community know if you do or do not by stating your reasons in the debate tonight? The Mayor advised that this is an item contained in the tonight’s Council agenda and will be considered later in the meeting 7. Has this council had a cap on our rates in the last twenty years? The Mayor advised, No.

4.8 Mr Colin Derrick, Baldivis - Proposed Scheme Amendment No.170 – Rezoning from ‘Rural’ to ‘Special Residential’

The Mayor invited Mr Derrick to present his questions to the Council. Mr Derrick asked the following questions: 1. In connection with the Scheme Amendment No.170 - Rezoning from ‘Rural’ to ‘Special Residential’ being discussed tonight, is Council aware that there has been negotiations with the community members in 2014 resulting in an agreement that there would be no rezoning between current properties and new development? Mr Peter Ricci, A/Director Planning and Development Services advised that the City was unaware of these agreements or negotiations.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 11

2. As discussed earlier by my neighbour in her question, Maddren Way was to be only a pedestrian emergency access road as the road is small and can’t fit two cars next to each other, will this still be the case? Mr Ricci advised that it would be a pedestrian connection only and not a road connection. 3. Before I bought my property I was advised by the Planning department that it would be vacant for 20 years, is this correct? Mr Ricci, advised that he cannot confirm that information.

6:40pm There being no further questions the Mayor closed Public Question Time. 5. Applications for Leave of Absence Nil 6. Confirmation of Minutes of the Previous Meeting Moved Cr Stewart, seconded Cr Hamblin: That Council CONFIRMS the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 28 May 2019, as a true and accurate record. Carried – 8/0 7. Matters Arising from Minutes of Previous Meeting Nil 8. Announcement by the Presiding Person without Discussion 6:40pm The Mayor announced to all present that decisions made at Committees of Council are recommendations only and may be adopted in full, amended or deferred when presented for consideration at the Council meeting. 9. Declarations of Members and Officers Interests 9.1 Item PD-042/19 Proposed Scheme Amendment No.170 - Rezoning from 'Rural' to 'Special Residential' Councillor: Cr Mark Jones Type of Interest: Impartiality Nature of Interest: He has friends that live at No.4 Maddren Way, directly abutting part of the area proposed to be rezoned. Extent of Interest: Not Applicable 6:40pm The Mayor noted the interest declared in Item 9.1 and asked if there were any further interests to declare. The Mayor noted there were no further interests declared. 10. Petitions/Deputations/Presentations/Submissions 10.1 Cr Deb Hamblin - The Harbour Playground in Secret Harbour Cr Hamblin presented the Playspace Award for The Harbour Playground in Secret Harbour. She accepted the award on behalf of the City at the Parks and Leisure Australia WA Awards of Excellence 2019. As the WA finalist, The Harbour Playground project will now be entered into the National Awards of Excellence. Cr Hamblin thanked all the staff and the architect involved in the project, and further thanked Cr Joy Stewart as she had been pushing for an all abilities playground in Rockingham for many years.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 12

10.2 Rockingham Ventura Scouts – City of Rockingham Sponsorship

The Rockingham Scouts, formally thanked the City of Rockingham for sponsoring Max and Dylan with a $500 Youth Encouragement Grants which assisted them in attending the 25th Australian Jamboree in January 2019. The Jamboree was held in an unforgiving environment in Tailem Bend, South Australia, practically the surface of the moon. They were pushed to their limits and beyond as they undertook adventures and challenges, making friends for life. They took on the challenge to gain more leadership skills, confidence, knowledge and resilience. They have guided them to know their worth and have deeper understanding of themselves. In a world that they share and help shape, where they can show compassion, have strength of character and are sensitive to the needs of others. This is what we bring back to Rockingham as we continue Leadership roles at Rockingham. Those present recognised the achievement of the Scouts by way of applause.

11. Matters for which the Meeting may be Closed

Nil

12. Receipt of Minutes of Committees

Moved Cr Stewart, seconded Cr Liley: That Council RECEIVES and CONSIDERS the minutes of the: 1. Planning and Engineering Services Committee meeting held on 17 June 2019; and 2. Corporate and Community Development Committee meeting held on 18 June 2019. Carried – 8/0

13. Officers Reports and Recommendations of Committees

Method of Dealing with Agenda Business The Mayor advised the meeting that with the exception of the items identified to be withdrawn for discussion that the remaining reports committee recommendations would be adopted en bloc, ie all together.

Withdrawn Items The following officer report items were withdrawn for discussion:

PD-041/19 Proposed Small Bar, Restaurant and Micro-Brewery PD-042/19 Proposed Scheme Amendment No.170 - Rezoning from 'Rural' to 'Special Residential' PD-044/19 Safety Bay Shoalwater Foreshore Master Plan - ‘Design Drivers’ CS-010/19 Adoption of the 2019/2020 Budget Setting of Rates and Related Issues (Absolute Majority) GM-016/19 Petition – Proposal to change the method of filling the office of mayor (Absolute Majority) CD-013/19 Rockingham Education and Training Advisory Committee change of representation (Absolute Majority)

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS) Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 13

Council Resolution – En bloc Resolution Moved Cr Elliott, seconded Cr Hamblin: That the committee recommendations in relation to Agenda Items PD-036/19 to PD-040/19 be carried en bloc. Carried – 8/0

Planning and Engineering Services Committee

Planning and Development Services Strategic Planning and Environment Services Reference No & Subject: PD-036/19 Final Approval Scheme Amendment No.164 to Town Planning Scheme No.2 - Schedule No.11 Development Contribution Plan No.2

File No: LUP/2013 Applicant: Owner: Author: Mr Brett Ashby, Manager Strategic Planning and Environment Other Contributors: Date of Committee Meeting: 17 June 2019 Previously before Council: 18 December 2018 (PD-065/18) Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Legislative this Matter:

Site: Lot Area: LA Zoning: MRS Zoning: Attachments: Maps/Diagrams:

Purpose of Report

To consider the Final Approval of Scheme Amendment No.164 to Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS2) for the purpose of amending Schedule No.22 Development Contribution Plan No.2, following the completion of public advertising.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 14

Background

State Planning Policy 3.6 Development Contributions for Infrastructure (SPP3.6) was gazetted on 20 November 2009. The objectives of the SPP3.6 are to: - promote the efficient and effective provision of public infrastructure and facilities to meet the demands arising from new growth and development; - ensure that development contributions are necessary and relevant to the development to be permitted and are charged equitably among those benefiting from the infrastructure and facilities to be provided; - ensure consistency and transparency in the system for apportioning, collecting and spending the development contributions; and - ensure the social well-being of communities arising from, or affected by, development. SPP3.6 contains draft Model Scheme Text provisions which are to be incorporated in Town Planning Schemes to facilitate the implementation of development contributions for infrastructure. In June 2010, the Council resolved to initiate Amendment No.101 to TPS2 to introduce provisions pertaining to the implementation of Development Contributions for Infrastructure, as set out in SPP3.6. Amendment No.101 was adopted by the Council in October 2010 and, following approval by the Minister, gazetted on 12 April 2011. In May 2011, the Council resolved to adopt (initiate) Amendment No.114 to TPS2 to introduce provisions pertaining to the implementation of Development Contributions for Infrastructure through the introduction of Development Contribution Plan No.2 (DCP2). Amendment No.114 also made a number of modifications to Clause 5.6. Amendment No.114 was gazetted on 6 March 2013. In March 2015, the Council initiated Amendment No.156 to amend Town Planning Scheme No.2 as follows: (i) clause 5.6.1(a) is amended by deleting “, but does not apply to Development Contribution Area No.1”; (ii) clause 4(2) of Schedule No.12 is amended by: (a) Inserting the following: (b) the Primary Centre Waterfront Village Zone; (c) the Primary Centre Urban Village Zone; (d) the Primary Centre City Living Zone; (e) the Commercial Zone”; (b) deleting “(b) the Waterfront Village Zone;”; and (c) renumbering paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) respectively. The Amendment was gazetted on 1 April 2016. Following subsequent modifications to the City’s Town Planning Scheme No.2 to accord with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, clause 5.6 is now clause 5.5, and Schedule 12 is now Schedule 11. In October 2018, the Council considered a review of the Community Infrastructure Plan and resolved to adopt the City of Rockingham Community Infrastructure Plan 2018-2028. The revised Community Infrastructure Plan incorporated the following variations from the Community Infrastructure Plan which informed the current Development Contribution Plan: Aqua Jetty Stage 2 The intended expansion of the Aqua Jetty facilities, to improve amenities and cater to existing and future demand for both wet and dry facilities, no longer aligns fully with the description under DCP2.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 15

Baldivis South High School Outdoor Sport and Recreation Hard Court This facility will no longer be provided at the Baldivis South High School. A review of Baldivis community needs has identified additional demand for outdoor hardcourts to service the Baldivis North Sub-Area, as well as the existing need identified for the Baldivis South-Sub-Area. This need can be met by the provision of a Sub-District facility located in Baldivis North. Changing the location of the facility to the Baldivis North Sub-Area rather than the Baldivis South Sub-Area ensures an equitable geographic spread of facilities as the location of the Baldivis District Sporting Complex, which includes outdoor courts to service the entire municipality has moved from the Baldivis North Sub-Area to the Baldivis South Sub-Area. Baldivis District Sporting Complex DCP2 identifies the location of this district level project in the Baldivis North sub-area. The infrastructure item is being delivered in the Baldivis South sub-area following the acquisition of land at Eighty Road. Baldivis Indoor Recreation Centre As above, DCP2 identifies the location of this district level project in the Baldivis North sub-area. The infrastructure item is being delivered in the Baldivis South sub-area following the acquisition of land at Eighty Road. Rockingham Youth Recreation Space Redevelopment A new space will be developed within same sub-area, in lieu of redeveloping the existing facility (located at Rockingham Waterfront). Lark Hill Sportsplex Stage 2 The intended development of additional facilities no longer aligns fully with the description under DCP2. Port Kennedy Sport and Recreation Outdoor Hard Courts The Port Kennedy Sport and Recreation Outdoor Hard Courts has been removed. Additionally, the updated Community Infrastructure Plan proposed the following new infrastructure item to seek funding from the Development Contribution Scheme: East Baldivis Recreation Reserve The Baldivis South Active POS development is no longer listed as an infrastructure item, and has been replaced by the East Baldivis Recreation Reserve. The City’s intention is that by adding the East Baldivis Recreation Reserve it will satisfy the same demand as the Baldivis South Active POS Development. The Council initiated Amendment No.164 in December 2018 in order to modify Schedule No.11 to align with the current CIP. Details Amendment No.164 is intended to ensure consistency between the City’s recently adopted Community Infrastructure Plan 2018-2028 and the DCP2. The rationale for the specific modifications is as follows: Proposal 1 The definitions under Schedule 11, part 5, have the effect of describing the nature of the infrastructure item and setting the scope of infrastructure that can be funded through the DCP2.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 16

Definition Variation Rationale Aqua Jetty Stage 2 Deleting the words “group The existing description for the fitness rooms, basketball Aqua Jetty Stage 2 courts, offices, consulting development is more specific rooms, spectator seating, first than other descriptions within aid room, change rooms, DCP2, and does not provide crèche, outdoor cafe, play flexibility for the City to adjust area and swimming club the project scope to meet room” and replacing with community needs. “additional recreation and community facilities” Baldivis South Active POS Deleted and replaced with The Baldivis South Active Development “East Baldivis Recreation POS Development was Reserve” means the intended to address needs for development of an active and active POS space in the passive open space reserve to Baldivis South Sub-Area. be located in the Baldivis The CIP review has identified North Sub-Area. additional demand for active POS space in the Baldivis North Sub-Area which can best be met by a Sub-District facility that meets the needs of both Sub-Areas. Baldivis District Sporting Deleting the words “Baldivis The City has identified an Complex North Sub-Area” and replacing alternative site, and acquired with the words “Baldivis South land on Eighty Road, which is Sub-Area”. better located than the previous location identified east of the Kwinana Freeway. Given the new site is located within the Baldivis South rather than Baldivis North Sub-Area, the DCP2 description is required to be amended. The scope and catchment served by the infrastructure is not proposed to change. Baldivis Indoor Recreation Deleting the words “Baldivis The City has identified an Centre North Sub-Area” and replacing alternative site, and acquired with the words “Baldivis South land on Eighty Road, which is Sub-Area”. better located than the previous location identified east of the Kwinana Freeway. Given the new site is located within the Baldivis South rather than Baldivis North Sub-Area, the DCP2 description is required to be amended. The scope and catchment served by the infrastructure is not proposed to change.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 17

Definition Variation Rationale Lark Hill Sportsplex Stage 2 Deleting the words “playing The existing description for the fields, clubroom, indoor sports Lark Hill Sportsplex Stage 2 court facility, outdoor sports development is more specific courts, flood lighting and car than other descriptions within parking” and replacing with DCP2, and does not provide “additional sporting and flexibility for the City to adjust recreational facilities”. the project scope to meet community needs. Port Kennedy Outdoor Sport Deleted in its entirety. The CIP has identified that this and Recreation Hardcourts infrastructure item is no longer required. Rockingham Youth Recreation Deleted and replaced with Redevelopment of the existing Space Redevelopment “Rockingham Youth space is no longer appropriate Recreation Space” means the given uncertainty over land development of a recreation tenure at the existing site. space for youth to be located A new facility is intended to be in the Rockingham Sub-Area. developed in the same Sub- Area, at the Rockingham waterfront, which will meet the same community needs. Baldivis South HS Outdoor Deleted and replaced with The facility is no longer Sport and Recreation “Baldivis Outdoor Courts” intended to be co-located with Hardcourts means the development of the Baldivis South High sporting and recreational School and will instead be hardcourts to be located in the developed as a sub-district Baldivis North Sub-Area. facility in the Baldivis North Sub-Area. In this regard, the CIP review has identified additional demand for active POS space in the Baldivis North Sub-Area which can best be met by a Sub-District facility that meets the needs of both Sub-Areas. Proposal 2 The Table under Schedule 11, part 7, outlines the various infrastructure items and the Sub-Areas which forms the catchment for each item. The following modifications are required to ensure consistency with the changes identified in Proposal 1, and to ensure the applicable Sub-Areas reflect the infrastructure items catchment. Item Variation Rationale Baldivis South Active POS Replace with "East Baldivis The Baldivis South Active Development Recreation Reserve" under POS Development was SUB DISTRICT heading, intended to address needs for serving the Baldivis North active POS space in the Sub-Area and Baldivis South Baldivis South Sub-Area. Sub-Area. The CIP review has identified additional demand for active POS space in the Baldivis North Sub-Area which can best be met by a Sub-District facility that meets the needs of both Sub-Areas.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 18

Item Variation Rationale Port Kennedy Outdoor Sport Deleted in its entirety. The CIP has identified that this and Recreation Hardcourts infrastructure item is no longer required. Rockingham Youth Recreation Deleting the word Redevelopment of the existing Space Redevelopment “Redevelopment”. space is no longer appropriate given uncertainty over land tenure at the existing site. A new facility is intended to be developed in the same Sub- Area, at the Rockingham waterfront, which will meet the same community needs. Baldivis South HS Outdoor Delete and replace with The facility is no longer Sport and Recreation “Baldivis Outdoor Courts” intended to be co-located with Hardcourts under SUB DISTRICT the Baldivis South High heading, serving the Baldivis School and will instead be North Sub-Area and Baldivis developed as a sub-district South Sub-Area. facility in the Baldivis North Sub-Area. In this regard, the CIP review has identified additional demand for active POS space in the Baldivis North Sub-Area which can best be met by a Sub-District facility that meets the needs of both Sub-Areas.

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community Amendment No.164 was advertised in accordance with the Regulations for a period of 60 days, commencing on 13 March 2019 and concluding on 20 May 2019. Public advertising was carried out in the following manner: - A notice appeared in the Public Notices section of the Sound Telegraph on 13 March 2019. - 52 developers operating in the City, along with the Urban Development Institute of WA and the Property Council of Australia, were notified in writing of the Scheme Amendment and invited to comment. The developers notified were those that, in the opinion of the City, would be most affected by changes to Development Contribution Plan No.2. - Copies of the Amendment and supporting documentation were made available for inspection at the City’s Administration Offices and on the City’s website. At the conclusion of the advertising period, one submission had been received, from Cedar Woods Pty Ltd. The submission noted that a new draft SPP was to be released in the near future that should be considered as part of the Amendment. In this context, the submission raised the following specific comments: “1. DCP 2 seeks to raise over $150 million solely for the purpose of funding City of Rockingham community infrastructure projects. The purpose of DCP2 is not balanced by a need to better coordinate funding for broader infrastructure needs directly associated with urban growth (such as roads, service infrastructure, and facilities) which relate directly to urban development or subdivision. It should there be re- assessed against the original intent and purpose of the Draft Policy/Policy Review.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 19

2. The inclusion of regional community infrastructure, such as the ‘Lark Hill Sportsplex (Stage 2) appears inconsistent with provisions of the Draft Policy or direction of the WAPC. Many categories of regional infrastructure, generally, have been excluded from DCPs. 3. DCP2 appears to over represent the role of landowners / developers as a primary source of funding for municipal community infrastructure obligations. Greater emphasis should be placed on alternative funding, such as grants and rates revenue. 4. Landowners have little capacity to investigate the total level of community infrastructure and associated inclusions and standards being adopted. Correspondingly, it is difficult to reasonably assess whether total costs relate fairly and reasonable to industry benchmarks and whether they should transfer, relatively uncontested, to DCP2. Therefore, as part of its assessment of Amendment No. 164, the WAPC is requested to appoint a specialised panel, to ensure there is proper detailed delineation between DCP2 cost obligations and municipal cost obligations. 5. Cedar Woods is directly affected by an increase in cost estimates arising through Amendment No.164, adding $422 to its contribution per lot. In our opinion, the full extent of community of community infrastructure to be funded through DCP2 is not justified under the Draft Policy and should be pulled-back as part of the Draft Policy Review. Cedar Woods objects to any increase in its DCP2 cost liability.” The matters raised in the above submission are addressed in the Comments section of this report and the Schedule of Submissions. b. Consultation with Government Agencies All Scheme Amendments are required to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to determine if an environmental assessment is required, prior to advertising. On 21 January 2019 the EPA advised that the Scheme Amendment should not be assessed under the Act, and that it was not necessary to provide any environmental advice or recommendations on the Scheme Amendment. c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 2: Plan for Future Generations Strategic Objective: Infrastructure Planning - Plan and develop community, sport and recreation facilities which meet the current and future needs of the City’s growing population. d. Policy State Planning Policy 3.6 – Development Contributions for Infrastructure State Planning Policy 3.6 - Development Contributions for Infrastructure (SPP 3.6), as adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission under Section 26 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 ('the Act'), provides the statutory framework for the preparation of Development Contribution Plans. Section 77 of the Act requires a local government to have due regard to any State Planning Policy in preparing or amending a local planning scheme. A new draft State Planning Policy was released for public comment in 2016, but has not progressed to finalisation. e. Financial Contributions from anticipated subdivision and development within the Anstey Park area have been included in Development Contribution Plan Report for Development Contribution Plan No.2, and the City’s Business Plan.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 20 f. Legal and Statutory Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (‘the Regulations’) The procedures for dealing with proposals to amend TPS2, as per the Act, are set out in the Regulations. Regulation 35(1) enables the Local Government to prepare or adopt an amendment to TPS2, in a form approved by the WAPC. The resolution must specify whether, in the opinion of the local government, the amendment is a complex amendment, a standard amendment or a basic amendment, and include an explanation for the reason for the local government forming that option. The proposed Scheme Amendment is a 'complex amendment' as it seeks to amend a development contribution plan. As a 'complex amendment', the WAPC is required to determine whether the amendment is suitable for advertising and may require changes to the amendment, prior to advertising commencing. Schedule No.11 – Development Contribution Plan No.2 Clause 17 of DCP2 requires the Council to carry out a review of the operation of the Development Contribution Plan every 5 years from the Operative Date, and in the course of that review the Council is to consider and have regard to: (a) the extent to which development has occurred in Development Contribution Area No.2 since the Operative Date or the date of the last review under this clause, whichever is the later; (b) the potential for further development in Development Contribution Area No.2; and (c) any other matters that appear to the Council to be relevant to the operation of this Plan. The review of the CIP has satisfied the above requirements. g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety: Medium, High and Extreme Risks This matter has been assessed as a Medium financial risk. A decision by the WAPC/Minister for Planning to not approve modifications to the City’s DCP2 to enable contributions to be applied to modified infrastructure items would have a major impact level on the City’s finances. The City considers there to be a small chance of the WAPC/Minister for Planning not approving suitable modifications to DCP2, as the Amendment is consistent with the State Planning Policy. Comments

The proposed Scheme Amendment is intended to ensure consistency between the City’s recently adopted Community Infrastructure Plan 2018-2028 and the DCP2. With respect to the matters raised in the submission received, the following points are noted: - The new draft SPP has not yet been approved by the State Government for public consultation and should not be considered in the determination of this Amendment. - DCP2 was prepared specifically for the funding of community infrastructure consistent with the existing SPP3.6. The content and scope of DCP2 were considered and endorsed by the WAPC and Minister for Planning through the approval of Amendment No.114. DCP2 was approved to operate for a period of 20 years in order to provide certainty to the City that it would receive contributions from development in order to fund the delivery of infrastructure, which is being pre-funded by the City. It would not be appropriate to substantially alter the

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 21

content of DCP2 given the City has already begun implementation through the delivery of infrastructure. - ‘Lark Hill Sportsplex (Stage 2)’ is already included in DCP2 and the Amendment is simply adjusting the definition for that item. The submission provides no substantive comment on these proposed changes. - DCP2 clearly sets out that Owner's Cost Contributions are proportional to the demand they generate. As the City cannot guarantee access to grants funding, it is not appropriate for the City to ensure such when preparing estimates for payment of Owner's Cost Contributions. This matter was raised in submissions on Amendment No.114 and was considered by the Council, WAPC and Minister at that time. - Details of the City’s cost estimates are set out in the Development Contribution Plan Report, which is updated annually, and available on the City’s website. More detailed information on preparation of the cost estimates is available on request, and Owners can seek review of the cost estimates under clause 5.5.12 of the Scheme. - There is no basis to require the Amendment to justify the extent of community infrastructure against the new draft SPP, given it has not been approved by the State Government for public consultation. It is noted that the costs per dwelling unit within the Baldivis North Sub- Area, whilst increasing under the changes proposed by this Amendment, are still $49 below the original costs when DCP2 was introduced in November 2011, and are considered reasonable. The receipt of just one submission on the proposed Amendment suggests that the proposals do not raise any significant concerns for developers operating within the City and are considered reasonable. Given the above, it is recommended that the Council adopt Scheme Amendment No.164 for Final Approval.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Officer Recommendation

That Council: 1. ADOPTS (initiate) Amendment No.164 to Town Planning Scheme No.2 for the purposes of amending Town Planning Scheme No.2 as follows: Proposal 1 Amend Schedule No.11, part 5 as follows: (i) The definition of “Aqua Jetty Stage 2” is amended by deleting the words “group fitness rooms, basketball courts, offices, consulting rooms, spectator seating, first aid room, change rooms, crèche, outdoor cafe, play area and swimming club room” and replacing with “additional sporting, recreational and community facilities”. (ii) The definition of “Baldivis South Active POS Development” is deleted and replaced with “East Baldivis Recreation Reserve” means the development of an active and passive open space reserve to be located in the Baldivis North Sub-Area. (iii) The definition of “Baldivis District Sporting Complex” is amended deleting the words “Baldivis North Sub-Area” and replacing with the words “Baldivis South Sub-Area”. (iv) The definition of “Baldivis Indoor Recreation Centre” is amended by deleting the words “Baldivis North Sub-Area” and replacing with the words “Baldivis South Sub- Area”. (v) The definition of “Lark Hill Sportsplex Stage 2” is amended by deleting the words “playing fields, clubroom, indoor sports court facility, outdoor sports courts, flood lighting and car parking” and replacing with “additional sporting and recreational facilities”.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 22

(vi) The definition of “Port Kennedy Outdoor Sport and Recreation Hardcourts” is deleted. (vii) The definition of “Rockingham Youth Recreation Space Redevelopment” is deleted and replaced with “Rockingham Youth Recreation Space” means the development of a recreation space for youth to be located in the Rockingham Sub-Area. (viii) The definition of “Baldivis South HS Outdoor Sport and Recreation Hardcourts” is deleted and replaced with “Baldivis Outdoor Courts” means the development of sporting and recreational hardcourts to be located in the Baldivis North Sub-Area. Proposal 2 Amend the Table under Schedule 11, part 7, as follows: (i) Delete the following row:

(20) Baldivis South Active POS Baldivis South Sub-Area Development and replace it, under the SUB DISTRICT heading, with:

(16) East Baldivis Recreation Reserve Baldivis North Sub-Area and Baldivis South Sub-Area (ii) Delete the following row:

(18) Port Kennedy Outdoor Sport and Port Kennedy Sub-Area Recreation Hardcourts (iii) Delete the following row:

(3) Rockingham Youth Recreation Space All of the Sub-Areas Redevelopment

and replace it under the DISTRICT heading with: (3) Rockingham Youth Recreation Space All of the Sub-Areas

(iv) Delete the following row:

(22) Baldivis South HS Outdoor Sport and Baldivis South Sub-Area Recreation Hardcourts And replace it, under the SUB DISTRICT heading, with:

(17) Baldivis Outdoor Courts Baldivis North Sub-Area and Baldivis South Sub-Area

2. ADOPTS the recommendations contained within the Schedule of Submissions as follows:

Submission Comment Recommendation

1. Mr Karl White, Cedar Woods This submission is made by Cedar Woods The majority of the That the Properties Limited, on behalf of its wholly owned submission has been submission be not subsidiaries: made on the basis of a upheld. new draft State A. Silhouette Property Pty Ltd, which owns The Rivergums residential estate; and Planning Policy 3.6 – Development B. Upside Property Pty Ltd, Woodbrooke Property Contributions for Pty Ltd and Kayea Property Pty Ltd, which Infrastructure, that has collectively own Millars Landing residential estate. been prepared by the The Rivergums and Millars Landing are residential WAPC to replace the housing estates which include the development of existing SPP3.6. The residential lots and built-form and are subject to City is not aware of the

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 23

Submission Comment Recommendation the payment of developer contributions under the content of the new draft City of Rockingham Development Contribution SPP and is unable to Plan No.2 (DCP2). respond specifically to Cedar Woods notes that the Western Australian its purported content. Planning Commission (WAPC) Draft State It is noted that the Planning Policy 3.6 – Development Contributions WAPC Chairman, Mr for Infrastructure (Draft Policy) is under review and David Caddy, provided an amended Draft Policy (Draft Policy Review) is a presentation on the soon to be released for consultation. SPP review process at In the context of the Draft Policy Review, Cedar a recent UDIA forum Woods calls on the City of Rockingham, the where it was advised WAPC and the Minister for Planning to reconsider that the WAPC had the reasonableness of DCP2 on the following endorsed a new draft grounds. SPP for consideration by the State 1. DCP 2 seeks to raise over $150 million solely Government, although for the purpose of funding City of Rockingham timing for release of the community infrastructure projects. The purpose of new draft SPP was not DCP2 is not balanced by a need to better known. Mr Caddy coordinate funding for broader infrastructure further noted that it was needs directly associated with urban growth (such unlikely that as roads, service infrastructure, and facilities) substantially which relate directly to urban development or progressed Scheme subdivision. It should therefore be re-assessed Amendments would be against the original intent and purpose of the Draft required to comply with Policy/Policy Review. the new draft SPP, and 2. The inclusion of regional community that it would not be infrastructure, such as the ‘Lark Hill Sportsplex applied to existing (Stage 2) appears inconsistent with provisions of development the Draft Policy or direction of the WAPC. Many contribution plans. categories of regional infrastructure, generally, With specific reference have been excluded from DCPs. to the detailed points, 3. DCP2 appears to over represent the role of the following comments landowners / developers as a primary source of are provided: funding for municipal community infrastructure 1. DCP2 was prepared obligations Greater emphasis should be placed on specifically for the alternative funding, such as grants and rates funding of community revenue. infrastructure consistent 4. Landowners have little capacity to investigate with the existing the total level of community infrastructure and SPP3.6. The content associated inclusions and standards being and scope of DCP2 adopted. Correspondingly, it is difficult to were considered and reasonably assess whether total costs relate fairly endorsed by the WAPC and reasonably to industry benchmarks and and Minister for whether they should transfer, relatively Planning through the uncontested, to DCP2. Therefore, as part of its approval of Amendment assessment of Amendment No.164, the WAPC is No.114. DCP2 was requested to appoint a specialised panel, to approved to operate for ensure there is proper and detailed delineation a period of 20 years in between DCP2 cost obligations and municipal order to provide cost obligations. certainty to the City that 5. Cedar Woods is directly affected by an increase it would receive in cost estimates arising through Amendment No contributions from 164, adding $422 to its contribution per lot. In our development in order to opinion, the full extent of community infrastructure fund the delivery of

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 24

Submission Comment Recommendation to be funded through DCP2 is not justified under infrastructure, which is the Draft Policy and should be pulled-back as part being pre-funded by the of the Draft Policy Review. Cedar Woods objects City. It would not be to any increase in its DCP2 cost liability. appropriate to substantially alter the content of DCP2 given the City has already begun implementation through the delivery of infrastructure. 2. ‘Lark Hill Sportsplex (Stage 2)’ is already included in DCP2 and the Amendment is simply adjusting the definition for that item. The submission provides no substantive comment on these proposed changes. 3. DCP2 clearly sets out that Owners Cost Contributions are proportional to the demand they generate. As the City cannot guarantee access to grants funding, it is not appropriate for the City to ensure such when preparing estimates for payment of Owners Cost Contributions. This matter was raised in submissions on Amendment No.114 and was considered by the Council, WAPC and Minister at that time. 4. Details of the City’s cost estimates are set out in the Development Contribution Plan Report, available on the City’s website. More detailed information on preparation of the cost estimates is available on request, and Owners can seek review of the cost estimates under clause 5.5.12 of the Scheme. 5. There is no basis to require the Amendment

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 25

Submission Comment Recommendation to justify the extent of community infrastructure against the new draft SPP, given it has not been approved by the State Government for public consultation. It is noted that the costs per dwelling unit within the Baldivis North Sub- Area, whilst increasing under the changes proposed by this Amendment, are still $49 below the original costs when DCP2 was introduced in November 2011, and are considered reasonable.

Committee Recommendation

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 26

Proposal 2 Amend the Table under Schedule 11, part 7, as follows: (i) Delete the following row:

(20) Baldivis South Active POS Baldivis South Sub-Area Development

and replace it, under the SUB DISTRICT heading, with:

(16) East Baldivis Recreation Reserve Baldivis North Sub-Area and Baldivis South Sub-Area

(ii) Delete the following row:

(18) Port Kennedy Outdoor Sport and Port Kennedy Sub-Area Recreation Hardcourts

(iii) Delete the following row:

(3) Rockingham Youth Recreation Space All of the Sub-Areas Redevelopment

and replace it under the DISTRICT heading with:

(3) Rockingham Youth Recreation Space All of the Sub-Areas

(iv) Delete the following row:

(22) Baldivis South HS Outdoor Sport and Baldivis South Sub-Area Recreation Hardcourts

And replace it, under the SUB DISTRICT heading, with:

(17) Baldivis Outdoor Courts Baldivis North Sub-Area and Baldivis South Sub-Area

2. ADOPTS the recommendations contained within the Schedule of Submissions as follows:

Submission Comment Recommendation

1. Mr Karl White, Cedar Woods This submission is made by Cedar Woods The majority of the That the Properties Limited, on behalf of its wholly owned submission has been submission be not subsidiaries: made on the basis of a upheld. A. Silhouette Property Pty Ltd, which owns The new draft State Rivergums residential estate; and Planning Policy 3.6 – Development B. Upside Property Pty Ltd, Woodbrooke Property Contributions for Pty Ltd and Kayea Property Pty Ltd, which Infrastructure, that has collectively own Millars Landing residential estate. been prepared by the The Rivergums and Millars Landing are residential WAPC to replace the housing estates which include the development of existing SPP3.6. The residential lots and built-form and are subject to City is not aware of the the payment of developer contributions under the content of the new draft City of Rockingham Development Contribution SPP and is unable to Plan No.2 (DCP2). respond specifically to its purported content.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 27

Submission Comment Recommendation Cedar Woods notes that the Western Australian It is noted that the Planning Commission (WAPC) Draft State WAPC Chairman, Mr Planning Policy 3.6 – Development Contributions David Caddy, provided for Infrastructure (Draft Policy) is under review and a presentation on the an amended Draft Policy (Draft Policy Review) is SPP review process at soon to be released for consultation. a recent UDIA forum In the context of the Draft Policy Review, Cedar where it was advised Woods calls on the City of Rockingham, the that the WAPC had WAPC and the Minister for Planning to reconsider endorsed a new draft the reasonableness of DCP2 on the following SPP for consideration grounds. by the State 1. DCP 2 seeks to raise over $150 million solely Government, although for the purpose of funding City of Rockingham timing for release of the community infrastructure projects. The purpose of new draft SPP was not DCP2 is not balanced by a need to better known. Mr Caddy coordinate funding for broader infrastructure further noted that it was needs directly associated with urban growth (such unlikely that as roads, service infrastructure, and facilities) substantially which relate directly to urban development or progressed Scheme subdivision. It should therefore be re-assessed Amendments would be against the original intent and purpose of the Draft required to comply with Policy/Policy Review. the new draft SPP, and 2. The inclusion of regional community that it would not be infrastructure, such as the ‘Lark Hill Sportsplex applied to existing (Stage 2) appears inconsistent with provisions of development the Draft Policy or direction of the WAPC. Many contribution plans. categories of regional infrastructure, generally, With specific reference have been excluded from DCPs. to the detailed points, 3. DCP2 appears to over represent the role of the following comments landowners / developers as a primary source of are provided: funding for municipal community infrastructure 1. DCP2 was prepared obligations Greater emphasis should be placed on specifically for the alternative funding, such as grants and rates funding of community revenue. infrastructure consistent 4. Landowners have little capacity to investigate with the existing the total level of community infrastructure and SPP3.6. The content associated inclusions and standards being and scope of DCP2 adopted. Correspondingly, it is difficult to were considered and reasonably assess whether total costs relate fairly endorsed by the WAPC and reasonably to industry benchmarks and and Minister for whether they should transfer, relatively Planning through the uncontested, to DCP2. Therefore, as part of its approval of Amendment assessment of Amendment No.164, the WAPC is No.114. DCP2 was requested to appoint a specialised panel, to approved to operate for ensure there is proper and detailed delineation a period of 20 years in between DCP2 cost obligations and municipal order to provide cost obligations. certainty to the City that 5. Cedar Woods is directly affected by an increase it would receive in cost estimates arising through Amendment No contributions from 164, adding $422 to its contribution per lot. In our development in order to opinion, the full extent of community infrastructure fund the delivery of to be funded through DCP2 is not justified under infrastructure, which is the Draft Policy and should be pulled-back as part being pre-funded by the of the Draft Policy Review. Cedar Woods objects City. It would not be to any increase in its DCP2 cost liability. appropriate to

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 28

Submission Comment Recommendation substantially alter the content of DCP2 given the City has already begun implementation through the delivery of infrastructure. 2. ‘Lark Hill Sportsplex (Stage 2)’ is already included in DCP2 and the Amendment is simply adjusting the definition for that item. The submission provides no substantive comment on these proposed changes. 3. DCP2 clearly sets out that Owners Cost Contributions are proportional to the demand they generate. As the City cannot guarantee access to grants funding, it is not appropriate for the City to ensure such when preparing estimates for payment of Owners Cost Contributions. This matter was raised in submissions on Amendment No.114 and was considered by the Council, WAPC and Minister at that time. 4. Details of the City’s cost estimates are set out in the Development Contribution Plan Report, available on the City’s website. More detailed information on preparation of the cost estimates is available on request, and Owners can seek review of the cost estimates under clause 5.5.12 of the Scheme. 5. There is no basis to require the Amendment to justify the extent of community infrastructure against the new draft SPP,

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 29

Submission Comment Recommendation given it has not been approved by the State Government for public consultation. It is noted that the costs per dwelling unit within the Baldivis North Sub- Area, whilst increasing under the changes proposed by this Amendment, are still $49 below the original costs when DCP2 was introduced in November 2011, and are considered reasonable. Committee Voting – 5/0

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution That Council: 1. ADOPTS (initiate) Amendment No.164 to Town Planning Scheme No.2 for the purposes of amending Town Planning Scheme No.2 as follows: Proposal 1 Amend Schedule No.11, part 5 as follows: (i) The definition of “Aqua Jetty Stage 2” is amended by deleting the words “group fitness rooms, basketball courts, offices, consulting rooms, spectator seating, first aid room, change rooms, crèche, outdoor cafe, play area and swimming club room” and replacing with “additional sporting, recreational and community facilities”. (ii) The definition of “Baldivis South Active POS Development” is deleted and replaced with “East Baldivis Recreation Reserve” means the development of an active and passive open space reserve to be located in the Baldivis North Sub-Area. (iii) The definition of “Baldivis District Sporting Complex” is amended deleting the words “Baldivis North Sub-Area” and replacing with the words “Baldivis South Sub-Area”. (iv) The definition of “Baldivis Indoor Recreation Centre” is amended by deleting the words “Baldivis North Sub-Area” and replacing with the words “Baldivis South Sub- Area”. (v) The definition of “Lark Hill Sportsplex Stage 2” is amended by deleting the words “playing fields, clubroom, indoor sports court facility, outdoor sports courts, flood lighting and car parking” and replacing with “additional sporting and recreational facilities”. (vi) The definition of “Port Kennedy Outdoor Sport and Recreation Hardcourts” is deleted.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 30

(vii) The definition of “Rockingham Youth Recreation Space Redevelopment” is deleted and replaced with “Rockingham Youth Recreation Space” means the development of a recreation space for youth to be located in the Rockingham Sub-Area. (viii) The definition of “Baldivis South HS Outdoor Sport and Recreation Hardcourts” is deleted and replaced with “Baldivis Outdoor Courts” means the development of sporting and recreational hardcourts to be located in the Baldivis North Sub-Area. Proposal 2 Amend the Table under Schedule 11, part 7, as follows: (i) Delete the following row:

(20) Baldivis South Active POS Baldivis South Sub-Area Development

and replace it, under the SUB DISTRICT heading, with:

(16) East Baldivis Recreation Reserve Baldivis North Sub-Area and Baldivis South Sub-Area

(ii) Delete the following row:

(18) Port Kennedy Outdoor Sport and Port Kennedy Sub-Area Recreation Hardcourts

(iii) Delete the following row:

(3) Rockingham Youth Recreation Space All of the Sub-Areas Redevelopment

and replace it under the DISTRICT heading with:

(3) Rockingham Youth Recreation Space All of the Sub-Areas

(iv) Delete the following row:

(22) Baldivis South HS Outdoor Sport and Baldivis South Sub-Area Recreation Hardcourts

And replace it, under the SUB DISTRICT heading, with:

(17) Baldivis Outdoor Courts Baldivis North Sub-Area and Baldivis South Sub-Area

2. ADOPTS the recommendations contained within the Schedule of Submissions as follows:

Submission Comment Recommendation 1. Mr Karl White, Cedar Woods This submission is made by Cedar Woods The majority of the That the Properties Limited, on behalf of its wholly owned submission has been submission be not subsidiaries: made on the basis of a upheld. A. Silhouette Property Pty Ltd, which owns The new draft State Rivergums residential estate; and Planning Policy 3.6 – Development B. Upside Property Pty Ltd, Woodbrooke Property Contributions for Pty Ltd and Kayea Property Pty Ltd, which Infrastructure, that has collectively own Millars Landing residential estate. been prepared by the The Rivergums and Millars Landing are residential WAPC to replace the

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 31

Submission Comment Recommendation housing estates which include the development of existing SPP3.6. The residential lots and built-form and are subject to City is not aware of the the payment of developer contributions under the content of the new draft City of Rockingham Development Contribution SPP and is unable to Plan No.2 (DCP2). respond specifically to Cedar Woods notes that the Western Australian its purported content. Planning Commission (WAPC) Draft State It is noted that the Planning Policy 3.6 – Development Contributions WAPC Chairman, Mr for Infrastructure (Draft Policy) is under review and David Caddy, provided an amended Draft Policy (Draft Policy Review) is a presentation on the soon to be released for consultation. SPP review process at In the context of the Draft Policy Review, Cedar a recent UDIA forum Woods calls on the City of Rockingham, the where it was advised WAPC and the Minister for Planning to reconsider that the WAPC had the reasonableness of DCP2 on the following endorsed a new draft grounds. SPP for consideration 1. DCP 2 seeks to raise over $150 million solely by the State for the purpose of funding City of Rockingham Government, although community infrastructure projects. The purpose of timing for release of the DCP2 is not balanced by a need to better new draft SPP was not coordinate funding for broader infrastructure known. Mr Caddy needs directly associated with urban growth (such further noted that it was as roads, service infrastructure, and facilities) unlikely that which relate directly to urban development or substantially subdivision. It should therefore be re-assessed progressed Scheme against the original intent and purpose of the Draft Amendments would be Policy/Policy Review. required to comply with the new draft SPP, and 2. The inclusion of regional community that it would not be infrastructure, such as the ‘Lark Hill Sportsplex applied to existing (Stage 2) appears inconsistent with provisions of development the Draft Policy or direction of the WAPC. Many contribution plans. categories of regional infrastructure, generally, have been excluded from DCPs. With specific reference 3. DCP2 appears to over represent the role of to the detailed points, landowners / developers as a primary source of the following comments funding for municipal community infrastructure are provided: obligations Greater emphasis should be placed on 1. DCP2 was prepared alternative funding, such as grants and rates specifically for the revenue. funding of community 4. Landowners have little capacity to investigate infrastructure consistent the total level of community infrastructure and with the existing associated inclusions and standards being SPP3.6. The content adopted. Correspondingly, it is difficult to and scope of DCP2 reasonably assess whether total costs relate fairly were considered and and reasonably to industry benchmarks and endorsed by the WAPC whether they should transfer, relatively and Minister for uncontested, to DCP2. Therefore, as part of its Planning through the assessment of Amendment No.164, the WAPC is approval of Amendment requested to appoint a specialised panel, to No.114. DCP2 was ensure there is proper and detailed delineation approved to operate for between DCP2 cost obligations and municipal a period of 20 years in cost obligations. order to provide 5. Cedar Woods is directly affected by an increase certainty to the City that in cost estimates arising through Amendment No it would receive contributions from 164, adding $422 to its contribution per lot. In our

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 32

Submission Comment Recommendation opinion, the full extent of community infrastructure development in order to to be funded through DCP2 is not justified under fund the delivery of the Draft Policy and should be pulled-back as part infrastructure, which is of the Draft Policy Review. Cedar Woods objects being pre-funded by the to any increase in its DCP2 cost liability. City. It would not be appropriate to substantially alter the content of DCP2 given the City has already begun implementation through the delivery of infrastructure. 2. ‘Lark Hill Sportsplex (Stage 2)’ is already included in DCP2 and the Amendment is simply adjusting the definition for that item. The submission provides no substantive comment on these proposed changes. 3. DCP2 clearly sets out that Owners Cost Contributions are proportional to the demand they generate. As the City cannot guarantee access to grants funding, it is not appropriate for the City to ensure such when preparing estimates for payment of Owners Cost Contributions. This matter was raised in submissions on Amendment No.114 and was considered by the Council, WAPC and Minister at that time. 4. Details of the City’s cost estimates are set out in the Development Contribution Plan Report, available on the City’s website. More detailed information on preparation of the cost estimates is available on request, and Owners can seek review of the cost estimates under clause 5.5.12 of the Scheme.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-036/19 PAGE 33

Submission Comment Recommendation 5. There is no basis to require the Amendment to justify the extent of community infrastructure against the new draft SPP, given it has not been approved by the State Government for public consultation. It is noted that the costs per dwelling unit within the Baldivis North Sub- Area, whilst increasing under the changes proposed by this Amendment, are still $49 below the original costs when DCP2 was introduced in November 2011, and are considered reasonable.

Carried en bloc The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-037/19 PAGE 34

Planning and Development Services Statutory Planning Services Reference No & Subject: PD-037/19 Proposed Modification to Building Envelope File No: DD024.2019.00000002.001 Applicant: Mr Chad Vergara and Ms Melissa Winter Owner: Mr Chad Vergara and Ms Melissa Winter Author: Mr Stephen Sullivan, Planning Officer Other Contributors: Mr David Waller, Coordinator Statutory Planning Mr Mike Ross, Manager Statutory Planning Date of Committee Meeting: 17 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Tribunal this Matter:

Site: Lot 1019 (No. 56) Peelfold Glen, Golden Bay Lot Area: 2,221 m² LA Zoning: Special Residential MRS Zoning: Rural Attachments: Maps/Diagrams: 1. Location Plan 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Existing/Proposed Building Envelope Plan 4. Photograph 1 - Location of Proposed Patio 5. Photograph 2 - Location of Proposed Garage 6. Consultation Plan

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-037/19 PAGE 35

1. Location Plan

2. Aerial Photograph

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-037/19 PAGE 36

Purpose of Report

To consider an application to modify the approved Building Envelope at Lot 1090 (No. 56) Peelfold Glen, Golden Bay.

Background

Peelfold Glen is located to the south-west of the intersection of Dampier Drive and Mandurah Road. The street has its main access from Dampier Drive and is orientated in a north-south direction. Lot 1090 (No.56) Peelfold Glen (the Site) is a battle-axe lot that is situated at the southern end of Peelfold Glen. It’s north-western boundary abuts the eastern side of the Golden Bay Estate, with the north-eastern, south-eastern and south-western boundaries of the site abutting other residential properties. The original (current) Building Envelope was created as part of the subdivision of the Peelhurst Estate, Golden Bay.

Details

The applicant proposes to modify the approved Building Envelope for the purposes of:  Adding a new patio to wrap around the northern corner of the existing dwelling; and  Building a new outbuilding (garage) to the north-east of the existing dwelling. The size of the proposed Building Envelope, based on the 23 April 2019 revised plans, is proposed to be increased from 600m² to 620m², as shown below:

3. Existing/Proposed Building Envelope

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-037/19 PAGE 37

4. Photograph 1 - Location of Proposed Patio

5. Photograph 2 - Location of Proposed Garage

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community In accordance with Clause 64 of the deemed provisions of Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS2), the application was referred to adjoining property owners and occupiers, as per the consultation plan below. At the closing of advertising, no submissions were received.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-037/19 PAGE 38

6. Consultation Map b. Consultation with Government Agencies Not Applicable c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 3: Plan for Future Generations Strategic Objective: Responsive Planning and Control of Land Use - Plan and control the use of land to meet the needs of the growing population, with consideration of future generations d. Policy Planning Policy 3.3.17 – Variations to Building Envelopes (PP3.3.17) The following is an assessment against the relevant requirements of PP3.3.17: Requirement Provided Compliance Compliance with Schedule No. 5 of TPS2 provides Yes Schedule No. 5 of that the size and location of an TPS2 Scheme Text. approved Building Envelope may be varied with the approval of Council. The varied Building The land is grassed where it is Yes Envelope must not proposed to locate the new patio result in an adverse and outbuilding. No trees will be environmental impact. removed for the purposes of varying the Building Envelope.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-037/19 PAGE 39

Requirement Provided Compliance The varied Building The proposed modification will not Yes Envelope must not result in an increased level of result in an bushfire risk. unacceptable level of bushfire risk. No unacceptable No objection were received from Yes amenity impacts to adjoining owners to the Building neighbours. Envelope modification and it is not considered to result in an adverse impact upon adjoining landowners. The variation is a The size of the original Building Yes minor increase in the Envelope will be increased from size of the approved 600m2 to 620m2, which is an Building Envelope. An increase of 20m² or 3%, which increase up to a complies with the maximum maximum of 10% of allowable increase of 10%. the area of the original approved Building Envelope will be considered. Building Envelopes are The Building Envelope is Yes to be of a regular generally of a regular shape and shape and comprise will comprise a single contiguous one single contiguous area. area. State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP3.7) The purpose of the proposed Building Envelope modification is to accommodate minor additions (open patio) to the existing dwelling and a detached outbuilding (double width garage) on the Site. A Bushfire Management Plan was submitted when the original Building Envelope was approved. The proposed modification of the Building Envelope will not result in an increase in bushfire risk. The proposal is considered to be compliant with the requirements of SPP3.7. e. Financial Nil f. Legal and Statutory Schedule No.5 of TPS2 provides that the size and location of an approved Building Envelope may be varied with the approval of Council. g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety: Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Comments The proposed Building Envelope modification is consistent with the intent TPS2 and PP3.3.17. The modification is to facilitate the construction of a future garage and patio.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-037/19 PAGE 40

The Building Envelope modification will not result in any environmental impact. The modification will allow all existing and proposed structures to be included within the Building Envelope. Further, the modification will not result in the removal of any trees and it will not increase the level of bushfire risk. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed Building Envelope variation be approved. Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Officer Recommendation

That Council APPROVES the application to vary the Building Envelope at Lot 1090 (No.56) Peelfold Glen, Golden Bay, as shown below.

Proposed Building Envelope

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-037/19 PAGE 41

Committee Recommendation

That Council APPROVES the application to vary the Building Envelope at Lot 1090 (No.56) Peelfold Glen, Golden Bay, as shown below.

Proposed Building Envelope Committee Voting – 5/0

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

That Council APPROVES the application to vary the Building Envelope at Lot 1090 (No.56) Peelfold Glen, Golden Bay, as shown below.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-037/19 PAGE 42

Proposed Building Envelope Carried en bloc The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-038/19 PAGE 43

Planning and Development Services Planning Services Reference No & Subject: PD-038/19 Proposed Street Naming Theme - ‘Oasis Baldivis’ File No: LUP/2046 and 21.2018.23.1 Applicant: Rowe Group Pty Ltd Owner: Lot 5 - Starfield Corp Pty Ltd Lot 6 - Ms J White and Messrs R & J Cahill Lot 7 - Mr and Mrs Wickliffe Lot 8 - Mr B and Mrs D Morzenti Lots 302 and 309 - Infield Holdings Pty Ltd Author: Miss Nicole D’Alessandro, Planning Administration Officer Other Contributors: Mr David Waller, Coordinator Statutory Planning Mr Mike Ross, Manager Statutory Planning Date of Committee Meeting: 17 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Executive this Matter:

Site: Lots 5-8, 302 and 309 Kerosene Lane, Baldivis Lot Area: 15.34ha LA Zoning: Development MRS Zoning: Urban Attachments: Maps/Diagrams: 1. Location Plan 2. Structure Plan - Lots 5-8 Kerosene Lane 3. Structure Plan - Lots 302 and 309 Kerosene Lane 4. Subdivision Plan - WAPC 153892, 153958, 153887 and 153891 5. Subdivision Plan - WAPC 156409

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-038/19 PAGE 44

1. Location Plan Purpose of Report

To consider an application seeking approval for a street naming theme based on words which are related to, or synonyms of the word ‘Oasis’ to be applied to a residential subdivision located at Lots 5-8, 302 and 309 Kerosene Lane, Baldivis. The site is to be marketed as ‘Oasis Baldivis’.

Background

In July 2017, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted approval to the Structure Plan applying to Lots 5-8 Kerosene Lane, Baldivis. The approved Structure Plan includes the creation of 135 residential lots with an ‘R30’ density and 3 areas of Public Open Space, as per map 2 below.

2. Structure Plan – Lots 5-8 Kerosene Lane

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-038/19 PAGE 45

In May 2018, the WAPC granted approval to the Kerosene Lane Structure Plan applying to Lots 302 and 309 Kerosene Lane, Baldivis. The approved Structure Plan includes the creation of 130 residential lots with densities of ‘R25’ and ‘R40’ and 2 areas of Public Open Space, as per map 3 below.

3. Structure Plan – Lots 302 and 309 Kerosene Lane In August 2017, subdivision applications for Lots 5-8 were conditionally approved by the WAPC for 130 lots. (WAPC Refs 153892, 153958, 153887 and 153891)

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-038/19 PAGE 46

4. Subdivision Plans – WAPC 153892, 153958, 153887 and 153891

In July 2018, a subdivision application for Lots 302 and 309 Kerosene Lane was conditionally approved by the WAPC for 139 lots. (WAPC Ref 156409)

5. Subdivision Plan – WAPC 156409

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-038/19 PAGE 47

Details

The proposed street naming theme for the Oasis Baldivis Estate is based on words related to, or synonyms of the word ‘Oasis’. The subject site is surrounded by a large variety of land uses, in proximity to Lake Cooloongup, the regional centre of Rockingham and rural land uses. The locality provides for many opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of the natural environment. The ‘Oasis Baldivis’ Estate provides for residential living surrounded by a high quality built and natural environment. As such, the rationale behind the choice of theme relates to the Estate acting as a ‘suburban oasis’. Examples of the proposed street names are as follows: Enchanted - To delight to a high degree, to impart a magic quality or effect to Blissful - Providing perfect happiness or great joy Pristine - Pristine refers to something ‘in its original condition’, that is clean and fresh as if new Habitat - Oases provide habitats for animals and plants, in otherwise dry deserts Paradise - A place or condition of great happiness

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community Nil b. Consultation with Government Agencies Consultation with the Geographic Names Team is required following the Council’s decision. c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 3: Plan for Future Generations Strategic Objective: Responsive Planning and Control of Land Use - Plan and control the use of land to meet the needs of the growing population, with consideration of future generations. d. Policy Nil e. Financial Nil f. Legal and Statutory The Land Administration Act 1997 (section 26A) requires developers of new subdivisions to submit street names for support by the Council. The responsibility for approving street names rests with the Geographic Names Team. The proposed theme is in accordance with the Geographic Names Committee Principles, Procedures and Guidelines. g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety: Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-038/19 PAGE 48

Comments The City’s Planning Procedure No.1.4 - Street Names and Their Themes (Planning Procedure No.1.4) provides guidelines and procedures for street naming themes and associated street names for subdivisions within the City. All applications for approval of street naming themes are assessed by the City for compliance with Planning Procedure No.1.4 and are referred to Council for determination. The proposed theme based on ‘words related to, or synonyms of the word ‘Oasis’ complies with the City’s Planning Procedure No.1.4 and the Geographic Names Committee Principles, Procedures and Guidelines, as a thematic source of names which is relevant to the site marketed and to be known as ‘Oasis Baldivis’. In light of the above, it is recommended that the Council support the proposed street naming theme. Next Steps4 Street names that are consistent with the Council approved street naming theme and comply in all respects with Planning Procedure No.1.4, will be pre-approved by the City and referred to the Geographic Names Team for further assessment and final approval. Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Officer Recommendation

That Council SUPPORTS the proposed street naming theme based on ‘words related to, or synonyms of the word ‘Oasis’ for the residential subdivision located at Lots 5-8, 302 and 309 Kerosene Lane, Baldivis known as ‘Oasis Baldivis’.

Committee Recommendation

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-039/19 PAGE 49

Planning and Development Services Statutory Planning Services Reference No & Subject: PD-039/19 Proposed Road Closure - Portion of Parkin Street, Rockingham (Final Support) File No: LUP/2130 Applicant: Mr D Kenny Owner: Crown Land Author: Mr Neels Pretorius, Planning Officer Other Contributors: Mr David Waller, Coordinator Statutory Planning Mr Mike Ross, Manager Statutory Planning Date of Committee Meeting: 17 June 2019 Previously before Council: March 2019 (PDS-015/19) Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Executive this Matter:

Site: Portion of Parkin Street Road Reserve, Rockingham - adjoining Lot 22 Parkin Street, Rockingham Area: 100.7m2 (Road Closure Portion) LA Zoning: Local Road MRS Zoning: Urban Attachments: Maps/Diagrams: 1. Aerial Photo 2. Location Plan 3. Proposed Road Closure

Purpose of Report

To consider proceeding with a minor road closure for a portion of the Parkin Street Road Reserve to enable its amalgamation with Lot 22 Parkin Street, Rockingham following public advertising.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-039/19 PAGE 50

1. 1. Aerial Photo 2.

2. Location Plan

Background

In March 2019, Council resolved to advertise the proposed closure of a small portion of Road Reserve (100.7m2) on the corner of Parkin Street and Walker Avenue Rockingham.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-039/19 PAGE 51

Details

The applicant seeks Council’s support to close a portion of Parkin Street Road Reserve, Rockingham to facilitate its amalgamation with the adjoining Lot 22 Parkin Street, Rockingham. The area of land to be amalgamated measures 100.7m2. The location of the proposed road closure portion is depicted below:

3. Proposed Road Closure

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community The proposal was advertised for 35 days in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997, by a notice circulated in the South Telegraph newspaper. Advertising closed on 23 May 2019 and no public submissions were received. Neighbour consultation is not required for a road closure in terms of the Land Administration Act 1997. b. Consultation with Government Agencies The following authorities were consulted during the advertising period: (i) Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage; (ii) Main Roads WA; (iii) Western Power; (iv) Water Corporation; (v) Department of Water and Environmental Regulation; (vi) ATCO gas; and (vii) Telstra. Submissions were received from Main Roads WA (MRWA), Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER) and ATCO Gas Australia Pty Ltd Regulations.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-039/19 PAGE 52

1. Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER)

Submission: DWER has no objection to the proposed road closure.

City’s Comment: Noted.

2. Main Roads WA (MRWA)

Submission: MRWA has no objection to the proposed road closure.

City’s Comment: Noted.

3. ATCO Gas Australia Pty Ltd (ATCO Gas)

Submission: ATCO Gas has no objection to the proposed road closure.

City’s Comment: Noted. c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective contained in the Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 3: Plan for Future Generations Strategic Objective: Responsive Planning and Control of Land Use - Plan and control the use of land to meet the needs of the growing population, with consideration of future generations d. Policy Nil e. Financial The City’s costs associated with advertising the proposal are required to be reimbursed by the applicant. The net financial cost associated with the proposed road closure to the City is therefore nil. f. Legal and Statutory The care, control and management of roads rests with the City of Rockingham. As the Local Government Authority over Parkin Street, the City is responsible for the management of the road closure. The responsibility for determining applications for the closure of road reserves rests with the Minister for Planning, Lands and Heritage on advice from the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (State Land Services).

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-039/19 PAGE 53 g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety: Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil Comments

Consultation with Government Agencies has confirmed that the proposed road closure will not adversely impact on existing or planned services. Further, no submissions were received following advertising of the proposal. It is recommended that Council support the proposed road closure, in which case, the matter will be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (State Land Services) seeking approval from the Minister for Planning, Lands and Heritage.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Officer Recommendation

That Council SUPPORTS the proposed closure of a portion of Parkin Street and Walker Avenue adjacent to Lot 22 (No.16) Parkin Street, Rockingham for the portion of land shown below.

Proposed Road Closure

Committee Recommendation

That Council SUPPORTS the proposed closure of a portion of Parkin Street and Walker Avenue adjacent to Lot 22 (No.16) Parkin Street, Rockingham for the portion of land shown below.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-039/19 PAGE 54

Proposed Road Closure Committee Voting – 5/0

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

That Council SUPPORTS the proposed closure of a portion of Parkin Street and Walker Avenue adjacent to Lot 22 (No.16) Parkin Street, Rockingham for the portion of land shown below.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-039/19 PAGE 55

Proposed Road Closure Carried en bloc The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-040/19 PAGE 56

Planning and Development Services Statutory Planning Services Reference No & Subject: PD-040/19 Proposed Road Closure - Portion of Charles Street, East Rockingham

File No: LUP/2131 Applicant: BHP Billiton Nickel West Pty Ltd Owner: Crown Land Author: Mr David Banovic, Senior Planning Officer Other Contributors: Mr David Waller, Coordinator Statutory Planning Mr Mike Ross, Manager Statutory Planning Date of Committee Meeting: 17 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Tribunal this Matter:

Site: Portion of Charles Street Road Reserve, East Rockingham - Adjoining Lot 89 Patterson Road, East Rockingham Land Area: 0.18ha - Area of proposed road closure LA Zoning: Local Road MRS Zoning: Industrial Attachments: Maps/Diagrams: 1. Location Plan 2. Aerial Photo 3. Diagram Plan 4. Zoomed in Diagram Plan 5. Town Planning Scheme No.2 zoning 6. Proposed Partial Road Closure

Purpose of Report

To consider a request to close a portion of Charles Street Road Reserve in East Rockingham, to enable its amalgamation with Lot 89 Patterson Road, East Rockingham.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-040/19 PAGE 57

1. Location Plan

2. Aerial Photo

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-040/19 PAGE 58

Background The Kwinana Nickel Refinery (KNR) site has an area of 35.2872ha and is located on the southern boundary of the City of Kwinana and northern boundary of the City of Rockingham. KNR is owned and operated by BHP Billiton Nickel West Pty Ltd (BHP). In July 1973, approximately 0.18ha of land along the southern boundary of Lot 89, along Charles Street was "transferred to the Crown" for road widening purposes on Diagram Plan No.9541(2). As a consequence, infrastructure cabling was installed in late 1960s and a fence erected around the KNR southern boundary within the area than now encroaches onto the Charles Street Road Reserve.

3. Diagram Plan

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-040/19 PAGE 59

4. Zoomed in Diagram Plan

5. Town Planning Scheme No.2 zoning Details

The City has received an application from the owner of Lot 89 Patterson Road, East Rockingham seeking to rectify the historical boundary, by closing and amalgamating this portion of Charles Street Road Reserve, East Rockingham. The City has not been able to ascertain the rationale behind the road widening boundary alignment, however, it is believed that Charles Street Road Reserve was intended (i.e. splayed), to allow for a potential future road bridge over the railway line.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-040/19 PAGE 60

The area of land to be amalgamated is approximately 0.18ha and is required to support the existing and future expansion of the KNR as part of the recently approved nickel sulphate development, in June 2018. The location of the proposed road closure section is depicted below.

6. Proposed Partial Road Closure

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community In order to comply with section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (the Act), a resolution from Council is required to proceed with the closure of a portion of road reserve. Under the Act, the City is required to advertise the proposed road closure by way of a publication in a local newspaper seeking public comment for a period of 35 days. b. Consultation with Government Agencies The City has been liaising with the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage and Landcorp, in relation to the road closure proposal. Further consultation will occur with the below-mentioned Government Agencies, following consent from Council to advertise the proposal: (i) Department of Fire and Emergency Services; (ii) Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage; (iii) Department of Water and Environmental Regulations; (iv) City of Kwinana; (v) ATCO; (vi) Landcorp; (vii) Main Roads WA;

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-040/19 PAGE 61

(viii) Telstra; (ix) Water Corporation; and (x) Western Power. c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 3: Plan for Future Generations Strategic Objective: Responsive Planning and Control of Land Use - Plan and control the use of land to meet the needs of the growing population, with consideration of future generations. d. Policy Nil e. Financial Advertising costs will be borne by the proponent. f. Legal and Statutory The care, control and management of Charles Street rests with the City of Rockingham. As the Local Government Authority over Charles Street, the City is responsible for the management of the road closure. The responsibility for determining applications for the closure of road reserves rest with the Minister for Planning, Lands and Heritage on advice from the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (State Land Services). g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety: Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Comments

The affected land is required to support the expansion of the KNR site. The applicant seeks to rectify this historical boundary by seeking the partial closure of the Charles Street Road Reserve with the intention to purchase the affected road for amalgamation into Lot 89. It is recommended that the Council support the proposed road closure for the purposes of seeking public comment.

Voting Requirements Simple Majority Officer Recommendation That Council SUPPORTS the proposed closure of a portion of Charles Street, East Rockingham adjacent to Lot 89 Patterson Road, East Rockingham, subject to seeking public comment for the portion of land shown below.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-040/19 PAGE 62

Proposed Road Closure

Committee Recommendation

That Council SUPPORTS the proposed closure of a portion of Charles Street, East Rockingham adjacent to Lot 89 Patterson Road, East Rockingham, subject to seeking public comment for the portion of land shown below.

Proposed Road Closure Committee Voting – 5/0

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-040/19 PAGE 63

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution That Council SUPPORTS the proposed closure of a portion of Charles Street, East Rockingham adjacent to Lot 89 Patterson Road, East Rockingham, subject to seeking public comment for the portion of land shown below.

Proposed Road Closure Carried en bloc The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 64

Planning and Development Services

Statutory Planning Services Reference No & Subject: PD-041/19 Proposed Small Bar, Restaurant and Micro-Brewery File No: DD020.2019.00000071.001 Applicant: Azacca Brewing Co. Owner: Amylodis Pty Ltd Author: Mr Chris Parlane, Senior Planning Officer Other Contributors: Mr Mike Ross, Manager Statutory Planning Mr David Waller, Coordinator Statutory Planning Date of Committee Meeting: 17 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Tribunal this Matter:

Site: Lot 166 (No.181) Cnr Safety Bay and McLarty Roads, Shoalwater Lot Area: 1,146m² LA Zoning: Commercial MRS Zoning: Urban Attachments: Schedule of Submissions Maps/Diagrams: 1. Location Plan 2. Aerial Photo 3. Site Plan (As Advertised) 4. Safety Bay Road Elevation Plan 5. McLarty Road Elevation Plan 6. South Elevation Plan 7. South-West Elevation Plan 8. Site Plan and Front Elevation (As Amended) 9. Consultation Plan 10. Submission Location Plan 11. Submission Location Plan (Enlargement)

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 65

1. Location Plan

2. Aerial Photo

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 66

Purpose of Report

To consider an application seeking Development Approval for a proposed Small Bar, Restaurant and Micro-Brewery on Lot 166 (No.181) Safety Bay Road, Shoalwater.

Background

Lot 166 Safety Bay Road (the 'subject land') was previously owned by BP and used as a Service Station for at least 20 years, culminating in its decommissioning in 1996. The land was rehabilitated, rendering the site suitable for development. Throughout this time, the land was zoned 'Service Station' in Town Planning Scheme No.1. A Scheme Amendment was initiated in 1997, seeking to rezone the land to permit the establishment of a Marine Retail and Repair land use. In 1998, Development Approval was granted for a Marine Retail, Maintenance and Repairs use, involving the maintenance and sale of boats. The zoning of the land changed to 'Commercial (Additional Use 4: Marine Sales Maintenance and Repairs)' with the gazettal of Town Planning Scheme No.2 in 2004. In 2009, Development Approval was granted for a Plant and Garden Supplies Shop. In 2012, Development Approval was granted for a Shop, involving the retail sale of 'market' stall goods. In 2015, Development Approval was granted for a Restaurant (Café), with a maximum customer capacity of 52 seats, comprising of indoor and al-fresco seating. Since 2017 the site has been vacant. Details The proposal involves:  A kitchen, bar and restaurant seating in the existing building;  Building extensions to provide an alfresco dining area, staff and keg rooms, brewery and toilets;  An external grassed picnic /children's play area;  14 on-site car parking bays;  A maximum capacity of 60 patrons;  Trading hours (as advertised):  Monday to Sunday, 10am to 10pm; Subsequent to public advertising the proposed trading hours were amended to:  Wednesday to Sunday, 10am to 10pm;  Up to 8 staff;  Brewing will take place 4 times per week;  Food will be available at all times the premises is trading;  A 1.2m high masonry wall is proposed along the boundaries of Safety Bay Road and McLarty Road, with provision for visually permeable infills above; and  A 2.1m high masonry wall is proposed on the south-western boundary with the adjoining residential property at 35 McLarty Road. The applicant has provided the following technical reports in support of the application:  Acoustic report;  Traffic Impact Assessment;  Odour and Waste Management Plan; and  A Harm Minimisation Plan, House Management Policy and Code of Conduct.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 67

Subsequent to advertising, further information and amended plans were received, which responded to various issues raised by the City or in submissions. Changes following advertising included:  Shifting the driveway location on Safety Bay Road further to the south, providing maximum separation from the intersection with Scott Road. As a result, the customer car parking area has been re-configured.  Amending the hours of operation, with trading time reduced in response to submissions as indicated above. A separate application has been received for a Section 40 Certificate for a Small Bar liquor license, the granting of which is contingent on the Council approving this Development Application.

3. Site Plan (As Advertised)

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 68

4. Safety Bay Road Elevation Plan 5. McLarty Road Elevation Plan

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 69

6. South Elevation Plan 7. South-West Elevation Plan

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 70

8. Site Plan and Front Elevation (As Amended)

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community In accordance with Clause 64 of the deemed provisions of Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS2), the application was referred to property owners and occupiers as indicated on the Consultation Plan below.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 71

9. Consultation Plan Submissions were received over a 28 day period from 9 April to 7 May, however, the submission period was extended until 23 May to allow submissions from property occupiers who had not received notification letters. Two signs were erected on-site and notices were placed on the City’s website. A total of 285 landowners and occupiers were consulted. At the closing of advertising, a total of 144 submissions were received. The following is a breakdown of the submissions: - 21 submissions were received objecting to the proposal; and - 123 submissions were received supporting or indicating no objection to the proposal. The locations from where submissions were received are shown on the Submission Location Plan in Figure 10 below. Thirteen (13) submissions in support either did not include a property address or are from locations beyond the extent of the plan in Figure 10 below.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 72

10. Submission Location Plan

11. Submission Location Plan (Enlargement)

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 73

The submissions received supporting the proposal included the following comments:  The proposal is a good use of under-utilised land;  There is a perceived need for a facility like this;  The proposal will create employment opportunities and benefit local tourism;  The proposal will improve the visual amenity of the area. The submissions received objecting to the proposal are summarised as follows:

Traffic, Access and Parking Submission: (i) Concerns that 14 on site car parking bays is inadequate for the proposed use, creating the potential for illegal parking to occur in the locality. Proponent’s Response: The parking schedule that applies to this development calls for 1 parking bay per 4 persons. There are an additional 47 lined and marked public parking bays within a 250m radius of the proposed development which can be utilised if our onsite parking is full. Between the onsite parking, public transport and Uber/taxis, as well as local residents choosing to walk or ride, we feel illegal parking on neighbouring streets would be quite unlikely. City’s Comments: Refer to the discussion on car parking below in the Legal and Statutory section of this report. Submission: (ii) Concerns the proposal will adversely impact on traffic safety, given the proximity of the subject land on the corner of McLarty and Safety Bay Roads. Proponent’s Response: An 18 page in-depth Traffic Impact Assessment has been prepared to address the concerns raised and concludes the following: “It is expected that the vehicular traffic generated by the site will distribute across the road network in the vicinity. Furthermore, the total peak hour rate represents roughly 1 vehicle every 2 -3 minutes during peak hour. It was perceived that these rates are, in fact, negligible and are not anticipated to generate any significant adverse impacts on the local road network. Such vehicular trips can be conveniently accommodated at the nearby intersections without any adverse impacts.” City's Comments The City, having assessed the Traffic Impact Assessment provided by the applicant, considers that traffic generated by the development is within the capacity of the road network to accommodate, and will not compromise the safety or functionality of the road network. In reaching this conclusion it is noted that the proposed driveway locations are situated to comply with AS2890.1, which provide maximum sight distance and separation from the intersections of Safety Bay Road, McLarty Road and Scott Road, which is an improvement on the existing situation. Noise Submission: (i) Concerns that noise from the patrons, traffic and music will adversely impact the residential amenity of the area.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 74

Noise (cont…) Proponent's Response: This is an issue we are very mindful of and by implementing numerous measures there should no impact on the surrounding amenity. An acoustic report has been prepared and this report states we can achieve full compliance with Noise Regulations with the proposed development. As per our code of conduct we will implement the following procedures to further reduce noise impacts: All external speakers will be installed facing inward towards the building, with the volume kept at a conversational level at all times. No sub woofers will be installed. Only management will have access to volume control. All external doors will be closed at 10pm. All people lingering in the car park or out the front after closing will politely be asked to move on. Signs will also be placed around the venue reminding our patrons leave quietly as to respect the neighbours. City’s Comments: The City has assessed the Acoustic Report provided by the applicant, and considers the recommended mitigation measures will ensure that noise generated from this proposal will comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (the Regulations), which set limits on noise levels during the daytime, weekends and evenings able to be received at surrounding noise sensitive (residential) premises. To achieve compliance, a 1.8m high masonry fence is to be erected on the southern site boundary adjoining No.183 Safety Bay Road, in lieu of the lower existing boundary wall. Additional recommended mitigation measures include:  Erecting a 2.1m solid fencing along part of the south-west residential boundary;  Erecting a 1.2m solid fence along the McLarty Road and Safety Bay Road boundaries of the site. The required boundary fencing is shown on the plan below, which is taken from the applicant's Acoustic Report.

To effectively manage noise generated from this proposal, a Noise Management Plan is recommended to be imposed as a condition if approval is granted.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 75

Hours of Operation Submission: (i) Concerns the proposed operating hours are excessive: 10am to 10pm seven days a week, providing no respite to residents from associated traffic and noise. Proponent's Response: We were advised that it is easier to apply for maximum operational hours initially because it can be difficult to extended trading hours once open. We had no plans to permanently open on Monday or Tuesday and were hoping for the flexibility to open for one off special events. We agree that the hours would provide little respite to residents, so the trading hours will be 10 am till 10pm Wednesday - Sunday. City’s Comments: The applicant has reduced the proposed trading hours to Wednesdays - Sundays, 10am to 10pm. The applicant will be required to comply with the proposed trading hours, which will be imposed a condition, if approval is granted. As mentioned earlier, it has been demonstrated in the Acoustic Report submitted with the application that noise from the proposed use will comply with the relevant noise Regulations. Given the above, the City considers the applicant's amended operating hours reasonable, and noise generated capable of being controlled to maintain residential amenity for surrounding properties. Other Issues Submission: (i) Brewing equipment has been installed prior to obtaining approval. Proponent's Response: The brewery equipment has not been installed, it is merely being stored on site with owners permission. City’s Comments: Noted. (ii) Concerns the brewing process will cause unpleasant odours. Proponent's Response: The aroma emitted occurs during the boiling process which is for about 1 hour per batch of beer. We plan on brewing 2 to 3 times per week. We understand that the aroma emitted might not be to everyone's liking so we have chosen to install a condenser which collects the steam/vapour created during the boiling process and turns in back into a liquid which simply runs down the drain. This process essentially eliminates any odour from the brewing process leaving the building. City’s Comments: The application states that the most effective way to manage odour from the brewery is to install a condenser on the kettle of the brewer to trap vapour and turn it back into water, which is then discharged to sewer. The City has assessed the Odour Management Plan submitted with the application, and is satisfied the measures proposed to mitigate odour will ensure that the proposed micro-brewery will not adversely affect neighbours. (iii) Concerns that waste storage will increase the rodent problem. Proponent's Response The bin enclosure will be kept clean and tidy at all times so as not to attract vermin. An environmental pest control company will be contracted upon opening and 3 monthly inspections will occur to detect any pest/rodent activity. Bin collections will occur at least once a week.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 76

Other Issues (cont…) City's Comments: The City has assessed the Waste Management Plan submitted with the application and is satisfied that the measures proposed will ensure that waste generated by the proposal can be effectively managed so as not to generate a rodent problem or adversely affect neighbours. (iv) Discrepancies in the information provided in the development application, traffic and noise reports regarding patron numbers, opening hours and general facts. Proponent's Response: We acknowledge there are a few discrepancies within our various reports as they were carried out by different consultants at different stages of the planning process. Through a combination of council feedback and finalising of the plan we can confirm the capacity will be 60 people, opening hours will be 10 am till 10pm Wednesday - Sunday. City's Comments: The discrepancies contained in the Traffic and Acoustic reports do not undermine the reported conclusions. A condition is recommended, if approval is granted, to require the submission of a revised Waste Management Plan and Noise Management Plan which will align with the facts of the matter. (v) Potential adverse impacts on the amenity and privacy of adjoining land. Proponent's Response: We are very mindful that we are located in a residential area and our business plan has been developed around this fact. We have a Code of Conduct, House Management Plan, Traffic Impact Assessment, Acoustic Report, Waste Management plan and Odour management plan prepared to minimise any adverse effects on the area. We have designed our building with our neighbours in mind. All boundary walls will be installed at a height to ensure the neighbours will not have any invasion of privacy visually. Boundary walls and the orientation of building structures have been designed to direct patron noise away from neighbouring houses and with these measures in place the Acoustic Report we carried out showed that any noise created on the premise was within the allowable range as outlined in the Noise Regulations (1997). City's Comments: As discussed above, the Acoustic Report confirms the proposal complies with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, which ensures that noise from the proposed use will not adversely affect surrounding residential amenity. Proposed boundary fencing will effectively mitigate any potential adverse impact on the privacy of surrounding residential land. Anti-social behaviour Submission: (i) Concerns regarding the potential for anti-social behaviour of intoxicated patrons, and the impact this will have on residents, particularly after leaving the premises. Proponent's Response: All staff are required by law to hold a Responsible Service of Alcohol certificate which ensures that appropriate steps are taken to prevent patrons becoming intoxicated. A qualified Manager will always be on site who is trained in how to deal with anti-social behaviour on the rare chance it does occur within our venue. However, as a boutique venue with a small capacity we believe we will attract a respectful crowd.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 77

Anti-social behaviour (cont…) City’s Comments: A Harm Minimisation Plan has been prepared which includes procedures that will be followed in the event that patrons are intoxicated and causing disorderly behaviour. Should the application be approved, the applicant is required to comply with the Harm Minimisation Plan at all times, for the duration of the development. Property Values Submission: (i) The proposal will adversely impact surrounding property values. Proponent's Response: This concern is open to interpretation and personal opinion. The more amenities and services in an area generally enhances the desirability to live in that area. City’s Comments: Impacts on property values are not a relevant planning consideration. b. Consultation with Government Agencies Nil c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective contained in the Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 3: Plan for Future Generations Strategic Objective: Responsive Planning and Control of Land Use - Plan and control the use of land to meet the needs of the growing population, with consideration of future generations. d. Policy Planning Policy 3.3.19 Licensed Premises The purpose of PP3.3.19 is to provide guidance for the assessment of determination of Liquor Licence applications within the City. PP3.3.19 aims to protect the safety and amenity of existing and future residents and businesses against alcohol related problems such as property damage, anti-social behaviour, violence and to promote the responsible sale an consumption of alcohol. The following is an assessment of the proposed development against the assessment criteria of PP3.3.19: Policy Requirement Provided Compliance Location Applications will not The information provided Yes generally be supported if demonstrates that noise the proposal is likely to have generated by the proposed a significant potential impact use will comply with on the amenity of the area, relevant Regulations, and or affected neighbouring as such will not adversely properties impact on residential amenity. The proposed boundary fencing will maintain the privacy for adjoining properties, and protect the surrounding residential properties from headlight glare of vehicles using the car park at night.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 78

Policy Requirement Provided Compliance Location (cont…) Undue offence, annoyance, The proposed development Yes disturbance or is not in close proximity to a inconvenience to persons place of worship, hospital, who reside or work in the or school, noting the Safety vicinity, or to persons in or Bay Primary School is travelling to or from an located 325m to the east. existing or proposed place The Kip McGrath education of public worship, hospital, centre is situated across child care premises or the road from the subject school, would be likely to land, however, no objection occur. was received from this property. The amenity, quiet and The City considers the Yes good order of the locality in amenity, quiet or good which the premises or order of the locality is likely proposed premises are, or to be maintained based on are to be situated would in the assessment included in some other manner be this report, and lessened. management measures being undertaken by the applicant. Licenced premises should The subject tenancy is set Yes generally have an active back from the street street front. boundary, however, achieves frontage activation by virtue of the al-fresco dining area oriented to address Safety Bay Road. Number of Patrons Premises are restricted to The development approval, Noted the maximum patron if granted, will include a numbers under the Health condition limiting patron (Public Building) numbers to 60 persons. Regulations 1992, and those numbers are to be complied with at all times. Past History The City will generally There is no previous history Yes review the history of associated with the complaints regarding an proposed development. existing licensed premises when considering an Application for Planning Approval for a "Change of Use" or an Extended Trading Permit.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 79

Policy Requirement Provided Compliance Past History (cont…) In this regard, the City is interested in past complaints regarding noise, vandalism, anti-social behaviour or traffic/ parking issues. The City may request the applicant to supply full and complete details of any complaints regarding an existing licensed premises including details of any complaints or prosecutions commenced by the Police, the Liquor Licensing Authority, the Health Department or FESA. Noise To address noise impacts, An Acoustic Report has Yes from a proposed licensed been submitted in support premises, the City may of the application, which require that an applicant has been reviewed by the submit a noise report, City and considered prepared by a suitably acceptable. qualified acoustic consultant Should the application be (as determined by the City), approved, the requirement in order to ensure the noise to comply with the emanating from the licensed recommendations in a premises is not excessive, Noise Management Plan and indicating the likely will be applied as a noise nuisance and what condition of approval. sound attenuation measures are needed. Harm Minimisation The applicant will be A Harm Minimisation Plan Yes required to demonstrate that has been prepared by the the principles of harm applicant. minimisation have been The proposed Small Bar addressed by the serves food in a restaurant lodgement of a House setting and includes a Management Policy, Code children's play area. The of Conduct and clientele and atmosphere Management Plan in will therefore be different to accordance with the that of a standard Tavern. Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor Guidelines.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 80

Policy Requirement Provided Compliance Consultation Where the Manager, The proposal was Yes Statutory Planning advertised in accordance considers that an with clause 64 of the Application for Planning deemed provisions of TPS2 Approval for a 'Licensed and Planning Procedure premises' is likely to have a No. 1.3 Community significant potential impact Consultation. This is on the amenity of the area discussed further in the or affected neighbouring Community Consultation properties, the application section of this report. will be the subject of a process of community consultation in accordance with clause 6.3.3 of TPS2 and Planning Procedure No 1.3 Community Consultation. The proposed development complies with the objectives and requirements of PP3.3.19. e. Financial Nil f. Legal and Statutory Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS2) Clause 3.2 - Zoning Table The subject land is zoned "Commercial (Additional Use 4: Marine Sales, Maintenance and Repairs)" in TPS2. The Zoning Table provides for both "Small Bar" and "Restaurant" land uses, that are "D" uses in the Commercial zone. That is, they are uses not permitted, unless the Council has exercised its discretion by granting Development Approval. A Small Bar is defined in TPS2 to mean: "Small Bar means premises licensed as a small bar under the Liquor Control Act 1988 and used to sell liquor for consumption on the premises, but not including the sale of packaged liquor; and with the number of persons who may be present on the licensed premises limited to a maximum of 120". Restaurant is defined to mean: "Means premises where the predominant use is the sale and consumption of food and drinks on the premises and where seating is provided for patrons, and includes a restaurant licenced under the Liquor Control Act". Clause 3.2.3 of TPS2 states "where a specific use is mentioned in the Zoning Table, it is deemed to be excluded from any other use class which by its more general terms might otherwise include such a particular use". The proposal can be characterised as both a Small Bar and a Restaurant as it has consistency with both land use definitions. On balance, however, as the floor plan layout indicates an emphasis on seated dining, compared to freestanding bar space, the proposal is interpreted as a Restaurant. Clause 4.6.3 - Parking Pursuant to Clause 4.6.3, car parking is to be provided for the development in accordance with Table 2 of TPS2.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 81

It is noted there is no rate specified in Table 2 for a 'Small Bar' land use. Furthermore, the rate for a 'Tavern' land use is not considered appropriate in this instance, due to the nature and small scale of this proposal. As such, the rate for a 'Restaurant' land use has been applied in assessing this application. The parking rate for a Restaurant requires 1 bay per 4 persons the building is designed to accommodate. Based on maximum proposed patronage of 60 people, the applicant is required to provide 15 on site car bays. The application proposes 14 on site car parking bays, and seeks Council discretion for a 1 car bay shortfall, on the basis that:  Not all customers will drive to the site. The site is accessible via public transport and by walking or cycling for those that live in the locality;  It is unlikely the premises will operate at capacity at all times;  At least 35 on street car parking bays exist in close proximity to the site (on Safety Bay Road south of the subject land between Scott Road and Radford Place), which can absorb parking not able to be accommodated on site. It is considered there is sufficient available car parking supply in reasonable proximity to the site to warrant the grant of discretion in this instance. While some submissions raised concerns about illegal verge parking, this would become a compliance matter, with the potential for offending drivers to receive infringement notices. The design of the car park is worthy of comment, as there is insufficient space for service vehicles to manoeuvre on the property to leave the site in a forward gear while the car bays are occupied. To address this, it is the proponent's intention to arrange for the collection of waste via a private waste contractor coordinated to occur in the mornings, outside of business trading hours using vehicles no larger than 6.4m long. The car parks have been designed to accommodate the swept path of a 6.4m long SRV utilising unoccupied car parking bays. The collection of waste can be managed by imposing a Waste Management Plan condition, in the event approval is granted. Clause 4.6.4 - Setbacks The Scheme requires buildings to be set back from the boundary with residential zoned land in accordance with the R Codes. The proposed extension to the rear of the building is set back from the adjoining property at 183 Safety Bay Road by 1.2m, which complies with the R Codes. Approximately 8.5m of the proposed building extension is proposed to be erected on the common boundary with the residential property at 35 McLarty Road. To this extent, the boundary wall will present in a manner similar to a garage parapet wall that can be erected on the boundary as of right. Given the above, this aspect of the proposal is supported. g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety: Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Comments

The proposed development is for a change of use of an existing site and does not involve the full redevelopment of the site. The proposal is generally compliant with TPS2, with the exception of a 1 car bay car parking shortfall, and building setback from an adjoining residential boundary. For the reasons outlined in this report, the discretion required from Council is capable of being granted.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 82

For the reasons stated, the proposal is considered unlikely to adversely impact the amenity of the area, including adjoining properties. The concerns of submitters can be adequately addressed through conditions of Development Approval. It is recommended the application be conditionally approved.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Officer Recommendation

That Council APPROVES the application for a Restaurant, Small Bar and Micro-brewery on Lot 166 (No.181) Safety Bay Road, Shoalwater, subject to the following conditions: 1. All development must be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and drawings as listed below:  Development Plan, dated March 2019, Drawing No.7, Rev C; save that, in the event of an inconsistency between the approved plans and a requirement of the conditions set out below, the requirement of the conditions shall prevail. 2. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, a Waste Management Plan must be prepared and include the following detail to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham: (i) The location of bin storage areas and bin collection areas for the different waste streams; (ii) The number, volume and type of bins, and the type of waste to be placed in the bins; (iii) Management of the bins and the bin storage areas, including cleaning, rotation and moving bins to and from the bin collection areas; and v) Timing and frequency of bin collections. All works must be carried out in accordance with the Waste Management Plan and maintained at all times, for the duration of development. 3. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, a Landscaping Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham and include the following detail: (i) The location, number and type of existing and proposed trees and shrubs, including calculations for the landscaping area; (ii) Any lawns to be established and areas to be mulched; (iii) Any natural landscape areas to be retained; (iv) Those areas to be reticulated or irrigated; and (v) Proposed upgrading to landscaping, paving and reticulation of the street setback area and verge areas. The landscaping, paving and reticulation must be completed prior to the occupation of the development, and must be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham for the duration of the development. 4. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, a Sign Strategy must be prepared (which must include the information required by Planning Policy 3.3.1, Control of Advertisements) to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham and it must thereafter be implemented for the duration of the development. 5. A Noise Management Plan shall be prepared for approval by the City of Rockingham prior to the use establishing which shall be observed and performed in accordance with the tenor of its provisions, included the recommendations contained in the Acoustic Engineering Solutions report dated 26 February 2019, and shall be complied with at all times, for the duration of the development.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 83

6. A 1.8m high masonry wall shall be constructed along the full length of the southern boundary with 183 Safety Bay Road, prior to occupation. 7. The Small Bar, Restaurant, Micro-Brewery shall only trade between the hours of:  Wednesdays to Sundays, 10am to 10pm. 8. All stormwater must be contained and disposed of on site at all times to the satisfaction of the City. 9. Prior to the occupation of the development, the existing redundant crossovers on McLarty Road and Safety Bay Road must be removed and the verge, footpath, kerbing and landscaping must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. 10. The carpark must: (i) provide a minimum of 14 car parking spaces; (ii) be designed, constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004, Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street car parking prior to applying for a Building Permit; (iii) provide one car parking space dedicated to people with disabilities, which are designed, constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009, Parking facilities, Part 6: Off-street parking for people with disabilities and which are linked to the main entrance of the development by a continuous accessible path of travel designed and constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1428.1—2009, Design for access and mobility, Part 1: General Requirements for access—New building work; (iv) be constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked prior to the development being occupied and maintained thereafter; and (v) Comply with the above requirements for the duration of the development. 11. Bicycle parking spaces/racks allowing for the storage of a minimum of 3 bicycles, including 1 short term spaces and 2 long term spaces, to be installed prior to occupation of the tenancy. 12. All works must be carried out in accordance with the approved Noise Management Plan, Odour Management Plan, Waste Management Plan and Harm Minimisation Plan, for the duration of the development. 13. The applicant must protect the City's existing streetscape assets, including footpaths, kerbs, drainage channels and street trees. Any damage that occurs to infrastructure other than for the purpose of the development shall be rectified by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City, at the applicant's cost. 14. The maximum number of patrons authorised by this approval shall not exceed 60 persons. 15. Walls or fences shall be truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where the proposed driveways meet Safety Bay Road and McLarty Road. Committee Recommendation

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 84

(i) The location of bin storage areas and bin collection areas for the different waste streams; (ii) The number, volume and type of bins, and the type of waste to be placed in the bins; (iii) Management of the bins and the bin storage areas, including cleaning, rotation and moving bins to and from the bin collection areas; and (v) Timing and frequency of bin collections. All works must be carried out in accordance with the Waste Management Plan and maintained at all times, for the duration of development. 3. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, a Landscaping Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham and include the following detail: (i) The location, number and type of existing and proposed trees and shrubs, including calculations for the landscaping area; (ii) Any lawns to be established and areas to be mulched; (iii) Any natural landscape areas to be retained; (iv) Those areas to be reticulated or irrigated; and (v) Proposed upgrading to landscaping, paving and reticulation of the street setback area and verge areas. The landscaping, paving and reticulation must be completed prior to the occupation of the development, and must be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham for the duration of the development. 4. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, a Sign Strategy must be prepared (which must include the information required by Planning Policy 3.3.1, Control of Advertisements) to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham and it must thereafter be implemented for the duration of the development. 5. A Noise Management Plan shall be prepared for approval by the City of Rockingham prior to the use establishing which shall be observed and performed in accordance with the tenor of its provisions, included the recommendations contained in the Acoustic Engineering Solutions report dated 26 February 2019, and shall be complied with at all times, for the duration of the development. 6. A 1.8m high masonry wall shall be constructed along the full length of the southern boundary with 183 Safety Bay Road, prior to occupation. 7. The Small Bar, Restaurant, Micro-Brewery shall only trade between the hours of:  Wednesdays to Sundays, 10am to 10pm. 8. All stormwater must be contained and disposed of on site at all times to the satisfaction of the City. 9. Prior to the occupation of the development, the existing redundant crossovers on McLarty Road and Safety Bay Road must be removed and the verge, footpath, kerbing and landscaping must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. 10. The carpark must: (i) provide a minimum of 14 car parking spaces; (ii) be designed, constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004, Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street car parking prior to applying for a Building Permit; (iii) provide one car parking space dedicated to people with disabilities, which are designed, constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009, Parking facilities, Part 6: Off-street parking for people with disabilities and which are linked to the main entrance of the development by a continuous accessible path of travel designed and constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1428.1—2009, Design for access and mobility, Part 1: General Requirements for access—New building work;

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 85

(iv) be constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked prior to the development being occupied and maintained thereafter; and (v) Comply with the above requirements for the duration of the development. 11. Bicycle parking spaces/racks allowing for the storage of a minimum of 3 bicycles, including 1 short term spaces and 2 long term spaces, to be installed prior to occupation of the tenancy. 12. All works must be carried out in accordance with the approved Noise Management Plan, Odour Management Plan, Waste Management Plan and Harm Minimisation Plan, for the duration of the development. 13. The applicant must protect the City's existing streetscape assets, including footpaths, kerbs, drainage channels and street trees. Any damage that occurs to infrastructure other than for the purpose of the development shall be rectified by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City, at the applicant's cost. 14. The maximum number of patrons authorised by this approval shall not exceed 60 persons. 15. Walls or fences shall be truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where the proposed driveways meet Safety Bay Road and McLarty Road. Committee Voting – 5/0

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

Moved Cr Hamblin, seconded Cr Jones: That Council APPROVES the application for a Restaurant, Small Bar and Micro-brewery on Lot 166 (No.181) Safety Bay Road, Shoalwater, subject to the following conditions: 1. All development must be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and drawings as listed below:  Development Plan, dated March 2019, Drawing No.7, Rev C; save that, in the event of an inconsistency between the approved plans and a requirement of the conditions set out below, the requirement of the conditions shall prevail. 2. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, a Waste Management Plan must be prepared and include the following detail to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham: (i) The location of bin storage areas and bin collection areas for the different waste streams; (ii) The number, volume and type of bins, and the type of waste to be placed in the bins; (iii) Management of the bins and the bin storage areas, including cleaning, rotation and moving bins to and from the bin collection areas; and (v) Timing and frequency of bin collections. All works must be carried out in accordance with the Waste Management Plan and maintained at all times, for the duration of development. 3. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, a Landscaping Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham and include the following detail: (i) The location, number and type of existing and proposed trees and shrubs, including calculations for the landscaping area; (ii) Any lawns to be established and areas to be mulched;

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 86

(iii) Any natural landscape areas to be retained; (iv) Those areas to be reticulated or irrigated; and (v) Proposed upgrading to landscaping, paving and reticulation of the street setback area and verge areas. The landscaping, paving and reticulation must be completed prior to the occupation of the development, and must be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham for the duration of the development. 4. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, a Sign Strategy must be prepared (which must include the information required by Planning Policy 3.3.1, Control of Advertisements) to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham and it must thereafter be implemented for the duration of the development. 5. A Noise Management Plan shall be prepared for approval by the City of Rockingham prior to the use establishing which shall be observed and performed in accordance with the tenor of its provisions, included the recommendations contained in the Acoustic Engineering Solutions report dated 26 February 2019, and shall be complied with at all times, for the duration of the development. 6. A 1.8m high masonry wall shall be constructed along the full length of the southern boundary with 183 Safety Bay Road, prior to occupation. 7. The Small Bar, Restaurant, Micro-Brewery shall only trade between the hours of:  Wednesdays to Sundays, 10am to 10pm. 8. All stormwater must be contained and disposed of on site at all times to the satisfaction of the City. 9. Prior to the occupation of the development, the existing redundant crossovers on McLarty Road and Safety Bay Road must be removed and the verge, footpath, kerbing and landscaping must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. 10. The carpark must: (i) provide a minimum of 14 car parking spaces; (ii) be designed, constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004, Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street car parking prior to applying for a Building Permit; (iii) provide one car parking space dedicated to people with disabilities, which are designed, constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009, Parking facilities, Part 6: Off-street parking for people with disabilities and which are linked to the main entrance of the development by a continuous accessible path of travel designed and constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1428.1—2009, Design for access and mobility, Part 1: General Requirements for access—New building work; (iv) be constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked prior to the development being occupied and maintained thereafter; and (v) Comply with the above requirements for the duration of the development. 11. Bicycle parking spaces/racks allowing for the storage of a minimum of 3 bicycles, including 1 short term spaces and 2 long term spaces, to be installed prior to occupation of the tenancy. 12. All works must be carried out in accordance with the approved Noise Management Plan, Odour Management Plan, Waste Management Plan and Harm Minimisation Plan, for the duration of the development. 13. The applicant must protect the City's existing streetscape assets, including footpaths, kerbs, drainage channels and street trees. Any damage that occurs to infrastructure other than for the purpose of the development shall be rectified by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City, at the applicant's cost. 14. The maximum number of patrons authorised by this approval shall not exceed 60 persons.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-041/19 PAGE 87

15. Walls or fences shall be truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where the proposed driveways meet Safety Bay Road and McLarty Road. Carried – 8/0 The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 88

Planning and Development Services Statutory Planning Services Reference No & Subject: PD-042/19 Proposed Scheme Amendment No.170 - Rezoning from 'Rural' to 'Special Residential' File No: LUP/2086 Applicant: CLE Town Planning & Design on behalf of Frasers Property Australia Owner: Australand Industrial No.63 Pty Ltd Author: Mr Kevin Keyes, Planning Officer Other Contributors: Mr David Waller, Coordinator Statutory Planning Mr Mike Ross, Manager Statutory Planning Date of Committee Meeting: 17 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Cr Jones declared an Impartiality Interest in Item PD-042/19 Proposed Scheme Amendment No.170 - Rezoning from 'Rural' to 'Special Residential', as detailed in Clause 3.3 of Council’s Code of Conduct and Regulation 11 of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 and as per section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, as he has friends that live at No.4 Maddren Way, directly abutting part of the area proposed to be rezoned. Nature of Council’s Role in Legislative this Matter:

Site: Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis Lot Area: Northern Portion 8.057ha and Southern Portion 8,734m2 LA Zoning: Rural MRS Zoning: Rural Attachments: Maps/Diagrams: 1. Location Plan 2. Aerial Photo 3. Town Planning Scheme No.2 (Existing Zoning Plan) 4. Approved Baldivis Grove Structure Plan 5. Town Planning Scheme No.2 (Proposed Zoning Plan) 6. South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework Plan (Extract) 7. Draft Subdivision Guide Plan and Tree Retention Plan (Northern Site) 8. Draft Subdivision Guide Plan (Southern Site)

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 89

Purpose of Report

To consider initiating an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS2) to rezone two portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis from 'Rural' to 'Special Residential'.

1. Location Plan

2. Aerial Photo

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 90

Background

The subject land is zoned ‘Rural’ under Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS2). The land adjoins Baldivis Grove Estate, currently under construction, to the east and a ‘Rural’ property to the west. It also adjoins existing ‘Special Residential’ properties to the north, within Woodleigh Grove Estate. The Mandurah Road ridgeline is located to the immediate west.

3. Town Planning Scheme No.2 (Existing Zoning Plan)

4. Approved Baldivis Grove Structure Plan

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 91

Details

The applicant seeks approval to rezone two portions of land within Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, from ‘Rural’ to ‘Special Residential’. A Subdivision Guide Plan (SGP) has been provided in support of the Scheme Amendment identifying four (4) lots to the north and one (1) larger lot to the south. The proposed northern lot sizes range from 2,006m2 to 2,024m2 and includes Building Envelopes with a size range of 575m2 to 747m2. The proposed larger southern lot has a size of 8,734m2 and a building envelope of 1,170m2. A summary of the applicant's justification for the Scheme Amendment is as follows: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the relevant State Planning and Development Control Policies of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC); 2. The subject portions of land are contained within Planning Unit No.4A of the City’s Planning Policy No.3.1.1 - Rural Land Strategy (PP3.1.1), which supports 'Special Residential’ zoning; 3. The rezoning will provide for the efficient use of currently underutilised and inappropriate zoned lands; 4. The rezoning on Lot 9501 will provide a transitional interface between the existing rural lifestyle land to the north and the more traditional property types within the future Baldivis Grove Estate; and 5. The rezoning will afford the subject site statutory protection with respect to tree and landform protection. The following documents were provided in support of the Scheme Amendment: (i) Planning Report; (ii) Subdivision Guide Plan; (iii) Bushfire Management Plan; and (iv) Environmental Assessment Report (Tree Retention).

5. Town Planning Scheme No.2 (Proposed Zoning Plan)

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 92

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community If the Scheme Amendment is initiated by Council, it is required to be advertised in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations (2015) for a minimum period of 42 days from the date of publication, with an advertisement being placed in a newspaper circulating the area. b. Consultation with Government Agencies Consultation with relevant Government Agencies will occur if the Scheme Amendment is initiated by the Council, in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations (2015). c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 3: Plan for Future Generations Strategic Objective: Responsive Planning and Control of Land Use - Plan and control the use of land to meet the needs of the growing population, with consideration of future generations d. Policy State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP3.7) SPP3.7 requires a Bushfire Hazard Level Assessment and a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) addressing the bushfire protection criteria to be submitted in the consideration of amendments to local planning schemes. The Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (The Guidelines) require the applicant to demonstrate, by way of a Bushfire Hazard Level Assessment, that the land proposed to be rezoned has, or can be made to have, a low to moderate bushfire hazard level (i.e. BAL-Low to BAL-29). All proposed building envelopes will have a BAL-29 or less (Maps 7 & 8). All northern lots will have overlapping Asset Protection Zones (APZs) and will be required to be implemented by each future landowner in perpetuity. The southern lot is proposed to be a complete APZ. The BMP demonstrates that the proposed layout complies with the Guidelines. Minimal vegetation (only 3 trees on the northern subject lot) is required to be removed or modified to reduce the bushfire threat. The applicant has stated that no clearing of trees will be required on the southern lot. It is considered that a better balance between tree protection and bushfire threat can achieved through a BAL 29 APZ, which will reduce the potential for further tree removal. This matter can be resolved prior to scheme amendment advertisement. Overall the proposal is considered to be compliant with the objectives of SPP3.7, as it demonstrates an acceptable level of bushfire risk and tree removal, for both portions of subject land. This will be subject to further information being required from the applicant regarding bushfire management and tree retention for the southern lot by imposing a BAL 29 APZ. Perth and [email protected] Million and South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework (Framework) In March 2018, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) adopted the South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework (the Framework), forming part of the Perth and [email protected] suite of land use planning and infrastructure frameworks, to guide the future growth of Perth and Peel regions as a compact, consolidated and connected city that can accommodate a population of 3.5 million by 2050.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 93

In August 2018, Council resolved not to support applications to rezone land to ‘Special Rural’ and ‘Special Residential’ which fail to comply with the Framework (1-4ha), until the review of PP3.1.1 (Rural Land Strategy) has been finalised. Council also resolved that it will consider applications to rezone land to ‘Special Rural’ and ‘Special Residential’ provided they comply with the current PP3.1.1 and the Framework. The Officer’s report on the Framework did recognise that this Scheme Amendment was one of the applications that had yet to be determined. The Framework identifies the land as ‘Rural Residential’ in Figure 6. ‘Rural Residential’ is identified as generally supporting lot sizes with a range of one to four hectares. The Framework recognises some exceptions for ‘rounding-off of existing areas’, which in the City’s view provides a basis for the Scheme Amendment to be considered, recognising the unique circumstances of the site, as explained in the Rural Land Strategy section.

6. South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework Plan (Extract) Development Control Policy 2.5 - Special Residential Zones (DC2.5) The Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) DC2.5 sets out requirements for Special Residential Zones in terms of location, internal design, servicing and statutory provisions. DC2.5 provides for the creation of lots between 2000m2 and 1ha in Special Residential zones. The proposed subdivision is compliant with DC2.5. Planning Policy 3.1.1 - Rural Land Strategy (PP3.1.1) The City's PP3.1.1 provides the basis for land use planning in the rural area of the City. It provides the Council with a framework for the assessment of proposals to rezone, subdivide, manage and develop rural land. The subject site is located within Planning Unit No.4(A) of PP3.1.1. The primary objective of Planning Unit No.4(A) is to encourage Special Rural/Special Residential development which recognises and enhances the landscape and natural resource attributes of the land and provides a rural context to proposed urban development to the east.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 94

PP3.1.1 recommends lot sizes for Planning Unit No.4(A) of 5,000m2 east of the ridgeline. The proposed northern lot sizes of between 2,006m2 to 2,024m2 do not comply with this requirement, however, it is considered that the northern portion of land has some unique circumstances to warrant support, given the following: - The land will provide an appropriate transition from larger ‘Special Residential’ lots in Woodleigh Grove to the north and the ‘Residential R30’ lots identified in the Baldivis Grove Estate structure plan. - It is similar to the ‘Residential R5’ interface in Baldivis Grove Estate to the east where it adjoins Woodleigh Grove Estate and provides a transition to medium density residential development. - The Applicant has demonstrated that there will not be a significant environmental impact for the northern proposal with smaller lot sizes and overlapping Asset Protection Zones. Accordingly there is no need to defer the application for rezoning pending the outcomes of the review of PP3.1.1 as the Frameworks recognise this type of exception.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 95

7. Draft Subdivision Guide Plan (Northern Site)

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 96

8. Draft Subdivision Guide Plan (Southern Site)

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 97 e. Financial Nil f. Legal and Statutory Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations (2015) (the Regulations) The proposed Scheme Amendment is a ‘Standard Amendment’ in accordance with Regulation 34(a) of the Regulations, which requires the amendment to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and advertised for public comment. The Council is required to resolve to either ‘Adopt’ (initiate) the Scheme Amendment or ‘Not Proceed’ with a Scheme Amendment and notify the WAPC in writing of its decision under Regulation 35(1). Town Planning Scheme No.2 – Schedule No.5 – Special Residential Zone In March 2019, Schedules No.4 and No.5 of TPS2 were amended to replace all occurrences of ‘Local Development Plan’ (LDP) with the term ‘Structure Plan’, as it applies to Special Rural zones and Special Residential zones. TPS2 was also amended with respect to the references of “Local Development Plan certified by the Chief Executive Officer” being replaced with “Structure Plan certified by the Commission.” Accordingly, a Structure Plan must be prepared to guide subdivision and development if the land is rezoned to Special Residential. Provision 2 of Schedule No.5 states that the ‘Local Government’ will generally not recommend approval to lot sizes less than 5,000m2 minimum’. The southern lot complies with the recommended lot size as stated in TPS2. Having regard to the above assessment in this report, it is considered reasonable to allow lot sizes of 2,000m2 on the northern site due to it being a transition zone, between future residential development and existing Rural/ Special Rural properties. Future surrounding developments are likely to restrict the current practical use of the northern site for existing zoned rural purposes, such as agricultural activities. The proposed scheme amendment is considered an appropriate interface between residential and rural land uses. g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety: Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Comments The applicant has prepared a SGP, BMP and Environmental Assessment Report (Tree Retention Plan) to support initiation of the Scheme Amendment. In August 2018, Council resolved that it will consider applications to rezone land to ‘Special Rural’ and ‘Special Residential’ provided they comply with the current PP3.1.1 (Rural Land Strategy) and the WAPC’s South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework (SMPSRPF). The SMPSRPF recognises some exceptions for ‘rounding-off of existing areas’. PP3.1.1 (Rural Land Strategy) and TPS 2 provides that lots sizes on the eastern side of the Mandurah ridge line, in Precinct 4A, should be a minimum of 5,000m2. The proposed Subdivision Guide Plan identifies the northern portion of the land with lot sizes of between 2,006m2 to 2,024m2. The City considers that there is sufficient planning grounds to warrant varying lot sizes for the northern portion of the site, to provide a suitable transition of lots sizes between Woodleigh Grove to the north and the Baldivis Grove Estate to the south.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 98

The proposal complies with SPP3.7 as it has been sufficiently demonstrated that bushfire risk can be managed to a moderate bushfire hazard level and an acceptable level of clearing of mature trees will occur on the subject lands, with the exception of the southern lot. It is considered that a better balance between tree protection and bushfire threat can be achieved by limiting the size of the Asset Protection Zone further. This matter can be resolved prior to scheme amendment advertisement. As such, it is recommended that Amendment No.170 be supported. Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Officer Recommendation That Council: 1. ADOPTS (initiate) Amendment No.170 to Town Planning Scheme No.2 as follows: (i) Partially rezone portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis from 'Rural' to 'Special Residential'; (ii) Partially amend the Scheme Map to contain portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis, within the ‘Special Residential Zone’ and reference these on the Scheme Map as 'Special Residential'; (iii) Modify the location table in 'Schedule No.5 - Special Residential Zones' Portions of Planning Unit No.4 of the Rural Land Strategy to include Portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis, as follows:

Plan Reference Description of Location

4(v) Portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis.

(iv) Amend Plan No.6 - Special Residential Zones (North) to include Portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis, with bold outline and designate it as ‘4(v)’. 2. CONSIDERS the proposed Scheme Amendment as a ‘Standard Amendment’ in accordance with Regulation 34(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and 3. REQUESTS the applicant to provide an amended Subdivision Guide Plan and Building Envelope for the southern lot, demonstrating a reduced Asset Protection Zone (APZ) to BAL 29 to ensure improved tree retention, prior to the Scheme Amendment being advertised.

Committee Recommendation

That Council: 1. ADOPTS (initiate) Amendment No.170 to Town Planning Scheme No.2 as follows: (i) Partially rezone portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis from 'Rural' to 'Special Residential'; (ii) Partially amend the Scheme Map to contain portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis, within the ‘Special Residential Zone’ and reference these on the Scheme Map as 'Special Residential'; (iii) Modify the location table in 'Schedule No.5 - Special Residential Zones' Portions of Planning Unit No.4 of the Rural Land Strategy to include Portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis, as follows:

Plan Reference Description of Location

4(v) Portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 99

(iv) Amend Plan No.6 - Special Residential Zones (North) to include Portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis, with bold outline and designate it as ‘4(v)’. 2. CONSIDERS the proposed Scheme Amendment as a ‘Standard Amendment’ in accordance with Regulation 34(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and 3. REQUESTS the applicant to provide an amended Subdivision Guide Plan and Building Envelope for the northern lots being increased to a minimum lot size of 4,000m2, and the applicant demonstrating a reduced Asset Protection Zone (APZ) to BAL29 for the southern lot, to ensure improved tree retention, prior to the Scheme Amendment being advertised. Committee Voting – 3/2 (Crs Elliott and Hamblin voted against)

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

The reduction of the lot sizes to approximately 2,000m2 would create an undesirable precedent and would result in a higher density of lots on the southern boundary of the Woodleigh Grove Estate than would otherwise be expected.

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

Moved Cr Jones, seconded Cr Summers: That Council: 1. ADOPTS (initiate) Amendment No.170 to Town Planning Scheme No.2 as follows: (i) Partially rezone portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis from 'Rural' to 'Special Residential'; (ii) Partially amend the Scheme Map to contain portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis, within the ‘Special Residential Zone’ and reference these on the Scheme Map as 'Special Residential'; (iii) Modify the location table in 'Schedule No.5 - Special Residential Zones' Portions of Planning Unit No.4 of the Rural Land Strategy to include Portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis, as follows:

Plan Reference Description of Location

4(v) Portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis.

(iv) Amend Plan No.6 - Special Residential Zones (North) to include Portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis, with bold outline and designate it as ‘4(v)’. 2. CONSIDERS the proposed Scheme Amendment as a ‘Standard Amendment’ in accordance with Regulation 34(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and 3. REQUESTS the applicant to provide an amended Subdivision Guide Plan and Building Envelope for the northern lots being increased to a minimum lot size of 4,000m2, and the applicant demonstrating a reduced Asset Protection Zone (APZ) to BAL29 for the southern lot, to ensure improved tree retention, prior to the Scheme Amendment being advertised. Motion Lost – 4/5

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-042/19 PAGE 100

Councillors having voted for the motion: Councillors having voted against the motion: Cr Jones Cr Burns Cr Elliott Cr Liley Cr Stewart Cr Summers Cr Hamblin Cr Sammels (2)

NOTE: Due to an equality of votes at the Council meeting, the Mayor exercised his obligation to cast a second vote to reach a decision in this matter (Section 5.21(3) of the Local Government Act 1995).

Moved Cr Elliott, seconded Cr Hamblin: That Council: 1. ADOPTS (initiate) Amendment No.170 to Town Planning Scheme No.2 as follows: (i) Partially rezone portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis from 'Rural' to 'Special Residential'; (ii) Partially amend the Scheme Map to contain portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis, within the ‘Special Residential Zone’ and reference these on the Scheme Map as 'Special Residential'; (iii) Modify the location table in 'Schedule No.5 - Special Residential Zones' Portions of Planning Unit No.4 of the Rural Land Strategy to include Portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis, as follows:

Plan Reference Description of Location

4(v) Portions of Lots 9500 and 9501 Mandurah Road, Baldivis.

Councillors having voted for the motion: Councillors having voted against the motion: Cr Elliott Cr Liley Cr Jones Cr Burns Cr Hamblin Cr Sammels (2) Cr Stewart Cr Summers

The officer's recommendation was supported.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS) Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 101

Planning and Development Services Statutory Planning Services Reference No & Subject: PD-043/19 Joint Development Assessment Panel Application - Proposed Service Station

File No: DD020.2019.00000059.001 Applicant: Planning Solutions Pty Ltd Owner: Dawnmark Holdings Pty Ltd Author: Mr David Banovic, Senior Planning Officer Other Contributors: Mr Greg Delahunty, Senior Projects Officer Mr Mike Ross, Manager Statutory Planning Date of Committee Meeting: 17 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Tribunal this Matter:

Site: Lot 36 (No.137) Dixon Road, East Rockingham Lot Area: 5,832m2 LA Zoning: Light Industry Other Regional Road MRS Zoning: Industrial Other Regional Road Attachments: 1. Responsible Authority Report 2. Schedule of Submissions Maps/Diagrams: 1. Location Plan 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Town Planning Scheme No.2 zoning map 4. Metropolitan Region Scheme zoning map 5. Section of Deposited Plan depicting road widening requirements 6. Perspectives 7. Site Plan 8. Dixon Road and Evinrude Bend Elevations 9. Consultation Plan

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 102

Purpose of Report To provide recommendations to the Metro South West Joint Development Assessment Panel (MSWJDAP) on a DAP application for a proposed Service Station at Lot 36 (No. 137) Dixon Road, East Rockingham. Background The subject site is located at the corner of Dixon Road, Evinrude Bend and Whittle Road, with Dixon Road to the south, Evinrude Bend to the east and Whittle Road to the north. The subject site has an area of 5,832m2 and is contained within the East Rockingham Industrial Area. An access easement exists along the southern portion of the subject site, continuing through adjoining properties to the west and allowing uninterrupted vehicle movement access lots between Evinrude Bend and McCamey Avenue. The access easement is adjacent to Dixon Road reservation, with both roads affected by Other Regional Road (ORR) reservation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The subject site is generally flat and vacant.

1. Location Plan

2. Aerial Photograph

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 103

3. Town Planning Scheme No.2 zoning map

4. Metropolitan Region Scheme zoning map

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 104

5. Section of Deposited Plan depicting road widening requirements Previous Development Approvals In September 2015, the City approved a Showroom, Veterinary Clinic, Warehouse and Service Industry development on the subject site. This Development Approval has since lapsed. There are no other Development Approvals associated with the subject site.

Details

A DAP application to construct and operate a Service Station was lodged with the City on 12 March 2019. The proposal involves the development of a ‘BP’ Service Station, retailing fuel and convenience items, and an incidental car service facility. The fuel retailing facility provides for the refuelling of light and heavy vehicles, with two separate fuel canopies. Specifically, the proposed development comprises:  A fuel retailing building of 225m2 gross floor area (GFA) operated by BP;  A car service building of 400m2 GFA operated by a separate tenant, who is yet to be confirmed;  Service yard, bin storage area and rainwater tank contained within a 2.2m high enclosure;  A delivery and loading area associated with the service yard and bin storage area;  A light vehicle fuel canopy, comprising a height of 5.9m, which provides cover for four bowsers and a heavy vehicle fuel canopy, comprising a height of 6.4m, which provides cover for one bowser;  A 17.9m long parapet wall adjacent to the heavy vehicle canopy, comprising a height of 6.8m;  Two underground fuel storage tanks and an associated filling point to accommodate fuel tankers;  A total of 35 new car parking spaces and removal of existing 14 car parking spaces adjacent to the Dixon Road reserve - o 13 proposed retail building shopfront car parking spaces; o 14 proposed car parking spaces opposite the car service component of the service station; o 8 proposed car parking spaces north of the retail building;

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 105

 Various signage including two prominent Pylon Signs, including one 9m high Pylon Sign fronting Dixon Road and one 6m high Pylon Sign fronting Evinrude Bend; and  Associated landscaping treatments adjacent to the southern, eastern, western and northern boundaries of the subject site. The proposed fuel retailing facility of the service station will operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week and accommodate up to four staff on site at any one time. The proposed vehicle repair facility of the service station will operate 7am to 7pm, six days per week and accommodate approximately five staff on-site at any one time. The development will generate on average 648 vehicle movements per day with 45 and 61 new trips during weekday AM and PM peak hours.

6. Perspectives

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 106

7. Site Plan

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 107

8. Dixon Road and Evinrude Bend Elevations

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community The application was advertised for public comment over a period of 21 days, commencing on 2 April 2019 and concluding on 23 April 2019. The nature of the 24hour fuel retailing warranted comment from nearby landowners and occupiers prior to Council providing its recommendation to the MSWJDAP. Advertising was carried out in the following manner:  Landowners and occupiers directly adjacent and opposite the subject site were notified in writing of the proposed development; and  Copies of technical documents and plans of the proposal were made available for public inspection at the City's Administration Offices and placed on the City's website.

9. Consultation Plan

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 108

At the close of the public consultation period a total of two submissions were received, which included one objection and one supporter, so as long as the development did not propose a car wash facility. The objection received is from a landowner in Smythe Street, Rockingham, which has been summarised in the table below, including the applicant's and officer’s response to the issue. The applicants response to concerns raised have also been summarised. Land-use and Location Submission: There are a sufficient number of petrol stations already in the Rockingham area and BP are well represented. I should think that the residents at the Rockingham Holiday Village do not need and want a petrol station right next door to them! There are a few more petrol stations just over the train line in Kwinana, of which BP is also represented. Applicant's Response: A service station is a discretionary land use within the Light Industry zone and is capable of approval on the subject site. The proposed use and development is consistent with the Light Industry zoning and has been supported by the necessary technical reporting, to ensure it does not impact on the surrounding properties. The amount of service stations within the Rockingham area is not a relevant planning consideration. City’s Comment: The City must provide recommendations to the MSWJDAP on planning merits of the proposal. The number of existing service stations in the area is not a relevant planning consideration. The application has been considered in accordance with TPS2 and applicable planning policies. Further, the application will ultimately be determined by the MSWJDAP. b. Consultation with Government Agencies The following government departments and service agencies were consulted:  Department of Water and Environmental Regulations (DWER);  Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH);  Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES); and  Water Corporation. The comments received are as follows: 1. Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) - summarised The Department has no objection to the use of the reserved land for the proposed signage, car parking and landscaping on a temporary basis only, and on condition that:  The advertisements do not interfere with sightlines, distract drivers, or have the potential to hinder the intersection of or become confused with traffic signals or road signs; and  The proponent agrees to remove the signage without seeking compensation from either the Council or the WAPC for any loss, damage or expense should the reserved land be required for road upgrading purposes in the future. City’s Comment: The subject land is affected by an Other Regional Road (ORR) reservation for Dixon Road under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The road reservation extends approximately 16.5m along the southern portion of the subject site and across the entire frontage, continuing through adjoining properties to the west, between Evinrude Bend and McCamey Avenue.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 109

2. Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) - summarised (cont…) The extent of this reservation has been taken into consideration as part of the design of the proposed development, with development being located outside of the reservation with the exception of the two proposed pylon signs and landscaping. In this instance, the pylon signs and landscaping can be approved, and be erected on a temporarily basis, until such time as the reserved land is required for road upgrading purposes in the future. Consequently, DPLH recommended conditions are supported by the City. 3. Department of Water and Environmental Regulations (DWER) - summarised Contamination and Stormwater Management DWER has identified groundwater contamination risk due to fuel leakage from underground fuel storage tanks, from minor and major fuel/chemical spills and from hydrocarbon contaminated stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. With regard to stormwater management, DWER recommends the stormwater drainage system be designed, constructed and managed in accordance with the Stormwater Manual for Western Australia (DWER, 2004). The planning report has not included any conceptual designs for the management of stormwater within and around the service station and associated infrastructure. The stormwater management plan should demonstrate how and where the small, minor and major rainfall events will be managed and include the following:  Stormwater runoff be fully contained for small and minor storm events (1 and 0.2 Exceedance per Year runoff). Required storage for each rainfall event, basin sizing and design should be detailed.  The first 15mm of stormwater runoff (1 Exceedance per year runoff) to undergo water quality treatment via bio-retention.  Measures to prevent contaminated stormwater runoff mixing with other stormwater runoff from impervious areas and how the SPEL Puraceptor is integrated into the overall stormwater drainage system.  Permitted outflow of stormwater runoff from the site. Applicant's Response: Contamination and Stormwater Management The design particulars of the underground storage tanks can be provided at the detailed design stage. Modern day fuel storage tanks are state of the art and are double walled and electronically monitored. The tanks will be appropriately located, constructed and maintained as part of best practice service station design and operation. New underground storage tanks are designed to ensure they do not leak. The double wall of the tank and monitoring ensures that if a breach is identified, it can be rectified before the second wall of the tank is breached. In addition, the tanks are a combination of steel and fibreglass so the erosion of the tank is less than traditional underground tanks. Stormwater will all be completed at detailed design stage and can be detailed in the stormwater management plan condition of development approval. It is standard to incorporate a SPEL puraceptor onsite to capture hydrocarbons from the forecourt and tank refuelling areas. The puraceptor captures the hydrocarbons and stores them in a chamber to be pumped out. The water can then be transferred into the stormwater system. City’s Comment: Contamination and Stormwater Management As vehicles will be moving through the fuel area and into the surrounding car parking next to the convenience store, it is highly likely that hydrocarbons will be mobilised outside of the bunded area. The piped drainage network outside of this area must therefore be connect to the SPEL unit. The City agrees that all underground tanks and their pipe work (excluding any gas venting and tank fill lines that are normally dry) should have double- walled construction, with an interstitial leak-monitoring space.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 110

4. Department of Water and Environmental Regulations (DWER) - summarised (cont…) Applicant's comments in respect to contamination and stormwater management are supported by the City, as it has been demonstrated that the matters raised in DWER's submission can be appropriately addressed and managed. Should the development be approved, a condition requiring a stormwater management plan is recommended. Advice Notes DWER in its submission also provides for Advice Notes relating to Stormwater Management and Emergency Response. A copy of the advice notes forms part of the Attachment 4 - Schedule of Submissions of the accompanying Responsible Authority Report (RAR). The applicant has been provided with a copy of the DWER submission. 5. Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) - summarised Vegetation Classification The road verges on Evinrude and Dixon Road within Plot 5 have been excluded. Evidence to support these exclusions as managed to low threat in accordance with AS3959 is required. Development Footprint The Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) Assessment within the Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) has not considered the location of the fuel canopy. Figure 1 shows a truck and car fuel canopy which appears to adjoin the fuel station convenience store. The BAL ratings should be calculated from the edge of the fuel canopy. Location, Siting and Design The BAL ratings cannot be validated, as the BAL assessment has excluded the fuel canopy. Recommendation The development design has not demonstrated compliance to Element 1: Location and Element 2: Siting and Design. Applicant's Response: Vegetation Classification The road verges are the responsibility of the adjacent landowner to maintain in accordance with the local Fire Control Notice and City of Rockingham Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2001. Development Footprint The revised BAL rating has been calculated from the edge of the fuel canopy and includes the fuel canopy as an attached structure. Location, Siting and Design The BAL rating of 19 is valid and is considered acceptable for the land use. Recommendation BAL 19 has been established for the subject site, corresponding to a limited scale of bushfire risk emanating from the non-vegetated area surrounding the development site, the low threat vegetation to the east of the subject site and the Bush Forever reserve south of Dixon Road. City’s Comment: Vegetation Classification It is generally the owner/occupier's responsibility to maintain the verge directly boarding their property, however, the City can confirm that the existing portion of verge on the Dixon Road is irrigated and regularly maintained by the City. The City is therefore satisfied with the verge vegetation exclusion and vegetation management proposed, subject to a condition of development approval that requires the BMP to be updated accordingly, as the land outside the lot can be maintained in perpetuity by the City and the landowner for the life of the development.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 111

6. Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) - summarised (cont…) Development Footprint The revised BAL assessment considers the location of the fuel canopies. Consequently, the determined BAL rating for the development has increased from BAL-12.5 to BAL-19. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the fuel canopies within the BAL assessment still ensures that development is appropriately sited in terms of SPP3.7. Location, Siting and Design A site visit dated 22 May 2019, confirms that the vegetation within the revised BAL assessment has been correctly identified and it is therefore considered that the BAL-19 rating is valid. Recommendation As a result of the modifications to the BAL assessment, it is considered that the BMP is accurate and can be implemented to reduce the vulnerability of the development to bushfire. The City is satisfied that the development design has demonstrated compliance with SPP3.7, specifically Element 1: Location and Element 2: Siting and Design, which is further detailed in the State Government Policy section of this report. A submission from Water Corporation was not received. c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 3: Plan for Future Generations Strategic Objective: Responsive planning and control of land use: Plan and control the use of land to meet the needs of the growing population, with consideration of future generations. d. Policy State Government Policies State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP3.7) SPP3.7 seeks to guide the implementation of effective risk-based land use planning and development to preserve life and reduce the impact of bushfire on property and infrastructure. The majority of the subject site has been designated bushfire prone under the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1998 (as amended) and therefore the requirements of SPP3.7 are applicable. The objectives of SPP3.7 are to:  "Avoid any increase in the threat of bushfire to people, property and infrastructure. The preservation of life and the management of bushfire impact are paramount.  Reduce vulnerability to bushfire through the identification and consideration of bushfire risks in decision-making at all stages of the planning and development process.  Ensure that higher order strategic planning documents, strategic planning proposals, subdivision and development applications take into account bushfire protection requirements and include specified bushfire protection measures.  Achieve an appropriate balance between bushfire risk management measures and, biodiversity conservation values, environmental protection and biodiversity management and landscape amenity, with consideration of the potential impacts of climate change.”

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 112

As the land is designated as a bushfire prone area and is classified as a 'high risk' land use, the applicant submitted a BMP, Risk Management Plan (RMP) and Bushfire Emergency Plan (BEP) in support of the application, as per the requirements of SPP3.7. The proposal was referred to DFES, which initially did not support the proposal as the fuel canopies had not been considered as part of the BAL assessment and due to 'lack' of evidence to support verge vegetation along Dixon Road and Evinrude Bend being classified as 'excluded' from the BAL assessment. As detailed in the Consultation section of this report, the applicant submitted a revised BMP with further clarification which addresses DFES comments. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposal is compliant with SPP3.7. Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (GfPBPA) The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage’s GfPBPA provide supporting information to assist in the interpretation of the objectives and policy measures outlined in SPP3.7. The following is an assessment against the relevant requirements of the GfPBPA. Element 1 - Location The development complies with the relevant Acceptable Solution for this Element, as the applicant has demonstrated through a BAL assessment and implementation of an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) that the maximum BAL level that buildings will be required to be constructed to will be BAL-19 of Australian Standard 3959 - Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas (AS3959). A condition of development approval is recommended in this regard. Element 2 - Siting and Development The development complies with the relevant Acceptable Solution for this Element, as the buildings on the lot will be provided with an APZ (of the required dimension), which is established for the most part within the lot boundaries (excluding APZ extending into Dixon Road and Evinrude Bend verges). Conditions of Development Approval are recommended to ensure the APZ is provided prior to the occupation of the development, and buildings are constructed to the requirements of AS3959. Element 3 - Vehicular Access The development complies with the relevant Acceptable Solution for this Element, as development provides several egress options from the site, to the south onto Dixon Road and west and north which lead to Day Road. Element 4 - Water The development complies with the relevant Acceptable Solution for this Element, as reticulated water supply is currently available to the site. A condition of approval is recommended in this respect to ensure the connection to reticulated water is maintained at all times. There are four fire hydrants within close proximity to the development site, with the closes being setback approx. 6m from the south-eastern lot truncation. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) - Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses No.3 (Guidance Statement) The EPA Guidance Statement provides advice to proponents, responsible authorities, stakeholders and the public, on the minimum requirements for environmental management which the EPA would expect to be met when the Authority considers a development proposal. The EPA recommends a 200m buffer distance to all 24 hour Service Station operations because of Gaseous, Noise, Odour and Risk to sensitive land uses. The buffer recommended by the Guidance Statement is not an absolute separation distance, but instead are default distances providing general guidance in the absence of site-specific technical studies.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 113

The nearest noise sensitive premises (a caravan) on the caravan park site is approximately 62.4m from the proposed development. The East Rockingham Development Guidelines recognise the caravan park site's proximity to the broader industrial precinct. A detailed assessment against the separation of the proposed development to sensitive land uses is considered in the Legal and Statutory section of this report, where the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed development is appropriately designed and sited to mitigate any potential amenity and environmental impacts on nearby sensitive land uses. It is also noted that as part of the public consultation period, the City notified the operator of the caravan park site. No submissions were received from the caravan park provider or occupants of the site. Local Policies Planning Policy 3.1 - Control of Advertisements (PP3.1) The applicant submitted a signage strategy as part of the development application which included details, type number and size of signage. The signage strategy consists of various wall signs, directional signage, a roof sign and two Pylon Signs. The following provides an assessment of the pylon signage seeking to vary the requirements of PP3.3.1:

A Pylon Sign must Office Comment Compliance Compliance not: - 9m high - 6m high Pylon Sign Pylon Sign

be located within The pylon sign associated with the No No 1.8m of a boundary fuel retailing building is setback 0.9m from the Dixon Road reserve whilst the pylon sign associated with the car service building is setback 0.8m from the Evinrude Bend road reserve.

be situated within There are no existing or proposed Yes Yes 6.0m of any other signs within 6m of the two sign of the same lot proposed pylon signs.

project over a street, The pylon signs do not project over Yes Yes walkway or any other a street, walkway or any other public area by more public area. than 1.0m

have a height A 9m height above natural ground No Yes exceeding 6.0m, level is proposed for the fuel unless it can be retailing building, whilst a 6m height demonstrated to the above natural ground level is Council that a greater proposed for the car service height is warranted building. and it complies with the objectives of this Planning Policy. In any event, a Pylon Sign shall not exceed 9.0m in height

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 114

A Pylon Sign must Office Comment Compliance Compliance not: - 9m high - 6m high Pylon Sign Pylon Sign

have any part of the The pylon signs comprise of panels Yes Yes sign less than 2.7m which are incorporated from ground from the ground level, level to the top of the sign. unless the sign is designed such that the underside of the face area is located at ground level

have a face area The face area of both proposed No No exceeding more than pylon signs exceed 3.5m in height. 3.5m width or height have a face area of The pylon sings have a face areas No No more than 4m2 on of approximately 19.4m2 and 13m2, each side (single both exceeding the permitted 4m2, tenancy) or 13m2 on as signs are entirely dedicated to each side (multiple the individual buildings. tenancy) Only one (1) pylon The subject site has frontage to No No sign shall be three streets. permitted on a lot with a single tenancy. For lots with two or The appropriateness of two No No more tenancies, only proposed pylon signs is further one (1) pylon sign will detailed below. be generally permitted unless the site is large and has more than one street frontage, in which case one pylon sign per street frontage may be permitted. The following objectives of PP3.3.1 are relevant for the consideration of pylon signs: "(a) Ensure that advertisements are appropriate for their location; (b) Minimise the proliferation of advertisements;" An audit of existing pylon signs along Dixon Road between Evinrude Bend and McCamey Avenue demonstrates the following: Lot Signage Lot 37 Dixon Road  There is no existing pylon signage. Lot 38 Dixon Road  One, 6m high pylon sign which advertises a showroom development; and  There are no other business on this lot. Lot 39 Dixon Road  One, 9m high pylon sign which advertises a construction company; and  There are no other business on this lot.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 115

Lot Signage Lot 40 Dixon Road  One, 9m high pylon sign which advertises all four (4) businesses on this lot (7 Eleven convenience store, Buccaneer Swimming Pools, Muzz Buzz and car wash); and  The lot also has direct frontages to three streets and is similar in size to Lot 36 Dixon Road. The setback of the proposed 'BP' pylon sign from Dixon Road reserve is consistent with setbacks of adjoining pylon signs within the audit area, thus the reduced setback of 0.9m can be supported by the City. With regard to the 'car service' pylon sign adjacent to Evinrude Bend, it is noted that there are no obstructions which warrant a reduced setback, thus the reduced setback of 1m is not supported by the City. It is noted that during the audit of existing pylon signs, the pylon sign on Lot 40 advertises a 'retail fuelling' development as well as three other developments. It is also noted that Lot 40 is akin to Lot 36 in terms of its size and context. There is a clear precedent demonstrating that the proposed pylon signs can be integrated into one sign. The applicant has indicated that "the BP tenancy has its own individual sign which is consistent with their pylon sings development across Australia". The City assesses development applications on a case by case basis, and the proposition by the applicant is not a relevant planning consideration. In light of the above, two pylon signs are not supported on this site as they do not satisfy the aforementioned objectives a) and b) of PP3.3.1. Should the development be approved, a condition requiring only one pylon sign for the proposed development is recommended. Planning Policy 3.8 - East Rockingham Development Guidelines (PP3.3.8) The purpose of PP3.3.8 is to guide the orderly development of serviced industrial land within the East Rockingham Industrial Park (Improvement Plan No.14 Area). The objectives of PP3.3.8 are: "(a) To achieve an attractive and unified development which acknowledges the goal of conserving and enhancing the natural environment by emphasising the retention of natural vegetation and the introduction of complementary quality landscaping and well designed buildings; (b) To achieve a degree of consistency and compatibility in the built form and landscaping, whilst allowing for individuality and a well presented corporate or market image; and (c) To avoid unsightly and poorly planned development and enhance and protect the investment of all owners within the East Rockingham Industrial Park and the investment of others in the region." A detailed assessment against PP3.3.8 is available in the Local Policies section of the accompanying RAR, where it is concluded that the development is consistent with the objectives of PP3.3.8. Planning Policy 3.3.14 - Bicycle Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities (PP3.3.14) PP3.3.14 facilitates the appropriate provision of secure, well designed and effective on site bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities to encourage the use of bicycles as a means of transport and access to and within the City.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 116

Bicycle Parking Requirement Required Land Use Long Term Short Term

Rate Number Rate Number

Commercial 1:250m² 1 1:150m² 2 (Service Station - Convenience Store component) Total 1 2 No bicycle spaces have been provided. A condition of development approval requiring the provision of three bicycle parking spaces is recommended. e. Financial Nil f. Legal and Statutory Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Planning Regulations) Clause 67 of Schedule 2 of the Planning Regulations outlines the matters to which the Local Government is to have due regard when considering an application for development approval. Where relevant, these matters have been discussed throughout this Report. City of Rockingham Town Planning Scheme No.2 (TPS2) Clause 3.2 - Zoning Table The subject site is zoned 'Light Industry' under TPS2. The proposed use of 'Service Station' is not permitted, unless the Local Government has exercised its discretion by granting Development Approval. TPS2 defines a Service Station as: "premises used for: (a) the retail sale of petroleum products, motor vehicle accessories and goods of an incidental/convenience retail nature; and (b) The carrying out of greasing, tyre repairs and minor mechanical repairs to motor vehicles, but does not include premises used for a transport depot, panel beating, spray painting, major repairs or wrecking." The proposed development offers the retail sale of fuel for private and commercial vehicles as well as the retail sale of incidental convenience goods commonly sold in supermarkets, delicatessens and newsagents. The development also includes service bays that provide for the carrying out of minor mechanical repairs to motor vehicles. The use is provided across two separate tenancies. The proposed development, although across two separate tenancies satisfies the two elements of the Service Station definition under TPS2. Clause 4.10.1 - Objectives of the Industrial Zones The objectives of the Industrial zoned land are: "(a) to provide for a range of industrial land uses by establishing guiding principles and policies that are environmentally and socially acceptable;

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 117

(b) to encourage and facilitate the establishment of attractive and efficient industrial areas ensuring that acceptable levels of safety and high standard of amenity are provided through the application of appropriate landuse, design and landscaping controls; and (c) to ensure that industrial areas are developed in a manner which has due regard to potential industries and their infrastructure needs, and that adjacent urban areas are not subjected to pollution and hazards." The design of the proposed development results in efficient use of the industrial land and required landscaping along Dixon Road, Evinrude Bend and Whittle Road will serve to screen views of the development whilst softening its impact on the public realm. The development presents an attractive facility that ensures a high level of passive surveillance and amenity to the locality. The subject site is located at the south eastern end of the East Rockingham Industrial Area, which is identified for light industrial land uses. Land uses typically located within this area range from light manufacturing to mechanical workshops, storage and unit developments. The City's Health Services has reviewed the Acoustics report and advised that there are outstanding noise considerations that can be addressed during the detailed design stage. Nevertheless, the City considers that the development is unlikely to have an adverse impact on surrounding land uses. The City has standard noise mitigation conditions which are applied to larger developments of this nature. Thus, should the development be approved, conditions requiring a revised Acoustic report prior to applying for a Building Permit (using general levels for equipment to show required measures that will ensure the development can comply with Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (Noise Regulations), and a final Acoustic report prior to occupancy demonstrating that all mechanical services and other noise sources will comply with the Noise Regulations are recommended. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone. Clause 4.10.2 - Form of Development The Local Government shall have regard to the following when considering an application for development approval on Industrial zoned land: "(a) promotion of a high standard of building development, landscaping and working environment; (b) protection of the amenity of adjacent residential and open space areas; (c) management of drainage systems and land uses to promote groundwater and conservation; and (d) to ensure safe movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area." The proposed development is consistent with requirements of PP3.3.8 in regards to the building design, landscaping and the working environment. This is discussed in detail in the Local Policies section of the accompanying RAR. The surrounding context of the locality contains a mix of light industrial land uses (to the north and the west), a caravan park (to the east) on the opposite side of Evinrude Bend, vacant land to the north zoned for light industrial purposes and a Parks and Recreation Reserve on the southern side of Dixon Road. The proposed development is set back approximately 62.4m from the nearest caravan and approximately 56.7m from the reserve. To protect the amenity of the adjacent caravan park and the reserve, the proposal implements the following measures: Odour and Waste  Bin store area is located to the rear of the development, so as to ensure it is not visible from the caravan park site or reserve;  Any potential odours to be controlled by extractor fans and vapour recovery system as part of the car service building; and  No wash down bay or facilities is proposed as they are not required for the car service building.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 118

Noise and Lighting  Noise emissions from the development will be compliant with the Noise Regulations; and  External lighting will be designed and regulated by Australian Standard 4282 - Control of Obtrusive Effectives of Outdoor Lighting, so as to ensure there is no glare or light spill that will adversely impact the caravan park site. Stormwater The proposed development will increase the amount of impervious surface on site. Although the application does not include any conceptual designs for the management of stormwater within and around the Service Station, it has been demonstrated that stormwater can be appropriately addressed and managed, as the site layout has been designed to ensure development is provided with ‘best practice’ (i.e. leak monitoring, double-walled construction for pipes and tanks. Should the development be approved, a Stormwater Management Plan will be required to clearly demonstrate how drainage will be managed in accordance with Planning Policy 3.4.3 – Urban Water Management. The management of drainage systems is also detailed in the Consultation section of this report. Traffic The applicant, through Shawmac Consulting Civic & Traffic Engineers, conducted a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to assess the impacts associated with parking, access and traffic generation from the proposed development. The TIA concluded that there are no issues identified with regard to traffic operations of the proposed development. Clause 4.10.3 - Parking TPS2 requires the provision of on-site parking for vehicles for development on industrial zoned land in accordance with the provisions of Clause 4.15 and Table No.2. The table below provides an assessment of the Service Station proposal against the relevant car parking requirements of TPS2. Use Rate Required Provided Service 1 bay for every service bay, plus 1 6 service bays plus 9 35 bays Station bay per employee; and employee bays; and 6 bays per 100m2 NLA 12 bays (200m2 NLA, non- inclusive of incidental office/showroom NLA) Total 27 bays 35 bays The proposed development provides a total of 35 car parking spaces which satisfies the car parking requirements of Clause 4.15 of TPS2. Clause 4.10.4 - General Development Provisions Clause 4.10.4 provides for development provisions on all Industrial zoned land within the City, unless otherwise specified in Planning Policy 3.3.8 - East Rockingham Design Guidelines. The provisions are outlined below and considered in relation to the proposed development. General Development Provisions Provided Compliance Facade The facades of all buildings visible The facades of the fuel retailing Yes from the primary road or open space and car service building visible area shall be of masonry construction from Dixon Road will be finished or any other material approved by the in concrete panel and colorbond Local Government in respect of the with textured paint finish to ground floor level, provided that if height of 4.2m and 9m. concrete panels are used, such panels must have an exposed aggregate or textured finished.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 119

General Development Provisions Provided Compliance Façade (cont…) The second floor level or its equivalent may be constructed of any other material in accordance with the Building Code of Australia and to the satisfaction of Local Government. Fencing No fence visible from a road or open There is no fencing proposed as N/A space reserve shall be constructed of part of this development materials/colours which in the opinion application. of Local Government are unsightly or detract from the amenity of the locality, or be used for signage where the approval of the Local Government has not been granted. Any industrial (eg. chain wire) fencing forward of the street building setback line shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Local Government. Setback area No use of the area between the street The front setback area is Yes alignment and the prescribed building proposed to be used for setback line shall be permitted other landscaping and vehicular than for landscaping, or for pedestrian access and circulation only. and vehicular circulation and parking, except that not more than 20% of the setback area may be used for trade display purposes, to be approved at the discretion of the Local Government. Clause 4.10.8 - Light Industry zone Clause 4.10.8 provides for setback and landscaping requirements for developments within the Light Industry zone, unless otherwise specified in the East Rockingham Design Guidelines. An assessment against the setback and landscaping requirements has been undertaken in accordance with the Element Precinct of the East Rockingham Design Guidelines, where it is concluded that the development application satisfies the requirements of the Element Precinct (refer to Local Policies section of the accompanying RAR). Clause 5.3 - Control of Advertisements Clause 5.3.1 requires Development approval to be obtained for the erection of advertisements. In considering an application for an advertisement, the Council is required to consider the objectives of TPS2. Signage is discussed in the Policy section of this report under PP3.3.1, where it was concluded that the two proposed Pylon Signs are not appropriate for their location. g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety: Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 120

Comments The proposed development is an appropriate land use within the Light Industry zone under TPS2. The proposed development is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjacent Caravan Park. The ORR reservation has been taken into consideration as part of the design of the proposed development, so as to ensure the Service Station development does not impact on the long term objectives of the reservation. The proposed development is compliant with TPS2 and Policy requirements. It is recommended that the application be supported by Council. Voting Requirements Simple Majority Officer Recommendation

That Council ADOPTS the Responsible Authority Report for the application for the proposed Service Station Facility at Lot 36 (No. 137) Dixon Road, East Rockingham, contained as Attachment 1 as the report required to be submitted to the presiding member of the South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel (MSWJDAP) pursuant to Regulation 12 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulation 2011, which recommends: That the Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to: Approve DAP Application reference DAP/19/01585 and accompanying plans:  Perspectives, Drawing No.1, da4ted Feb 2019;  Site Plan and Survey Plan, Drawing No.3, dated May 2019;  Elevations, Drawing No.4, dated May 2019;  Elevation Perspectives, Drawing No.5, dated Feb 2019;  Landscape Plan, Drawing No.6, dated May 2019; and  Signage, Drawing No.7 dated Feb 2019; in accordance with Clause 68 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the provisions of clause 68(2)(b) of the deemed provisions of the City of Rockingham Town Planning Scheme No. 2, subject to the following conditions as follows: Conditions 1. This decision constitutes development approval only and is valid for a period of 2 years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the 2 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. 2. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, revised drawings shall be provided illustrating only one (1) pylon sign for the approved development, to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. 3. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant/owner is to demonstrate that development shall incorporate Water Management and Rainwater Harvesting System measures, in accordance with the City of Rockingham Planning Policy 3.3.8 - East Rockingham Design Guidelines (Appendix 3) and be maintained for duration of the development. 4. Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas shall be collected and contained on site. Stormwater must not affect or be allowed to flow onto or into any property or road reserve. All stormwater generated by the development must be managed in accordance with Planning Policy 3.4.3 - Urban Water Management to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 121

The approved plans must be implemented and all works must be maintained for the duration of the development. 5. The carrying out of motor vehicle servicing must occur in conjunction with the sale of fuel for the duration of the development. 6. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, an acoustic report that demonstrates all mechanical services associated with the development and any other noise source will comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rockingham. 7. Prior to occupation of the development, a final acoustic assessment must be prepared and provided to the City of Rockingham which demonstrates to the City’s satisfaction that the development complies with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. 8. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, a Waste Management Plan must be prepared and include the following detail to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham: (i) the location of bin storage areas and bin collection areas; (ii) the number, volume and type of bins, and the type of waste to be placed in the bins; (iii) management of the bins and the bin storage areas, including cleaning, rotation and moving bins to and from the bin collection areas; and (iv) frequency of bin collections. All works must be carried out in accordance with the Waste Management Plan and maintained at all times, for the duration of development. 9. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, an external lighting plan is to be submitted and approved by the City of Rockingham, demonstrating compliance with AS 4282 - Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. External lighting is to be implemented in accordance with the lighting plan for the duration of the development, to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. 10. A landscaping plan must be prepared and include the following detail, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to issue of a Building Permit: (i) The Location, number and type of existing and proposes trees (including shade trees) and shrubs, indicating calculations for the landscaping area; (ii) Any lawns to be established; (iii) Those areas to be reticulated or irrigated; (iv) Garden edge treatment to all sections where garden areas adjoin turf to provide separation and maintenance; (v) Verge areas; and (vi) Shade trees for car parking bays at a rate of one tree per four car parking bays. The landscaping must be completed prior to the occupation of the development, and must be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. 11. Trees, shrubs taller than 2m and grasstree plants (XANTHORRHOEACEAE family) must be retained (unless specifically identified for removal on the approved plans) and, during the construction period, measures for their retention must be taken in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970—2009, Protection of trees on development sites. These measures are to be detailed in a vegetation retention management plan to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, arrangements must be made to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham for the relocation of all grasstree plants that are specifically identified for removal. 12. Prior to occupation of the development, the Asset Protection Zone (APZ), as depicted in the Bushfire Management Plan prepared by Entire Fire Management, dated 13 May 2019, must be provided in accordance with the WAPC’s Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 122

The APZ must be maintained for the duration of the development. 13. Prior to occupation of the development, the Bushfire Management Plan prepared by Entire Fire Management, dated 13 May 2019 shall be updated to address comments made by the City of Rockingham with regard to maintenance responsibilities of Dixon Road verge. 14. Prior to the occupation of the development, any damage to existing City infrastructure within the road reservation including kerb, road pavement, turf, irrigation, bollards and footpaths is to be repaired to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham at the cost of the applicant. 15. Earthworks over the site associated with the development must be stabilised to prevent sand or dust blowing off the site, and appropriate measures shall be implemented within the time and in the manner directed by the City of Rockingham in the event that sand or dust is blown from the site. 16. The carpark must: (i) provide a minimum of 35 car parking spaces; (ii) be designed, constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked in accordance with User Class 3 of Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004, Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street car parking unless otherwise specified by this approval, prior to applying for a Building Permit; (iii) provide one car parking space dedicated to people with disabilities, which are designed, constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009, Parking facilities, Part 6: Off-street parking for people with disabilities and which are linked to the main entrance of the development by a continuous accessible path of travel designed and constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1428.1—2009, Design for access and mobility, Part 1: General Requirements for access—New building work; (iv) be constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked prior to the development being occupied and maintained thereafter; (v) the width of the car parking bay (located adjacent to the compressor) to be at least 2.9m wide (i.e 2.6m plus 0.3m); and (vi) comply with the above requirements for the duration of the development. 17. One (1) long-term and two (2) short-term bicycle parking spaces must be designed in accordance with AS2890.3-1993, Parking facilities, Part 3: Bicycle parking facilities, prior to commencement of development. The bicycle parking scapes must be constructed prior to occupation of the development. 18. Access of delivery vehicles is only permitted between the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm from Monday to Saturday (inclusive) and between 9:00am and 7:00pm on Saturday and public holidays, for the duration of the development. 19. Entries and window frontages facing the street must not be covered, closed or screened off (including by means of dark tinting, shutters, curtains, blinds, roller doors or similar), to ensure that a commercial, interactive frontage is available to the development from Dixon Road and Evinrude Bend, for the duration of the development. 20. All plant and roof equipment and other external fixtures are to be screened from view. 21. Materials, sea containers, goods or bins must not be stored within the car park at any time. 22. The proponent must remove all approved signage within the Metropolitan Region Scheme Other Regional Road reservation without seeking compensation from either the City of Rockingham or the WAPC for any loss, damage or expense should the reserved land be required for road upgrading purposes in the future. 23. The pylon sign within the Metropolitan Region Scheme Other Regional Road reservation shall not interfere with sightlines, distract drivers, or have the potential to hinder the intersection of or become confused with traffic signals or road signs.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 123

Advice Notes 1. A Building Permit must be obtained for the proposed works prior to commencement of site works. The applicant and owner should liaise with the City's Building Services in this regard. 2. The development must comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997; contact the City's Health Services for information on confirming requirements. 3. The development must comply with the Food Act 2008, the Food Safety Standards and Chapter 3 of the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code (Australia Only); the applicant and owner should liaise with the City's Health Services in this regard. 4. All works in the road reserve, including construction of a crossover, planting of street trees, and other streetscape works and works to the road carriageway must be to the specifications of the City of Rockingham; the applicant should liaise with the City of Rockingham’s Engineering Services in this regard. 5. With respect to the Landscape Plan condition, the Dixon Road existing portion of turf on the verge is irrigated and maintained by the City of Rockingham. For clarify of maintenance responsibilities, it is recommended to extend the planting to the existing footpath on Dixon Road which must be maintained by the applicant. The applicant is to contact the City’s Park Services Irrigation Supervisor, prior to works commencing on site to discuss terminating the existing irrigation to Evinrude Bend portion of turf verge, which must be irrigated and maintained by the applicant. 6. With respect to the car park condition, the City's Traffic Engineer advises that the design for the proposed kerb ramp in front of the fuel retailing building is to be changed to a maximum gradient of 1 in 8 (12.5%), in accordance with AS1428.1. Manual measurements from the site plan suggests a proposed gradient of 1 in 4 (25% based on a proposed ramp length of 0.6m to accommodate a 150mm height difference), therefore not complying with AS1428.1. 7. With respect to the outstanding matters identified in the Acoustics report, the applicant is to liaise with the City of Rockingham Health Services in this regard. Where a development approval has so lapsed, no development shall be carried out without further approval having first been sought and obtained, unless the applicant has applied and obtained Development Assessment Panel approval to extend the approval term under regulation 17(1)(a) of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011. Committee Recommendation

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 124

Conditions 1. This decision constitutes development approval only and is valid for a period of 2 years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the 2 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. 2. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, revised drawings shall be provided illustrating only one (1) pylon sign for the approved development, to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. 3. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant/owner is to demonstrate that development shall incorporate Water Management and Rainwater Harvesting System measures, in accordance with the City of Rockingham Planning Policy 3.3.8 - East Rockingham Design Guidelines (Appendix 3) and be maintained for duration of the development. 4. Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas shall be collected and contained on site. Stormwater must not affect or be allowed to flow onto or into any property or road reserve. All stormwater generated by the development must be managed in accordance with Planning Policy 3.4.3 - Urban Water Management to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. The approved plans must be implemented and all works must be maintained for the duration of the development. 5. The carrying out of motor vehicle servicing must occur in conjunction with the sale of fuel for the duration of the development. 6. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, an acoustic report that demonstrates all mechanical services associated with the development and any other noise source will comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rockingham. 7. Prior to occupation of the development, a final acoustic assessment must be prepared and provided to the City of Rockingham which demonstrates to the City’s satisfaction that the development complies with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. 8. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, a Waste Management Plan must be prepared and include the following detail to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham: (i) the location of bin storage areas and bin collection areas; (ii) the number, volume and type of bins, and the type of waste to be placed in the bins; (iii) management of the bins and the bin storage areas, including cleaning, rotation and moving bins to and from the bin collection areas; and (iv) frequency of bin collections. All works must be carried out in accordance with the Waste Management Plan and maintained at all times, for the duration of development. 9. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, an external lighting plan is to be submitted and approved by the City of Rockingham, demonstrating compliance with AS 4282 - Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. External lighting is to be implemented in accordance with the lighting plan for the duration of the development, to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. 10. A landscaping plan must be prepared and include the following detail, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to issue of a Building Permit: (i) The Location, number and type of existing and proposes trees (including shade trees) and shrubs, indicating calculations for the landscaping area; (ii) Any lawns to be established; (iii) Those areas to be reticulated or irrigated; (iv) Garden edge treatment to all sections where garden areas adjoin turf to provide separation and maintenance;

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 125

(v) Verge areas; and (vi) Shade trees for car parking bays at a rate of one tree per four car parking bays. The landscaping must be completed prior to the occupation of the development, and must be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. 11. Trees, shrubs taller than 2m and grasstree plants (XANTHORRHOEACEAE family) must be retained (unless specifically identified for removal on the approved plans) and, during the construction period, measures for their retention must be taken in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970—2009, Protection of trees on development sites. These measures are to be detailed in a vegetation retention management plan to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, arrangements must be made to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham for the relocation of all grasstree plants that are specifically identified for removal. 12. Prior to occupation of the development, the Asset Protection Zone (APZ), as depicted in the Bushfire Management Plan prepared by Entire Fire Management, dated 13 May 2019, must be provided in accordance with the WAPC’s Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas. The APZ must be maintained for the duration of the development. 13. Prior to occupation of the development, the Bushfire Management Plan prepared by Entire Fire Management, dated 13 May 2019 shall be updated to address comments made by the City of Rockingham with regard to maintenance responsibilities of Dixon Road verge. 14. Prior to the occupation of the development, any damage to existing City infrastructure within the road reservation including kerb, road pavement, turf, irrigation, bollards and footpaths is to be repaired to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham at the cost of the applicant. 15. Earthworks over the site associated with the development must be stabilised to prevent sand or dust blowing off the site, and appropriate measures shall be implemented within the time and in the manner directed by the City of Rockingham in the event that sand or dust is blown from the site. 16. The carpark must: (i) provide a minimum of 35 car parking spaces; (ii) be designed, constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked in accordance with User Class 3 of Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004, Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street car parking unless otherwise specified by this approval, prior to applying for a Building Permit; (iii) provide one car parking space dedicated to people with disabilities, which are designed, constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009, Parking facilities, Part 6: Off-street parking for people with disabilities and which are linked to the main entrance of the development by a continuous accessible path of travel designed and constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1428.1—2009, Design for access and mobility, Part 1: General Requirements for access—New building work; (iv) be constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked prior to the development being occupied and maintained thereafter; (v) the width of the car parking bay (located adjacent to the compressor) to be at least 2.9m wide (i.e 2.6m plus 0.3m); and (vi) comply with the above requirements for the duration of the development. 17. One (1) long-term and two (2) short-term bicycle parking spaces must be designed in accordance with AS2890.3-1993, Parking facilities, Part 3: Bicycle parking facilities, prior to commencement of development.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 126

The bicycle parking scapes must be constructed prior to occupation of the development. 18. Access of delivery vehicles is only permitted between the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm from Monday to Saturday (inclusive) and between 9:00am and 7:00pm on Saturday and public holidays, for the duration of the development. 19. Entries and window frontages facing the street must not be covered, closed or screened off (including by means of dark tinting, shutters, curtains, blinds, roller doors or similar), to ensure that a commercial, interactive frontage is available to the development from Dixon Road and Evinrude Bend, for the duration of the development. 20. All plant and roof equipment and other external fixtures are to be screened from view. 21. Materials, sea containers, goods or bins must not be stored within the car park at any time. 22. The proponent must remove all approved signage within the Metropolitan Region Scheme Other Regional Road reservation without seeking compensation from either the City of Rockingham or the WAPC for any loss, damage or expense should the reserved land be required for road upgrading purposes in the future. 23. The pylon sign within the Metropolitan Region Scheme Other Regional Road reservation shall not interfere with sightlines, distract drivers, or have the potential to hinder the intersection of or become confused with traffic signals or road signs. Advice Notes 1. A Building Permit must be obtained for the proposed works prior to commencement of site works. The applicant and owner should liaise with the City's Building Services in this regard. 2. The development must comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997; contact the City's Health Services for information on confirming requirements. 3. The development must comply with the Food Act 2008, the Food Safety Standards and Chapter 3 of the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code (Australia Only); the applicant and owner should liaise with the City's Health Services in this regard. 4. All works in the road reserve, including construction of a crossover, planting of street trees, and other streetscape works and works to the road carriageway must be to the specifications of the City of Rockingham; the applicant should liaise with the City of Rockingham’s Engineering Services in this regard. 5. With respect to the Landscape Plan condition, the Dixon Road existing portion of turf on the verge is irrigated and maintained by the City of Rockingham. For clarify of maintenance responsibilities, it is recommended to extend the planting to the existing footpath on Dixon Road which must be maintained by the applicant. The applicant is to contact the City’s Park Services Irrigation Supervisor, prior to works commencing on site to discuss terminating the existing irrigation to Evinrude Bend portion of turf verge, which must be irrigated and maintained by the applicant. 6. With respect to the car park condition, the City's Traffic Engineer advises that the design for the proposed kerb ramp in front of the fuel retailing building is to be changed to a maximum gradient of 1 in 8 (12.5%), in accordance with AS1428.1. Manual measurements from the site plan suggests a proposed gradient of 1 in 4 (25% based on a proposed ramp length of 0.6m to accommodate a 150mm height difference), therefore not complying with AS1428.1. 7. With respect to the outstanding matters identified in the Acoustics report, the applicant is to liaise with the City of Rockingham Health Services in this regard. Where a development approval has so lapsed, no development shall be carried out without further approval having first been sought and obtained, unless the applicant has applied and obtained Development Assessment Panel approval to extend the approval term under regulation 17(1)(a) of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011. Committee Voting – 4/1 (Cr Summers voted against)

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 127

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

Moved Cr Elliott, seconded Cr Hamblin: That Council ADOPTS the Responsible Authority Report for the application for the proposed Service Station Facility at Lot 36 (No. 137) Dixon Road, East Rockingham, contained as Attachment 1 as the report required to be submitted to the presiding member of the South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel (MSWJDAP) pursuant to Regulation 12 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulation 2011, which recommends: That the Metro South-West Joint Development Assessment Panel resolves to: Approve DAP Application reference DAP/19/01585 and accompanying plans:  Perspectives, Drawing No.1, dated Feb 2019;  Site Plan and Survey Plan, Drawing No.3, dated May 2019;  Elevations, Drawing No.4, dated May 2019;  Elevation Perspectives, Drawing No.5, dated Feb 2019;  Landscape Plan, Drawing No.6, dated May 2019; and  Signage, Drawing No.7 dated Feb 2019; in accordance with Clause 68 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the provisions of clause 68(2)(b) of the deemed provisions of the City of Rockingham Town Planning Scheme No. 2, subject to the following conditions as follows: Conditions 1. This decision constitutes development approval only and is valid for a period of 2 years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the 2 year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. 2. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, revised drawings shall be provided illustrating only one (1) pylon sign for the approved development, to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. 3. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant/owner is to demonstrate that development shall incorporate Water Management and Rainwater Harvesting System measures, in accordance with the City of Rockingham Planning Policy 3.3.8 - East Rockingham Design Guidelines (Appendix 3) and be maintained for duration of the development. 4. Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas shall be collected and contained on site. Stormwater must not affect or be allowed to flow onto or into any property or road reserve. All stormwater generated by the development must be managed in accordance with Planning Policy 3.4.3 - Urban Water Management to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. The approved plans must be implemented and all works must be maintained for the duration of the development. 5. The carrying out of motor vehicle servicing must occur in conjunction with the sale of fuel for the duration of the development.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 128

6. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, an acoustic report that demonstrates all mechanical services associated with the development and any other noise source will comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rockingham. 7. Prior to occupation of the development, a final acoustic assessment must be prepared and provided to the City of Rockingham which demonstrates to the City’s satisfaction that the development complies with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. 8. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, a Waste Management Plan must be prepared and include the following detail to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham: (i) the location of bin storage areas and bin collection areas; (ii) the number, volume and type of bins, and the type of waste to be placed in the bins; (iii) management of the bins and the bin storage areas, including cleaning, rotation and moving bins to and from the bin collection areas; and (iv) frequency of bin collections. All works must be carried out in accordance with the Waste Management Plan and maintained at all times, for the duration of development. 9. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, an external lighting plan is to be submitted and approved by the City of Rockingham, demonstrating compliance with AS 4282 - Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. External lighting is to be implemented in accordance with the lighting plan for the duration of the development, to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. 10. A landscaping plan must be prepared and include the following detail, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to issue of a Building Permit: (i) The Location, number and type of existing and proposes trees (including shade trees) and shrubs, indicating calculations for the landscaping area; (ii) Any lawns to be established; (iii) Those areas to be reticulated or irrigated; (iv) Garden edge treatment to all sections where garden areas adjoin turf to provide separation and maintenance; (v) Verge areas; and (vi) Shade trees for car parking bays at a rate of one tree per four car parking bays. The landscaping must be completed prior to the occupation of the development, and must be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. 11. Trees, shrubs taller than 2m and grasstree plants (XANTHORRHOEACEAE family) must be retained (unless specifically identified for removal on the approved plans) and, during the construction period, measures for their retention must be taken in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4970—2009, Protection of trees on development sites. These measures are to be detailed in a vegetation retention management plan to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham. Prior to applying for a Building Permit, arrangements must be made to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham for the relocation of all grasstree plants that are specifically identified for removal. 12. Prior to occupation of the development, the Asset Protection Zone (APZ), as depicted in the Bushfire Management Plan prepared by Entire Fire Management, dated 13 May 2019, must be provided in accordance with the WAPC’s Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas. The APZ must be maintained for the duration of the development.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 129

13. Prior to occupation of the development, the Bushfire Management Plan prepared by Entire Fire Management, dated 13 May 2019 shall be updated to address comments made by the City of Rockingham with regard to maintenance responsibilities of Dixon Road verge. 14. Prior to the occupation of the development, any damage to existing City infrastructure within the road reservation including kerb, road pavement, turf, irrigation, bollards and footpaths is to be repaired to the satisfaction of the City of Rockingham at the cost of the applicant. 15. Earthworks over the site associated with the development must be stabilised to prevent sand or dust blowing off the site, and appropriate measures shall be implemented within the time and in the manner directed by the City of Rockingham in the event that sand or dust is blown from the site. 16. The carpark must: (i) provide a minimum of 35 car parking spaces; (ii) be designed, constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked in accordance with User Class 3 of Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.1:2004, Parking facilities, Part 1: Off-street car parking unless otherwise specified by this approval, prior to applying for a Building Permit; (iii) provide one car parking space dedicated to people with disabilities, which are designed, constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2890.6:2009, Parking facilities, Part 6: Off-street parking for people with disabilities and which are linked to the main entrance of the development by a continuous accessible path of travel designed and constructed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1428.1—2009, Design for access and mobility, Part 1: General Requirements for access—New building work; (iv) be constructed, sealed, kerbed, drained and marked prior to the development being occupied and maintained thereafter; (v) the width of the car parking bay (located adjacent to the compressor) to be at least 2.9m wide (i.e 2.6m plus 0.3m); and (vi) comply with the above requirements for the duration of the development. 17. One (1) long-term and two (2) short-term bicycle parking spaces must be designed in accordance with AS2890.3-1993, Parking facilities, Part 3: Bicycle parking facilities, prior to commencement of development. The bicycle parking scapes must be constructed prior to occupation of the development. 18. Access of delivery vehicles is only permitted between the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm from Monday to Saturday (inclusive) and between 9:00am and 7:00pm on Saturday and public holidays, for the duration of the development. 19. Entries and window frontages facing the street must not be covered, closed or screened off (including by means of dark tinting, shutters, curtains, blinds, roller doors or similar), to ensure that a commercial, interactive frontage is available to the development from Dixon Road and Evinrude Bend, for the duration of the development. 20. All plant and roof equipment and other external fixtures are to be screened from view. 21. Materials, sea containers, goods or bins must not be stored within the car park at any time. 22. The proponent must remove all approved signage within the Metropolitan Region Scheme Other Regional Road reservation without seeking compensation from either the City of Rockingham or the WAPC for any loss, damage or expense should the reserved land be required for road upgrading purposes in the future. 23. The pylon sign within the Metropolitan Region Scheme Other Regional Road reservation shall not interfere with sightlines, distract drivers, or have the potential to hinder the intersection of or become confused with traffic signals or road signs.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-043/19 PAGE 130

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 131

Planning and Development Services Directorate, Planning Services Reference No & Subject: PD-044/19 Safety Bay Shoalwater Foreshore Master Plan - ‘Design Drivers’

File No: LUP/2084-03 Proponent/s: Author: Mr Peter Ricci, Manager Major Planning Projects Other Contributors: Date of Committee Meeting: 17 June 2019 Previously before Council: December 2017 (PDS-075/17) Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Executive this Matter:

Site: Foreshore Reserve and abutting Road Reserve between Boundary Road, Shoalwater and Warnbro Beach Road, Waikiki Lot Area: LA Zoning: Parks and Recreation/Local Road MRS Zoning: Parks and Recreation/Urban Attachments: ‘Design Drivers’ Report - GHD Woodhead Maps/Diagrams: 1. Study Area 2. Master Plan Sectors 3. Sector One - Boundary Road to McLarty Road 4. Sector Two - McLarty Road to Carlisle Street 5. Sector Three - Carlisle Street to Bent Street 6. Sector Four - Bent Street to Warnbro Beach Road

Purpose of Report

To seek Council endorsement of the ‘Design Drivers’, derived from community consultation, which will inform the preparation of the Safety Bay Shoalwater Foreshore Master Plan.

Background

In December 2017, Council resolved to approve the Safety Bay Shoalwater Foreshore Master Plan project and allocate funding. In doing so, Council noted that the foreshore has the potential to deliver greater benefit to the local community and visitors and a strategic vision, in a community-led Master Plan, is the best vehicle to achieve this.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 132

The Master Plan study area was defined as the foreshore reserve and abutting road reserve generally between Boundary Road and Warnbro Beach Road, a length of 5.3km, as shown below:

1. Study Area The following ‘Project Purpose’ was developed for the Master Plan: “To develop a strategic vision for the Safety Bay and Shoalwater Foreshore Precinct that gives direction to: - Realising its tourism potential, including ‘marine based tourism’, with a focus on the emerging kite surfing and wind surfing industry; - Coordinating the existing and future commercial activity within the foreshore; - Maximising community use by enhancing the existing recreational experiences; and - Protecting key environmental and built assets. It was recognised that the Master Plan would have a planning horizon of 20 – 30 years and that the outcomes would be delivered in the short, medium and long term. The Council also acknowledged that the following key phases of the project: (i) Site Analysis Mapping. (ii) Initial Community Consultation. (iii) Endorsement of ‘Design Drivers’. (iv) Draft Master Plan Preparation. (v) Second Consultation – Draft Master Plan. (vi) Master Plan Adoption.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 133

In early 2018, as the procurement process to engage a consultant team to assist in the project was scheduled to commence, temporary re-structuring within the City administration was required following the departure of the Chief Executive Officer. This led to the City’s Master Plan Project Sponsor and Project Leader performing higher duties and there being limited capacity to progress the project. The project was therefore placed on hold pending the appointment of the new CEO. As a result, the procurement process was finalised in late 2018, when GHD Woodhead was appointed to conduct the ‘Initial Community Consultation’ and prepare the Master Plan.

Details

In the period since the appointment of GHD Woodhead, the ‘Initial Community Consultation’ has been conducted, the details of which appear under the ‘Consultation with the Community’ heading below, and the Site Analysis Mapping has been completed. The Site Analysis Mapping brings together all the existing characteristics, considerations and features of the Study Area which need to be reconciled in preparing the Master Plan and includes: - Existing site profile across natural and built assets including utility servicing infrastructure; - Land ownership, land management and existing community/commercial use; - Access and movement behaviours (pedestrians and cyclists); - Regulatory considerations including the applicable planning framework and heritage; and - Traffic and parking.

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community The ‘Initial Community Consultation’ was designed to get an appreciation of the existing values attached to the foreshore and gauge where there is capacity for change and to what extent. The process was designed to get a representative sample from adjacent residents/landowners, visitors, local businesses, community groups and public agencies. The primary tool used during the ‘Initial Community Consultation’ was an online survey which asked a series of questions to determine foreshore values, how the foreshore is used and what enhancements should be contemplated. The survey opened on 25 February 2019 and invited responses until 18 March 2019. The survey was promoted through a number of means including: - The February 2019 City Chronical; - The ‘Council Column’ in the Sound Telegraph on 27 February; - Emails and follow-up phone calls to selected residents, community groups, commercial traders and State Government agencies; - Flyers placed in a number of local businesses; - Social Media posts; - Editorial content in local newspapers; - RockPort (where the project is a specific topic of interest); and - The ‘Share Your Thoughts’ portal on the City’s website. A dedicated webpage was also placed on the City’s website through which the survey could be accessed and lodged. At the conclusion of the survey period, 623 survey responses had been received which included 12 responses from community groups, commercial traders and State Government agencies. Of the 611 ‘individual’ responses, 545 were from local residents and 67 from visitors. Additional information was also derived from telephone conversations with prominent/active local residents and local businesses along with unsolicited email responses.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 134

The ‘Initial Community Consultation’ feedback is summarised in the attached ‘Design Drivers’ Report. The key outcomes from the consultation are described below. - safety. 3. Local Traders Telephone Interviews The City also identified a number of traders in the Penguin Road and Bent Street commercial centres, along with the Mersey Point commercial node, that should be interviewed. From the five traders that agreed to be interviewed, the following Master Plan outcomes were derived: - improved accessibility to the foreshore; - boardwalk access to the beach; - parking, including parking for buses; - increased amenity; and - improved pedestrian access across Arcadia Drive and Safety Bay Road. 4. Unsolicited Responses Without being prompted, four local residents sent GHD Woodhead unsolicited emails offering local knowledge, improvement suggestions and images. The matters raised in these responses include the following: - more parking, lower vehicle speeds and pedestrian access to, and through, the foreshore; - creation of active coastal recreation amenity areas; - infrastructure that capitalise on coastal views; and - improved visual amenity whilst protecting the natural assets including the dune environment. 5. Councillor Engagement Session On 9 April 2019, the outcomes of the ‘Initial Community Consultation’ were discussed at a Councillor Engagement Session. The Councillors were also asked a number of questions in order to get an opinion of the direction the Master Plan should take. Key observations from the Session included the need to generally improve the recreational experience and ensure that the requirements of the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, in relation to the Shoalwater Island Marine Park, are well understood. It was also expressed that residents want a destination when walking along the foreshore. Some of the facilities that Councillors raised as being contemplated for the Master Plan are: - infrastructure to support existing recreational marine activities (i.e. kite surfing and wind surfing); - toilets and change rooms; - leisure based commercial activities in strategic locations, both permanent and temporary; - a skate park/youth precinct catering for broad age groups; and - more shade. The potential associated with the Safety Bay Yacht Club building and surrounds was also raised as an opportunity which should be explored. b. Consultation with Government Agencies Five State Government Agencies were contacted and invited to disclose any matter that requires consideration through the Master Plan process; two agencies responded.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 135

The Department of Water and Environment Regulation provided information relating to urban water management, native vegetation protection/clearing and groundwater licensing. The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions provided insight into the management jurisdiction over Tern Bank and the nearshore environment. c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective contained in the Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 1: Actively Pursue Tourism and Economic Development Strategic Objective: Coastal Destination - Promote the City as the premier metropolitan coastal tourism destination. d. Policy Nil e. Financial Nil f. Legal and Statutory Nil g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety: Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Comments

Upon considering the feedback received from the various sources during the ‘Initial Community Consultation’, it is clearly evident that the foreshore is a valuable community asset that supports a range of activities. It can also be concluded that the community are generally drawn to its natural environmental character which they want retained and enhanced. Most respondents agree that there are improvements which can be instituted to improve the recreational experience. As expected, there are opposing opinions on specific issues, particularly those which contemplate change. The City has taken the view that the ‘Design Drivers’, which will provide a framework around which the Master Plan will be designed, needs to strike the balance between maintaining what makes the foreshore appealing and what could improve the appeal. The ‘Design Drivers’ also need to work within the broad parameters of the ‘Project Purpose’ (as described in the ‘Background’ section above). Some ‘Design Drivers’ will be applicable to the entire Study Area, whilst others will be specific to discrete locations. As a result, the Study Area has been divided into four Sectors as shown in Figure 2.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 136

2. Master Plan Sectors (i) General ‘Design Drivers’ - Entire Study Area A number of matters should be addressed in ‘Design Drivers’ as they represent outcomes that an integrated Master Plan should deliver, many of which are common landscape architectural responses. These include, consistent and complementary furniture, materials and signage along with additional/upgraded facilities and opportunities for art or commemorative installations. Safety, through incorporating Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles is another response that the design should incorporate. The ‘Initial Community Consultation’ emphasised the need to protect and enhance the natural foreshore assets which will be included as a ‘Design Driver’; this outcome was clearly the most favoured aspiration for the foreshore. Pedestrian access to the foreshore, across Arcadia Drive and Safety Bay Road, and access to the beach and through the foreshore was raised consistently and should be addressed, including the provision of all abilities access. This action will complement the City’s current program of installing pedestrian refuge facilities and pram ramps at various locations along Safety Bay Road. The Site Analysis Mapping demonstrated that vehicle speeds are consistently in excess of the posted limit, particularly on Arcadia Drive. The City has committed funds to introduce traffic management measures to reduce vehicle speeds along Arcadia Drive and a ‘Design Driver’ is recommended that will build on this approach. The challenges associated with parking availability was expressed during the consultation and the Site Analysis Mapping confirmed that a number of existing carparks are over capacity during peak periods. The parking demand around Mersey Point can be particularly acute at times and the overflow of vehicles into the adjacent streets causes issues, particularly when vehicles park on Arcadia Drive within the on-street cycle-lane. It is therefore recommended that the potential for increased parking provision and management be addressed in the Master Plan, including bus parking. The ‘management’ of parking would explore the potential for ‘drop-off bays’ and the like.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 137

The need for additional shade was raised and there are locations which could benefit, however, this issue can be emotive due to the potential impact of coastal views from public spaces or private property. Nonetheless, the matter should be investigated as additional shade can enhance the recreational experience. Although the foreshore offers unique coastal views, it was expressed through the ‘Initial Community Consultation’ that it may be possible to provide an opportunity to enhance or capitalise on the aspect across the Shoalwater Marine Park and Warnbro Sound. This matter is proposed to be addressed in a ‘Design Driver’. The provision and location of public toilets and change rooms is often contentious. The Study Area currently offers five separate facilities. The need for more facilities will, in part, be driven by the future uses proposed in the Master Plan, however, the City will be providing direction to the provision of public toilets and change rooms through the ‘Parks Provision Policy’, as resolved by Council in May 2019. This matter should be acknowledged and investigated. The desire for additional commercial facilities within the foreshore was expressed by almost half the survey respondents as a potential improvement. Other consulted parties saw this outcome as being a priority to provide more options and a destination point within the foreshore. The only existing permanent facility within the Study Area is the café/kiosk at Mersey Point, however, there are facilities within the adjacent commercial centres (Penguin Road, Bent Street and Malibu Road). The City issues annual Traders Permits for commercial operators within the foreshore, the majority of which are associated with fitness training and hire equipment/sales linked to kite surfing and wind surfing. These competing commercial interests have caused tensions between the operators at times and there has been approaches made to the City to establish permanent infrastructure within the foreshore to support these businesses. The Master Plan presents an opportunity to explore whether the foreshore should support permanent leisure based commercial activities (i.e. cafes, bars, restaurants) and where. The Master Plan can also provide recommendations to the location of Traders Permits and the appropriateness of permanent structures to support the businesses. Equally, there is an ability to identify a location/s, and introduce infrastructure, to support temporary facilities in the form of food vans or food trucks and the like to activate the foreshore. Although the City has been consistent in the message that the Master Plan will not, in itself, resolve marine water quality concerns, the fact remains that the drainage assets managed by the City and Water Corporation discharge into the Foreshore Reserve. As a result, the Master Plan should ensure that sufficient area is set aside where the drainage outlets discharge to enable stormwater treatment in accordance with Water Sensitive Urban Design principles. In May 2019, Council resolved to commence public consultation on a draft Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaption Plan. The CHRMAP provides recommendations on adaptation pathways along the City’s coast to the predicted impacts of sea level rise and storm events. A combination of ‘managed retreat’ and ‘protection’ has been recommended for the Safety Bay and Shoalwater foreshores. All improvements proposed within the Master Plan must be mindful of the predicted erosion and inundation forecasts and reconcile matters such as the life of the assets and community benefit. The recommended adaptation pathway is also a consideration. The City is also soon to commission the Coastal Management Study which will ultimately provide strategic recommendations on how future demand for boat launching facilities will be addressed. The Study recommendations will provide direction on the future of the three boat ramps within Safety Bay and Shoalwater, particularly the Bent Street facility. The planning horizon for the Master Plan is similar to the Study (30 years). Given that the Master Plan needs to understand the future of the three ramps and offer a complementary response within the Foreshore Reserve, the design phase of the Master Plan is likely to be contingent upon the Coastal Management Study outcomes; this needs to be recognised in a ‘Design Driver’.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 138

(ii) Sector One - Boundary Road to McLarty Road

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 139

3. Sector One - Boundary Road to McLarty Road The Site Analysis Mapping revealed that the Shoalwater Reserve, or the elevated parkland south of the public toilet facility/carpark, is a popular destination particularly for small gatherings. The Reserve contains minimal infrastructure to support these activities, and given the supply of adjacent parking and the public toilet facility, it is recommended that the potential to introduce new facilities be investigated. Within this Sector, the existing dual-use path mainly abuts the road carriageway. It was observed through the ‘Initial Community Consultation’ that this can not only result in pedestrian/vehicle conflicts but cause the view over the coast to be obscured by existing vegetation. Given the width of the Foreshore Reserve, there is potential to align a north-south dual-use path within the dune environment. Although this may present some ongoing dune management challenges, it is recommended that the outcome be explored. Further to the general ‘Design Driver’ relating to enhancing views, it is recommended that this Sector contain a stand-alone ‘Design Driver’ given its elevated nature. Lions Park is a key destination within this Sector, and although improvements have recently been undertaken, there is an ability to enhance the layout and function of Lions Park over the life of the Master Plan. Lions Park is also used to access the beach for kite surfers, wind surfers, kayakers and the like and there is the potential to improve access.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 140

(iii) Sector Two - McLarty Road to Carlisle Street

4. Sector Two - McLarty Road to Carlisle Street The central destination within this Sector is Mersey Point and the jetty and building infrastructure which houses Pengos Café, Rockingham Wild Encounters and an office for the DBCA. The Secret Harbour Surf Life Saving Club also has a presence at Mersey Point and access the beach at the rear of the building. Appurtenant infrastructure includes carparking, Shoalwater Marine Park interpretative information and play infrastructure.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 141

Given that Mersey Point is the interface for thousands of tourists who access the Shoalwater Marine Park, the Master Plan should examine the potential for improvements and enhancements to the existing infrastructure and landscaping treatments. In doing so, there may be potential for the land-based activities aligned to Penguin Island and the Shoalwater Marine Park to be expanded. The alignment of the dual-use path is severed by the carpark and pedestrians/cyclists are forced to enter a vehicle environment. It is recommended that a ‘Design Driver’ be included to determine if the alignment of the dual-use path can be modified to improve safety and connectivity. It is also recommended that the potential for more interpretative signage be investigated. (iv) Sector Three - Carlisle Street to Bent Street

5. Sector Three - Carlisle Street to Bent Street Sector Three notably contains Tern Bank, The Pond, the Bent Street boat ramp and the Safety Bay Yacht Club building.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 142

The popularity of The Pond and it surrounds for kite surfing and wind surfing, and its recognition on a national and international level as a destination, presents many opportunities to capitalise on its appeal. As mentioned above, one of the adopted ‘Project Purposes’ is to realise this potential. It is therefore recommended that ‘Design Drivers’ associated with infrastructure to support kite surfing and wind surfing at The Pond be included. This would include infrastructure to assist in the hosting of events. Tern Bank is a fragile and dynamic landform that supports significant flora and fauna; it is managed by DBCA. The consultation process identified the opportunity to better manage access within and across Tern Bank and the Master Plan should explore this outcome. ‘Access’ would not be limited to pedestrian access but also to maintenance vehicle access. Given the current practice of dredging the navigation channel involves the exporting of dredge material via trucks that access the beach from the Carlisle Street boat ramp, an alternate solution involving more direct access should also be examined. The potential for more interpretive signage and education about The Pond and Tern Bank is also recommended. The Safety Bay Yacht Club building is a local asset in the sense that it hosts various community groups. Its physical condition, however, has been deteriorating for many years and decisions on whether to undertake remedial work or pursue a new approach will need to be made. The current lease expires in April 2021. Given the timeframe of the Master Plan, it should examine future uses of the Safety Bay Yacht Club building and consider whether alternative locations, which may accommodate a range of different uses, is appropriate. The CHRMAP findings will be a key input in this regard. There is also a case to increase the separation of foreshore parkland from Safety Bay Road, to increase amenity and safety, and it is recommended that this be included as a ‘Design Driver’. Although a small percentage (15%) of survey respondents favoured the introduction of a ‘skate park’ this is balanced by the fact that only 3% of respondents were under the age of 24. Further, the Site Analysis Mapping concluded that there is a lack of recreational facilities for the older youth cohort in the Study Area and in the vicinity. It should also be noted that a youth facility need not have a large skate component but it could be a small element of a broader integrated facility. This Sector, along with Sector Four, is the logical location for such a facility, and it is recommended that it be investigated. (v) Sector Four - Bent Street to Warnbro Beach Road

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 143

6. Sector Four - Bent Street to Warnbro Beach Road Sector Four is predominantly parkland with a number of picnic and play facilities along with two off- street carparks one of which is in proximity to the public toilets/change rooms at Waikiki Beach. Many of the general ‘Design Drivers’ have applicability to this Sector including pedestrian access (across Safety Bay Road), upgraded/consistent infrastructure and facilities and the potential for commercial uses both permanent and temporary. Given the elevated nature of the Waikiki foreshore, it is recommended that a stand-alone ‘Design Driver’ for enhancing views be included. Further, as detailed above, the Sector has the potential to support a youth facility at an appropriate scale. The separation of activity from Safety Bay Road, as mentioned for Section 3, is also applicable. Voting Requirements Simple Majority Officer Recommendation

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 144

- Consider the potential to increase parking provisions, including bus parking, along with direction on how it should be managed. - Increase shade throughout the foreshore through the careful inclusion of trees and shelters. - Design viewing nodes or similar that capitalise on the aspect across the Shoalwater Marine Park and Warnbro Sound (and incorporate interpretative signage as appropriate). - Incorporate additional public toilets/change room facilities consistent with the direction to be provided in the City’s ‘Parks Provision Policy’. - Investigate the potential for permanent leisure based commercial activities, such as cafe’s, bars and restaurants, in strategic locations. - Provide direction to the location of Traders Permits and the appropriateness of supporting infrastructure. - Investigate locations for temporary food vans/truck locations and allow for appropriate access and infrastructure. - Allow the opportunity for stormwater treatment, in accordance with Water Sensitive Urban Design principles, where drainage outlets enter the foreshore. - Have due regard to the findings within the City’s ‘Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan’ in recommending proposed improvements. - Consider the outcomes of the City’s ‘Coastal Management Study’ by incorporating complementary uses and infrastructure to support the strategic intent for the boat launching facilities. (ii) Sector One - Boundary Road to McLarty Road - Investigate the potential for new public facilities and amenities within the Shoalwater Reserve. - Investigate the integration of a dual-use footpath into the dune system away from Arcadia Drive. - Utilise the foreshore elevation to leverage views across the Shoalwater Marine Park. - Improve kite surfing, wind surfing, kayak etc. and all abilities access to the beach from the Lions Park car park. (iii) Sector Two - McLarty Road to Carlisle Street - Review and improve general landscape design and treatment surrounding the Mersey Point facility and associated carpark. - Examine the potential for the Mersey Point facility to be expanded to allow for a wider range of uses and activities. - Investigate a new dual-use path alignment around the Mersey Point facility that prioritises pedestrians and cyclists. - Increase the potential for additional Penguin Island and Shoalwater Marine Park interpretative and educational signage. (iv) Sector Three - Carlisle Street to Bent Street - Provide infrastructure to support kite surfing and wind surfing activities in proximity to The Pond and facilitate the potential for it to host events, including national and international events. - Provide the opportunity for more interpretative signage and education about The Pond and Tern Bank. - Investigate the future of the Safety Bay Yacht Club facility and consider alterative locations and what uses it could accommodate.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 145

- Investigate formalised access across Tern Bank to the beach for pedestrians and maintenance vehicles. - Improve the safety and amenity of the foreshore parkland by creating separation from Safety Bay Road. - Explore options for youth play amenity including skate infrastructure. (v) Sector Four - Bent Street to Warnbro Beach Road - Utilise the foreshore elevation to leverage views across Warnbro Sound. - Improve the safety and amenity of the foreshore parkland by creating separation from Safety Bay Road. - Explore options for a youth play facility including skate infrastructure.

Committee Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the following ‘Design Drivers’ to inform the preparation of the Safety Bay and Shoalwater Foreshore Master Plan: (i) General - Entire Study Area - Develop a consistent and complementary palette of furniture, materials and signage. - Include additional and upgraded picnic facilities including BBQs, shade shelters, drink fountains, bins etc. - Incorporate the opportunity for artwork and commemorative interpretations at appropriate locations. - Incorporate Crime Protection Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles within the Master Plan to provide improved security along the foreshore. - Protect and enhance the natural assets of the foreshore, such as the dune system and coastal environment. - Create safe pedestrian and cycle access paths and/or boardwalks along full length of foreshore, with consideration to connectivity beyond the site boundaries, and improved all abilities beach access. - Allow for improved pedestrian access to the foreshore from the surrounding suburbs across Arcadia Drive and Safety Bay Road. - Investigate ways to reduce traffic speeds along Arcadia and Safety Bay Road. - Consider the potential to increase parking provisions, including bus parking, along with direction on how it should be managed. - Increase shade throughout the foreshore through the careful inclusion of trees and shelters. - Design viewing nodes or similar that capitalise on the aspect across the Shoalwater Marine Park and Warnbro Sound (and incorporate interpretative signage as appropriate). - Incorporate additional public toilets/change room facilities consistent with the direction to be provided in the City’s ‘Parks Provision Policy’. - Investigate the potential for permanent leisure based commercial activities, such as cafe’s, bars and restaurants, in strategic locations. - Provide direction to the location of Traders Permits and the appropriateness of supporting infrastructure. - Investigate locations for temporary food vans/truck locations and allow for appropriate access and infrastructure. - Allow the opportunity for stormwater treatment, in accordance with Water Sensitive Urban Design principles, where drainage outlets enter the foreshore.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 146

- Have due regard to the findings within the City’s ‘Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan’ in recommending proposed improvements. - Consider the outcomes of the City’s ‘Coastal Management Study’ by incorporating complementary uses and infrastructure to support the strategic intent for the boat launching facilities. (ii) Sector One - Boundary Road to McLarty Road - Investigate the potential for new public facilities and amenities within the Shoalwater Reserve. - Investigate the integration of a dual-use footpath into the dune system away from Arcadia Drive. - Utilise the foreshore elevation to leverage views across the Shoalwater Marine Park. - Improve kite surfing, wind surfing, kayak etc. and all abilities access to the beach from the Lions Park car park. (iii) Sector Two - McLarty Road to Carlisle Street - Review and improve general landscape design and treatment surrounding the Mersey Point facility and associated carpark. - Examine the potential for the Mersey Point facility to be expanded to allow for a wider range of uses and activities. - Investigate a new dual-use path alignment around the Mersey Point facility that prioritises pedestrians and cyclists. - Increase the potential for additional Penguin Island and Shoalwater Marine Park interpretative and educational signage. (iv) Sector Three - Carlisle Street to Bent Street - Provide infrastructure to support kite surfing and wind surfing activities in proximity to The Pond and facilitate the potential for it to host events, including national and international events. - Provide the opportunity for more interpretative signage and education about The Pond and Tern Bank. - Investigate the future of the Safety Bay Yacht Club facility and consider alterative locations and what uses it could accommodate. - Investigate formalised access across Tern Bank to the beach for pedestrians and maintenance vehicles. - Improve the safety and amenity of the foreshore parkland by creating separation from Safety Bay Road. - Explore options for youth play amenity including skate infrastructure. (v) Sector Four - Bent Street to Warnbro Beach Road - Utilise the foreshore elevation to leverage views across Warnbro Sound. - Improve the safety and amenity of the foreshore parkland by creating separation from Safety Bay Road. - Explore options for a youth play facility including skate infrastructure. Committee Voting – 5/0

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 147

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

Moved Cr Hamblin, seconded Cr Liley: That Council ENDORSES the following ‘Design Drivers’ to inform the preparation of the Safety Bay and Shoalwater Foreshore Master Plan: (i) General - Entire Study Area - Develop a consistent and complementary palette of furniture, materials and signage. - Include additional and upgraded picnic facilities including BBQs, shade shelters, drink fountains, bins etc. - Incorporate the opportunity for artwork and commemorative interpretations at appropriate locations. - Incorporate Crime Protection Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles within the Master Plan to provide improved security along the foreshore. - Protect and enhance the natural assets of the foreshore, such as the dune system and coastal environment. - Create safe pedestrian and cycle access paths and/or boardwalks along full length of foreshore, with consideration to connectivity beyond the site boundaries, and improved all abilities beach access. - Allow for improved pedestrian access to the foreshore from the surrounding suburbs across Arcadia Drive and Safety Bay Road. - Investigate ways to reduce traffic speeds along Arcadia and Safety Bay Road. - Consider the potential to increase parking provisions, including bus parking, along with direction on how it should be managed. - Increase shade throughout the foreshore through the careful inclusion of trees and shelters. - Design viewing nodes or similar that capitalise on the aspect across the Shoalwater Marine Park and Warnbro Sound (and incorporate interpretative signage as appropriate). - Incorporate additional public toilets/change room facilities consistent with the direction to be provided in the City’s ‘Parks Provision Policy’. - Investigate the potential for permanent leisure based commercial activities, such as cafe’s, bars and restaurants, in strategic locations. - Provide direction to the location of Traders Permits and the appropriateness of supporting infrastructure. - Investigate locations for temporary food vans/truck locations and allow for appropriate access and infrastructure. - Allow the opportunity for stormwater treatment, in accordance with Water Sensitive Urban Design principles, where drainage outlets enter the foreshore. - Have due regard to the findings within the City’s ‘Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan’ in recommending proposed improvements. - Consider the outcomes of the City’s ‘Coastal Management Study’ by incorporating complementary uses and infrastructure to support the strategic intent for the boat launching facilities.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PD-044/19 PAGE 148

(ii) Sector One - Boundary Road to McLarty Road - Investigate the potential for new public facilities and amenities within the Shoalwater Reserve. - Investigate the integration of a dual-use footpath into the dune system away from Arcadia Drive. - Utilise the foreshore elevation to leverage views across the Shoalwater Marine Park. - Improve kite surfing, wind surfing, kayak etc. and all abilities access to the beach from the Lions Park car park. (iii) Sector Two - McLarty Road to Carlisle Street - Review and improve general landscape design and treatment surrounding the Mersey Point facility and associated carpark. - Examine the potential for the Mersey Point facility to be expanded to allow for a wider range of uses and activities. - Investigate a new dual-use path alignment around the Mersey Point facility that prioritises pedestrians and cyclists. - Increase the potential for additional Penguin Island and Shoalwater Marine Park interpretative and educational signage. (iv) Sector Three - Carlisle Street to Bent Street - Provide infrastructure to support kite surfing and wind surfing activities in proximity to The Pond and facilitate the potential for it to host events, including national and international events. - Provide the opportunity for more interpretative signage and education about The Pond and Tern Bank. - Investigate the future of the Safety Bay Yacht Club facility and consider alterative locations and what uses it could accommodate. - Investigate formalised access across Tern Bank to the beach for pedestrians and maintenance vehicles. - Improve the safety and amenity of the foreshore parkland by creating separation from Safety Bay Road. - Explore options for youth play amenity including skate infrastructure. (v) Sector Four - Bent Street to Warnbro Beach Road - Utilise the foreshore elevation to leverage views across Warnbro Sound. - Improve the safety and amenity of the foreshore parkland by creating separation from Safety Bay Road. - Explore options for a youth play facility including skate infrastructure. Carried – 8/0 The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-016/19 PAGE 149

Council Resolution – En bloc Resolution Moved Cr Elliott, seconded Cr Hamblin: That the committee recommendations in relation to Agenda Items EP-016/19 and EP-017/19 be carried en bloc. Carried – 8/0

Engineering and Parks Services Parks Services Reference No & Subject: EP-016/19 Site Selection for the Future Southern and Central Suburbs Enclosed Dog Parks

File No: R36850 Proponent/s: Author: Mr Adam Johnston, Manager Parks Services Other Contributors: Mr Craig Beard, Project Technical Officer Mr Gary Rogers, Manager Community Infrastructure Planning Mr Matthew Emmott, Community Infrastructure Planning Officer Mr Amos Dolman, Inquiry and Appeals Officer Date of Committee Meeting: 17 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Executive this Matter:

Site: St Clair Reserve Volume 1 and 2, Lot 1356 Sheridan Way, Port Kennedy Seahaven Reserve, Lot 1 Chalmers Avenue, Waikiki Lot Area: St Clair Reserve: 68,144m2 Seahaven Reserve: 48,681m2 LA Zoning: MRS Zoning: Attachments: Maps/Diagrams: 1. Selected Potential Southern Suburbs EDP Locations 2. Selected Potential Central Suburbs EDP Locations 3. Shortlisted Southern and Central Suburbs EDP Locations 4. St Clair Reserve, Port Kennedy (Proposed EDP Area Shaded Red) 5. Seahaven Reserve, Waikiki (Proposed EDP Area Shaded Red)

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-016/19 PAGE 150

Purpose of Report

To seek Council approval for St Clair Reserve and Seahaven Reserve to be selected as the preferred sites of the future Southern and Central Suburbs Enclosed Dog Parks (EDP) for the purpose of community consultation.

Background

Council endorsed the Enclosed Off-Leash Dog Exercise Area (EOLDEA) - Needs and Feasibility Study - July 2015 in August 2015. Since then, the City has opened an EDP in Rockingham in 2016, and Baldivis in 2018. The Enclosed Off-Leash Dog Exercise Area - Needs and Feasibility Study recommended that “the City’s future planning investigate the provision of an EOLDEA in Baldivis, and the Central and the Southern Suburbs and it be delivered as early as practicable”. The needs and feasibility study noted that it is evident there is a need and associated benefits for a number of EDPs within the City of Rockingham. The City has commenced the site selection process for future enclosed dog parks in the City’s Southern (Singleton, Golden Bay, Secret Harbour and Port Kennedy) and Central (Warnbro and Waikiki) Suburbs.

Details

The provision of further EDPs will result in a number of benefits for the Rockingham community and surrounds, specifically; an increase in responsible dog ownership, an increase in physical activity, an increase in community socialisation and an increase in greater dog socialisation. Officers from the City’s Community Infrastructure Planning and Parks Services teams completed a desktop analysis of suitable reserves throughout the Coastal South and Central suburbs. Officers identified 19 potential sites throughout both areas. A project team was formed to complete further analysis of the 19 reserves through a detailed site assessment matrix process. Officers included:  Manager Community Infrastructure Planning;  Manager Parks Services;  Community Infrastructure Planning Officer; and  Project Technical Officer. Criteria used in the site assessment matrix included; Passive surveillance Site has at least one active street frontage, site has passive surveillance, clear sight lines achieved through/to the facility. Accessibility Site is easily accessible by emergency vehicles, site has multiple access options, including walking and driving. Location Minimum 50m separation from neighbours achieved. Infrastructure Provision of existing or capacity for new car-parking on/at the site, site has provision of services (power and water), the site can accommodate the proposed facility (minimum size).

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-016/19 PAGE 151

Site specifics Appropriate land tenure in place (i.e. City owned, controlled or managed), no environmental conditions affecting proposed use (i.e. contaminated site, Bush Forever, etc.), and site accommodates a variety of design options. Sustainability People want to go to the location, there is little/no potential competition from nearby/similar activities. Southern Suburbs: The project team reviewed parks across the suburbs of Singleton, Golden Bay, Secret Harbour and Port Kennedy. In total, 12 sites were assessed through the desktop survey (these sites are identified in Figure 1 in red). Of these, two sites were deemed to be suitable through the desktop research, and were identified for further analysis through a site visit. The two sites identified for further analysis were: 1. Surf Drive, Secret Harbour; and 2. St Clair Reserve, Port Kennedy.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-016/19 PAGE 152

1. Selected Potential Southern Suburbs EDP Locations

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-016/19 PAGE 153

Central Suburbs: To determine the most suitable location for the Central suburbs dog park, the project team reviewed parks across the suburbs of Warnbro and Waikiki. In total, 7 sites were assessed through the desktop survey (these sites are identified in Figure 2 in red). Of these, three sites were deemed to be suitable and were identified for further analysis through a site visit. The three sites identified for further analysis were: 1. Torbay Mews Reserve, Warnbro; 2. The Avenue Reserve, Warnbro; and 3. Seahaven Reserve, Waikiki

2. Selected Potential Central Suburbs EDP Locations The project team completed site visits of the five sites identified for further analysis to determine their suitability for an EDP (the five reserves are identified in Figure 3). These five sites were: 1. Surf Drive Reserve, Secret Harbour (1); 2. St Clair Reserve, Port Kennedy (2); 3. Torbay Mews, Warnbro (3); 4. The Avenue, Warnbro (4); and

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-016/19 PAGE 154

5. Seahaven Reserve (5) Following the site selection and site visits completed by the project team, it was determined that the two most suitable reserves would be:  St Clair Reserve (Southern Suburbs); and  Seahaven Reserve (Central Suburbs) The above two sites were deemed the most suitable locations for future EDPs for the following reasons:  Both are located in a central and easily accessible location for the community;  Each site has good passive surveillance from surrounding roads;  There are multiple access options including walking, or private vehicle;  There is parking available at St Clair Reserve which can be expanded, and there is sufficient parking on the roads surrounding Seahaven Reserve; and  Following feedback from both the Rockingham and Baldivis EDPs, both sites are large in size and would be suitable to accommodate a variety of design options.

3. Shortlisted Southern and Central Suburbs EDP Locations

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-016/19 PAGE 155

4. St Clair Reserve, Port Kennedy (Proposed EDP Area Shaded Red)

5. Seahaven Reserve, Waikiki (Proposed EDP Area Shaded Red)

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community The Community Infrastructure Planning team conducted consultation with the Rockingham and Baldivis communities at various stages during the development of both the Baldivis and Rockingham EDPs. Ongoing community requests have been received for additional dog parks in both the Coastal South and Coastal Central Wards.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-016/19 PAGE 156

If Council approves St Clair and Seahaven Reserves as the preferred sites for the Southern and Central Suburb EDPs, a community consultation period will follow to determine the community’s satisfaction with the sites. b. Consultation with Government Agencies Nil c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspirations and Strategic Objectives contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 2: Grow and Nurture Community Connectedness and Wellbeing Strategic Objective: Community engagement - Facilitate comprehensive community engagement on issues facing the City, ensuring that residents can provide input into shaping our future. Strategic Objective: Services and facilities - Provide cost effective services and facilities which meet community needs. Aspiration 3: Plan for Future Generations Strategic Objective: Liveable suburbs - Plan for attractive sustainable suburbs that provide housing diversity, quality public open spaces, walkways, amenities and facilities for the community. d. Policy Not Applicable e. Financial There are no financial implications in respect to undertaking the community consultation regarding the proposed locations for the future EDPs. The estimated costs associated with the development of each EDP is $165,000. Additional car parking works will likely be required to support the EDP at St Clair Reserve, and these costs are estimated at $50,000. Budget amounts have been allowed in the City’s Business Plan with intended implementation of the Seahaven EDP in 2019/2020 and St Clair EDP in 2021/2022. f. Legal and Statutory Seahaven Reserve is an approved Off-Leash Dog Exercise Areas in line with Section 31 of the Dog Act 1976, however, St Clair Reserve is not. Following the site selection process for the future EDPs, the City’s Compliance and Emergency Liaison team will be required to undertake works to have St Clair Reserve designated as an Off-Leash Dog Exercise Area. g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety: Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Comments

Community facilities play a vital role in providing spaces for both active and passive recreation. These areas are valued by communities for their recreational and social opportunities. EDPs encourage the community to participate in recreation and socialisation. The City has a large registered dog population, and in line with the Needs and Feasibility Study and following the success of both the Rockingham and Baldivis Enclosed Dog Parks, the City is now required to commence planning for the future southern and central suburbs dog parks.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-016/19 PAGE 157

The extensive site selection process completed by City officers has ensured that the most appropriate sites have been selected for future EDPs. St Clair Reserve and Seahaven Reserves have been determined the most appropriate sites for the future EDPs due to the below reasons:  Both are located in a central and easily accessible location for the community;  Each site has good passive surveillance from surrounding roads;  There are multiple access options including walking, or private vehicle;  There is parking available at St Clair Reserve which can be expanded, and there is sufficient parking on the roads surrounding Seahaven Reserve; and  Following feedback from both the Rockingham and Baldivis EDPs, both sites are large in size and would be suitable to accommodate a variety of design options. St Clair Reserve was favoured due to the large registered dog population in the suburb of Port Kennedy. Seahaven Reserve is an existing approved off leash dog exercise area that is well utilised by local residents. To ensure the community is involved in the development of these vital community spaces, it is important that community consultation is undertaken on the selected preferred park locations for the southern and central EDPs. Following the outcome of the proposed consultation process, a further report will be presented to Council providing details of the consultation feedback on the proposed site. Voting Requirements Simple Majority Officer Recommendation That Council APPROVES St Clair Reserve, Port Kennedy and Seahaven Reserve, Waikiki, as the preferred sites of the Southern and Central Suburbs Enclosed Dog Parks for the purpose of community consultation. Committee Recommendation That Council APPROVES St Clair Reserve, Port Kennedy and Seahaven Reserve, Waikiki, as the preferred sites of the Southern and Central Suburbs Enclosed Dog Parks for the purpose of community consultation. Committee Voting – 5/0 The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation Not Applicable Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation Not Applicable Council Resolution That Council APPROVES St Clair Reserve, Port Kennedy and Seahaven Reserve, Waikiki, as the preferred sites of the Southern and Central Suburbs Enclosed Dog Parks for the purpose of community consultation. Carried en bloc The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-017/19 PAGE 158

Engineering and Parks Services Engineering Services Reference No & Subject: EP-017/19 WALGA Quote W18/19-78 - Supply of One New Landfill and Earthworks Compactor with Optional Service and Maintenance Agreements

File No: W18/19-78 Proponent/s: Author: Mr Glen Zilko, Fleet Management Supervisor Other Contributors: Mr Manoj Barua, Manager Engineering Services Date of Committee Meeting: 17 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Executive this Matter:

Site: Lot Area: LA Zoning: MRS Zoning: Attachments: Maps/Diagrams:

Purpose of Report

To provide Council with details of the quotes received for WALGA Quote W18/19-78 - Supply of One New Landfill and Earthworks Compactor with optional service and full maintenance agreements, document the results of the quotes assessment and make recommendations regarding award of the quote.

Background

The City’s plant replacement program identified the Bomag landfill and earthworks compactor plant number 60383 for replacement in the 2018/2019 financial year. The landfill and earthworks compactor is used at the City’s Millar Road Landfill Facility.

Details

Quote W18/19-78 - Supply of One New Landfill and Earthworks Compactor was sent out via the WALGA E-Quote system on Friday 22 March 2019. Quotes closed at 2.00pm Wednesday, 17 April

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-017/19 PAGE 159

2019. Quotes were sent to three companies on WALGA’s Preferred Supply for Plant Machinery Equipment. Submissions were received from all three companies. One submission, from GCM Enviro Pty Ltd provided two options for the landfill earthworks compactor. The three companies also provided options for the service and full maintenance agreements. All submissions for the landfill and earthworks compactor were subjected to mechanical and operator assessments undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced City officers. Company Landfill Compactor Price for Supply, Delivery of one new Make and Model landfill and earthworks compactor Tutt Bryant Equipment Bomag BC772RB-2 $740,000 GCM Enviro Pty Ltd – Option 1 Tana E380 $775,000 GCM Enviro Pty Ltd – Option 2 Tana E380 Eco $792,000 Westrac Pty Ltd Caterpillar 826K $786,910

A panel comprising the City’s Manager Waste Services, Landfill Operations Supervisor, Manager Engineering Services and Fleet Management Supervisor undertook evaluations of the quotes. Evaluation of the quotes, in accordance with the advertised assessment criteria produced the following weighted scores: Assessment Criteria Level of Performance Tendered Total Service and Price/s Weighted Experience Scores Max. Points 20 Pts 40 Pts 40 Pts 100 Pts Tutt Bryant Equipment – Bomag 11.7 34.1 40.0 85.8 BC772RB-2 GCM Enviro Pty Ltd – Tana E380 – Option 1 10.0 28.2 38.2 76.4 GCM Enviro Pty Ltd – Tana E380 Eco – 10.0 29.2 37.3 76.5 Option 2 Westrac Pty Ltd – CAT 826K 11.6 26.6 37.6 75.8 The panel considers that the Tutt Bryant Equipment - Bomag BC772RB-2 provides the best value for money. The quotation documentation also provided for an optional service agreement or full maintenance agreement and prices received as follows: Optional Service Agreement (A service agreement is for servicing of the machine only at the regular intervals of 250 hours) Company Landfill Compactor Cost for 5 years or 8500 hours Make and Model use Tutt Bryant Equipment Bomag BC772RB-2 $93,703 GCM Enviro Pty Ltd – Option 1 Tana E380 $83,760 GCM Enviro Pty Ltd – Option 2 Tana E380 Eco $83,760 Westrac Pty Ltd Caterpillar 826K $78,285

Optional Full Maintenance Agreement (a full maintenance and service agreement covering all mechanical breakdowns for the 5 year term with the exception of ground engaging tools such as tracks and bucket cutting edges)

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-017/19 PAGE 160

Company Landfill Compactor Cost for 5 years or 8500 hours Make and Model use Tutt Bryant Equipment Bomag BC772RB-2 $146,240 GCM Enviro Pty Ltd – Option 1 Tana E380 $92,994 GCM Enviro Pty Ltd – Option 2 Tana E380 Eco $92,994 Westrac Pty Ltd Caterpillar 826K $137,275

The optional service agreements and full maintenance agreement were considered by the Assessment Panel. Taking into consideration of the warranty and service agreements the Assessment Panel did not consider the full maintenance agreement as being best value to the City. The expenditure of similar plant owned by the City demonstrates that the servicing costs in the service agreement are appropriate and therefore it is recommended that the City enters into a service agreement for the five year period or 8,500 hours of use.

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community Not Applicable b. Consultation with Government Agencies Not Applicable c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 3: Plan for Future Generations Strategic Objective: Sustainable waste solutions - Incorporate new opportunities that support responsible and sustainable disposal of waste. d. Policy In accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy, purchases from WALGA’s Preferred Supply Contract, can be used as a procurement option. e. Financial Plant Tenders $890,000 has been allocated for the purchase of one new landfill and earthworks compactor in the 2018/2019 budget account GL 418184.0025.086 - Plant and Equipment Purchases. In accordance with the panel’s recommendations the purchase can be undertaken within the budget allocation. The servicing cost is incorporated as part of the overall yearly Fleet maintenance budget. f. Legal and Statutory In accordance with the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, Part 4, Division 2, Section 11 subsection (2)(b), a tender exemption applies to WALGA’s Preferred Supply Contracts, and therefore local governments are not required to go to public tender when purchasing from WALGA’s arrangement, irrespective of contract value or length. Section 11(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 $150,000 unless sub regulation (2) states otherwise’.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-017/19 PAGE 161

Section (2) – Tenders do not have to be publicly invited according to the requirements of the Division if – Section (2)(b) the supply of the goods or services is to be obtained through the Council Purchasing Service of ‘WALGA’ g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety: Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Comments

Following consideration of the submissions in accordance with the quote assessment criteria, Tutt Bryant Equipment demonstrated the capability, capacity and resources to deliver the landfill and earthworks compactor according to the City’s specification. The assessment panel considered that the quotation received from Tutt Bryant Equipment for the supply of one new landfill and earthworks compactor with the optional service agreement represented the best value to the City and therefore recommended as the preferred supplier.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Officer Recommendation

That Council: 1. ACCEPTS the quotation in accordance with WALGA Contract No NPN 2.15 submitted by Tutt Bryant Equipment, 50 Great Eastern Highway South Guildford, WA 6056 for quotation W18/19-78 – Supply of One New Landfill and Earthworks Compactor for the total price of $740,000 excluding GST and disposal of the existing Bomag landfill and earthworks compactor plant number 60383 at public auction. 2. ACCEPTS the service agreement for a total cost of $93,703 excluding GST for the servicing of the Bomag BC772RB-2 landfill and earthworks compactor for a five year period or 8,500 hour of use submitted by Tutt Bryant Equipment, 50 Great Eastern Highway South Guildford, WA 6056.

Committee Recommendation

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 EP-017/19 PAGE 162

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CS-010/19 PAGE 163

Corporate and Community Development Committee

NOTE: The City received 58 submissions in response to the Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020. The Notice was placed in local papers – Weekend Courier 21 May 2019 and the Sound Telegraph 4 June 2019. The notice was also placed in “Share Your Thoughts” on the City’s website and Rock Port from 31 May 2019 to 21 June 2019. Pursuant to section 6.36(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, the local government is required to consider any submissions received before imposing the proposed rates and may impose those rates with or without modification. A copy of the submissions are attached to these minutes. Corporate Services

Financial Services Reference No & Subject: CS-010/19 Adoption of the 2019/2020 Budget Setting of Rates and Related Issues (Absolute Majority) File No: FLM/313 Proponent/s: Author: Mr John Pearson, Director Corporate Services Other Contributors: Mr Allan Moles, Manager Financial Services Mr Khushwant Kumar, Financial Controller Date of Committee Meeting: 18 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Executive this Matter:

Site: Lot Area: Attachments: Draft Annual Budget 2019/2020 Maps/Diagrams:

Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is for the adoption of the 2019/2020 financial year annual budget and to provide explanation on its content and detail. A detailed budget document for the 2019/2020 financial year has been prepared and supplied to each Councillor for consideration.

Background

The major capital items contained in the budget document were included in the City of Rockingham City Business Plan 2019/2020 - 2028/2029, which was adopted on 28 May 2019.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CS-010/19 PAGE 164

Councillors have been briefed on items to be included within the budget, with two briefings related directly to the City Business Plan and one specifically on the Annual Budget. The City of Rockingham Rating Methodology was approved on 28 May 2019 and the proposed Fees and Charges were approved on 23 April 2019.

Details

The proposed capital expenditure for the City is included in Section 3 of the budget document. This totals to $86.57 million, which includes $81.06 million for capital expenditure and the balance is for reserve transfers and loan repayments. It also includes $32.40 million in carried forward expenditure. Of further interest will be section 3 which provide details of the expected sources of funding for the various capital items. Total operating revenue is expected to be $169.74 million. Total operating expenditure is expected to be $178.35 million (including non-cash). Rate revenue is anticipated to be $92.10 million. The proposals for rates are included in section 5 of the budget document, as per those adopted by Council at its meeting of 28 May 2019. The rate yield will represent 54% of the City’s overall operating income. The Statutory Statements and Notes to the Statutory Statements are included in section 5 of the budget. The most important of these is the Rate Setting Statement and a Flowchart version which is included at the end of this section. Fees and Charges listed in Section 6 of the budget document are as per those approved by Council on 23 April 2019.

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community Consultation has occurred consistently with the community in the lead up to the adoption of the budget. The City of Rockingham Community Plan engaged a significant number of ratepayers in its preparation. All these documents feed through to the Annual Budget document. Further, the Community Plan Strategies have all involved community consultation. The City advertised its intention to apply differential general rates and minimum payments in the Weekend Courier on 31 May 2019 and the Sound Telegraph 4 June 2019. The notice was also placed in ‘Share Your Thoughts’ on the City’s website and Rock Port. Submissions close on 21 June 2019 at 4.30pm. At the time of writing this report, submissions had not closed. All submissions will be presented to Council for consideration at the 25 June 2019 Council meeting. b. Consultation with Government Agencies Nil c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective(s) contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 4: Deliver Quality Leadership and Business Expertise Strategic Objective: Effective governance – Apply systems of governance which empower the Council to make considered and informed decisions within a transparent, accountable, ethical and compliant environment. d. Policy Nil

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CS-010/19 PAGE 165 e. Financial The budget is an extremely important annual financial document and details what is proposed for the forthcoming year. It lists all matters of an operational nature as well as capital items and various sources of income. The budget is the basis for Council striking its rates for the new financial year. It is considered important that Councillors understand the financial make up of various items within the budget for the forthcoming year. The most important items are those of a “new” nature, and these are included in section 3 of the budget document. While brief explanations are included throughout the budget document, Councillors have been involved and briefed consistently over the preceding six months relating to the budget contents. The 2019/2020 capital budget includes the following major capital projects:  Baldivis District Sporting Complex- $13.95 million  Port Kennedy Drive- $4.37 million  Koorana Reserve Master Plan- $3.88 million  Waterfront village- Foreshore Park Redevelopment- $3.87 million  Rockingham Foreshore Project- $2.05 million  Rockingham Youth Venue- $1.94 million  Point Peron Boat Launching facility- $1.59 million  Eighty road upgrade- $1.06 million  Baldivis Indoor Recreation Centre (Planning & Design)- $1.02 million  Aqua Jetty replace pool liner- $1.01 million Finances within the City of Rockingham are solid and accurate planning has allowed revenue to be allocated for a number of years in advance; thus, annualised “budget bidding” does not occur. Councillors have actively supported this view and adopted rates increases to support new infrastructure creation. Rates for the coming financial year are planned to include differential rates for residential and non-residential properties in the Gross Rental Value (GRV) valuation method as per prior years. The Federal Government Financial Assistance Grants remains steady at $4.71 million which includes the local roads component of the amount of $1.96 million. The City of Rockingham is a minimum grant Council which means the City receives a fixed sum of money from the Federal Government based on population. Therefore, there is an upward trend in this number and it is unlikely to reduce unless there are changes in Federal legislation. Given the early budget adoption, assumptions have been made related to opening balances. The 2019/2020 Annual Budget opening balance is $38.43 million which includes $32.40 million in monies carried forward for capital projects, $3.99 million in restricted funds for Bert England Lodge and $2.04 million in unspent grants. Should there be any variance to this figure, budget adjustments through the budget review process will occur accordingly. Council will need to be mindful of any further changes or requests for additional items throughout the coming financial year. While the City does have capacity to make adjustments, little capacity exists to accommodate any new large costs unless there are other positive movements to the City’s end-of-year balance position. Adoption of new items beyond that which are now included in the budget could mean that some of the adopted projects may have to be “dropped off” or be delayed until future years. This process may even still need to occur should there be any large decreases in any of the projected income sources. f. Legal and Statutory Preparation and adoption of the budget has occurred in accordance with all legislative requirements. Part 6 of the Local Government Act 1995 legislates all matters to do with finance for local government which the City has complied with.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CS-010/19 PAGE 166

It is a requirement under section 6.36 of the Local Government Act 1995 that where a Council elects to use differential rates then it shall advertise its intention to do so, and call for submissions for a period of at least 21 days before any further action occurs. This has occurred. Further updates will be provided at the meeting. In accordance with prescribed legislation, Council is to consider any submission received and may impose the proposed rates with or without modification. g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment : High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety : Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Comments

Council approved the fees and charges at the April 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting for inclusion in the budget. Below additions are required to be made to the 2019/2020 Schedule of Fee and Charges (section 6), which were not included in April 2019: 1. Section 16.2 and 16.3: Landfill operation and other waste services fees and charges were not included at the April 2019 Council meeting and these are now updated in the Schedule of Fee and Charges. 2. Section 16.2.1: The new fee and charge for Western Metropolitan Regional Council has been included for the new waste disposal contract as approved at the May 2019 Council Meeting. 3. Section 4.2: A new fee and charge has been proposed for the Hire of Rockingham Central Library Foyer of $10. Currently there is no fee or charge for this.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

Officer Recommendation

That Council ADOPTS the Annual Budget for the 2019/2020 financial year and the income and expenditures as presented within the budget document, which includes:  The following rates: - For all Residential properties where Gross Rental Valuations are applied, a rate of 7.26200 cents in the dollar with a minimum rate of $1,200 to apply. - For all Non Residential properties where Gross Rental Valuations are applied, a rate of 8.58600 cents in the dollar with a minimum rate of $1,200 to apply. - For all Unimproved Valued properties a rate of 0.1025 cents in the dollar with a minimum rate of $625 to apply. Where payments are received after the prescribed time and penalty charges apply, then a penalty interest rate for all Gross Rental Value and Unimproved Value outstanding rates is set at 10% per annum, to be calculated on a daily basis, unless a Rates Smoothing arrangement is entered into.  Where payments for the Emergency Services Levy (ESL) are received after the prescribed time and penalty charges apply, then a penalty interest rate for all outstanding ESL is set at 10% per annum, to be calculated on a daily basis, unless a Rates Smoothing arrangement is entered into.  For those ratepayers who have entered into the Rates Smoothing arrangement, penalty interest of 10% per annum is applicable if there is an outstanding balance at the end of the smoothing period, and 11% if there is an outstanding ESL balance at the end of the smoothing period

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CS-010/19 PAGE 167

 For those ratepayers not paying by instalments or Rates Smoothing, the penalty interest will commence to be calculated 36 days after the rates notice issue date. The following Rates Instalment Payment Options: Option 1 To pay the total amount of rates and charges included on the rate notice in full by 16 August 2019, the 35th day after the rates notice issue date. Option 2 Payments to be made by two instalments as will be detailed on the rates notices with the following anticipated dates: First Instalment 16 August 2019 Second Instalment 16 December 2019 Option 3 Payments to be made by four instalments, as will be detailed on the rates notices with the following anticipated dates: First Instalment 16 August 2019 Second Instalment 16 October 2019 Third Instalment 16 December 2019 Fourth Instalment 17 February 2020  Where payments are made by instalment, an administration charge of $3.50 for each instalment after the first instalment shall apply and interest to be set at 5.5% per annum, to be calculated on a daily basis.  Where payments are made by Rates Smoothing arrangements, interest is to be set at 5.5% per annum, to be calculated on a daily basis.  The transfers/movements to and from the Reserve Accounts, as detailed within the budget document and in accordance with Council’s adopted policies.  The imposition of the 2019/2020 Fees and Charges, as listed in Section 6 of the budget document.

Committee Recommendation

That Committee REFERS this matter to the Council meeting to be held on Tuesday 25 June 2019 to ensure Councillors have time to consider submissions received. Committee Voting – 4/0

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Section 6.36 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that where a Council elects to use differential rates, then it must advertise its intention to do so and call for submissions for a period of at least 21 days. It has been noted by officers that submissions for differential rates close on Friday 21 June 2019, and this date is post the Corporate and Community Development Committee date of Tuesday 18 June 2019. Friday 21 June 2019 was the earliest possible closure time for submission, given the May 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting date.

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CS-010/19 PAGE 168

Council Resolution

Moved Cr Stewart, seconded Cr Liley: That Council: 1. ADOPTS the Annual Budget for the 2019/2020 financial year and the income and expenditures as presented within the budget document, which includes:  The following rates: - For all Residential properties where Gross Rental Valuations are applied, a rate of 7.26200 cents in the dollar with a minimum rate of $1,200 to apply. - For all Non Residential properties where Gross Rental Valuations are applied, a rate of 8.58600 cents in the dollar with a minimum rate of $1,200 to apply. - For all Unimproved Valued properties a rate of 0.1025 cents in the dollar with a minimum rate of $625 to apply. Where payments are received after the prescribed time and penalty charges apply, then a penalty interest rate for all Gross Rental Value and Unimproved Value outstanding rates is set at 10% per annum, to be calculated on a daily basis, unless a Rates Smoothing arrangement is entered into.  Where payments for the Emergency Services Levy (ESL) are received after the prescribed time and penalty charges apply, then a penalty interest rate for all outstanding ESL is set at 11%1 per annum, to be calculated on a daily basis, unless a Rates Smoothing arrangement is entered into.  For those ratepayers who have entered into the Rates Smoothing arrangement, penalty interest of 10% per annum is applicable if there is an outstanding balance at the end of the smoothing period, and 11% if there is an outstanding ESL balance at the end of the smoothing period  For those ratepayers not paying by instalments or Rates Smoothing, the penalty interest will commence to be calculated 36 days after the rates notice issue date. The following Rates Instalment Payment Options: Option 1 To pay the total amount of rates and charges included on the rate notice in full by 16 August 2019, the 35th day after the rates notice issue date. Option 2 Payments to be made by two instalments as will be detailed on the rates notices with the following anticipated dates: First Instalment 16 August 2019 Second Instalment 16 December 2019 Option 3 Payments to be made by four instalments, as will be detailed on the rates notices with the following anticipated dates: First Instalment 16 August 2019 Second Instalment 16 October 2019 Third Instalment 16 December 2019 Fourth Instalment 17 February 2020

1 Typographical error corrected

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CS-010/19 PAGE 169

 Where payments are made by instalment, an administration charge of $3.50 for each instalment after the first instalment shall apply and interest to be set at 5.5% per annum, to be calculated on a daily basis.  Where payments are made by Rates Smoothing arrangements, interest is to be set at 5.5% per annum, to be calculated on a daily basis.  The transfers/movements to and from the Reserve Accounts, as detailed within the budget document and in accordance with Council’s adopted policies.  The imposition of the 2019/2020 Fees and Charges, as listed in Section 6 of the budget document. 2. NOTES the submissions received and officer responses on differential rates in accordance with Section 6.36(4) of the Local Government Act. Carried by Absolute Majority – 8/0 The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation

The Council noted the submissions received and officer responses on differential rates in accordance with Section 6.36(4) of the Local Government Act following the closure of submissions on 21 June 2019.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 GM-015/19 PAGE 170

General Management Services Governance and Councillor Support Reference No & Subject: GM-015/19 WALGA 2019 Local Government Convention and Annual General Meeting File No: GVR/6 Proponent/s: WA Local Government Association Author: Mr Peter Varris, Manager Governance and Councillor Support Other Contributors: Date of Committee Meeting: 18 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Executive this Matter:

Site: Lot Area: Attachments: Maps/Diagrams:

Purpose of Report

Council nomination of voting delegates to the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) Annual General Meeting.

Background

The City of Rockingham is a member of WALGA and in the past Council delegates have attended the WALGA Local Government Convention (Convention) and have represented Council’s interests by voting at the WALGA Annual General Meeting (AGM) which is held in conjunction with the Convention. Council has on occasions submitted motions for consideration at the Annual General Meetings.

Details

The 2019 Convention will be held at the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre from Wednesday 7 August to Friday 9 August 2019, with the AGM being held on the afternoon of the opening day (Wednesday 7 August 2019 at 1:30 – 5:00pm). WALGA has invited representatives from Council to attend the Convention and to nominate two (2) voting delegates for the AGM.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 GM-015/19 PAGE 171

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community Not Applicable b. Consultation with Government Agencies Not Applicable c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective(s) contained in the Community Plan 2015-2025: Aspiration 4: Deliver Quality leadership and Business Expertise Strategic Objective: Effective Governance – Apply systems of governance which empower the Council to make considered and informed decisions within a transparent, accountable, ethical and compliant environment. d. Policy Council Policy – Councillor Attendance at Conferences, states “All Councillors are entitled to attend Conferences held in the Perth metropolitan area and Peel region provided that no more than four (4) Councillors attend each Conference”. e. Financial Funds totalling $31,000 have been provided in the 2018-2019 budget for Councillor Development, and a similar provision is anticipated for the 2019-2020 budget. Attendance at the AGM only is free. f. Legal and Statutory Nil g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety : Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Comments

Council has been an active participant in past at the AGM and Convention with up to three Councillors (usually the WALGA South Metropolitan Zone representatives – currently Cr Burns, Cr Jones and Cr Hamblin) attending. The two voting delegates at the AGM have traditionally been the two longest serving Councillors.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Officer Recommendation

That Council NOMINATES Cr ______and Cr ______(Cr ______as reserve) as the voting delegates at the Western Australian Local Government Association Annual General Meeting to be held Wednesday 7 August 2019.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 GM-015/19 PAGE 172

Committee Recommendation

That Committee REFERS this matter to the Council meeting to be held Tuesday 25 June 2019 to provide time for Councillors to consider nominating as a delegate. Committee Voting – 4/0

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

To provide time for Councillors to consider nominating as a delegate.

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

Moved Cr Stewart, seconded Cr Liley: That Council NOMINATES Cr Hamblin and Cr Jones (Cr Burns as reserve) as the voting delegates at the Western Australian Local Government Association Annual General Meeting to be held Wednesday 7 August 2019. Carried – 8/0 The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 GM-016/19 PAGE 173

General Management Services Governance and Councillor Support Reference No & Subject: GM-016/19 Petition – Proposal to change the method of filling the office of mayor (Absolute Majority) File No: GOV/27 Proponent/s: Mr Mal McFetridge (lead petitioner) Author: Mr Peter Varris, Manager Governance and Councillor Support Other Contributors: Mr Michael Parker, Chief Executive Officer Date of Committee Meeting: 18 June 2019 Previously before Council: 27 November 2018 (GM-046/18), 23 August 2011 (ES-026/11), 28 February 2006 (CES69/2/06) Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Executive this Matter:

Site: Lot Area: Attachments: Petition – To change the method of filling the office of mayor Maps/Diagrams:

Purpose of Report

To consider a petition received in accordance with section 2.12 of the Local Government Act 1995 to change the method of filling the office of mayor from the election by council method to the election by elector method.

Background

At its meeting held 23 April 2019 Council received a petition from Mr Mal McFetridge seeking to change the method of filling the office of mayor at the City of Rockingham. A review of the petition found it was not in the form required by the Local Government (Constitution) Regulations 1998 and that 27 signatories could not be verified as electors of the City of Rockingham. As a consequence there were not the 250 electors (signatories) required by the legislation to make an effective proposal. Mr McFetridge and Councillors were informed of this outcome. Mr McFetridge subsequently presented a new petition at the 28 May 2019 Council meeting. The petition is in the correct form as required by legislation and contains some 321 signatories. At the time of writing verification of the signatories as electors has yet to be finalised.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 GM-016/19 PAGE 174

The reasons for change provided in the petition are as follows –  The electors want to be allowed a fundamental democratic right that is, electing a person from the community to be their community leader, that is the Mayor.  Residents through Facebook polls have demonstrated that they are overwhelmingly in favour (90% of those polled) of electing their Mayor.

Details

The Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) provides two methods for filling the office of mayor – (a) elected by the council from amongst the councillors; or (b) elected by electors of the district; A ‘councillor mayor’ is elected every two years by the council at the first available meeting after the local government elections. The mayor is therefore part of the elected council body, elected (in the City of Rockingham’s case) via a ward, and represents the district as a whole. The position is titled Councillor , Mayor of the City of . An ‘elector mayor’ is elected by way of an election every four years coinciding with the local government election process for councillors. The office of ‘elector mayor’ sits over the councillors representing wards and the district as a whole. The ‘elector mayor’ is therefore in addition to the elected councillors. The position is titled ‘Mayor ’ of the City of . The Act further provides the manner in which the method of filling the office of mayor may change. Electors of a local government may propose a change to the election method through the means of a ‘petition’ in accordance to the requirements of the Act. Council is to consider the proposal by such means as it thinks fit, after which it must consider a motion to change the method, and in the City of Rockingham’s circumstance, supported by absolute majority for change to occur. To change from ‘elector mayor’ to ‘councillor mayor’ requires a poll of electors, with a majority of those voting being in favour of the change. Section 2.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 specifies the role of the mayor as follows – (a) presides at meetings in accordance with the Act; (b) provides leadership and guidance to the community; (c) carries out civic and ceremonial duties; (d) speaks on behalf of the local government; (e) performs any functions are required by the Act or other written law; and (f) liaises with the CEO on the local government’s affairs and the performance of its functions. Regardless of the method of filling the office, the mayor also is required to perform the role of councillor per section 2.10 of the Act. Local Government is the only tier of Australian government that provides the electors the opportunity to directly elect the ‘leader’. Both State and Federal governments elect the leader (Premier / Prime Minister) from the elected members representing the political party in office. Of the 30 metropolitan local governments, 18 have an ‘elector’ mayor and 12 have a ‘councillor mayor’. As can be seen in the table below, there is no demographic trend as to the manner of filling the office of mayor.

‘Councillor Mayor’ (12) ‘Elector Mayor’ (18)

Armadale, Bassendean, Bayswater, Belmont, Cambridge, Canning, Claremont, Cockburn, Gosnells, Kwinana, Kalamunda, Mundaring, Cottesloe, East Fremantle, Fremantle, Peppermint Grove, Rockingham, Serpentine- Joondalup, Melville, Mosman Park, Nedlands, Jarrahdale, Swan. Perth, South Perth, Stirling (transitioning), Subiaco, Victoria Park, Vincent, Wanneroo.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 GM-016/19 PAGE 175

Council has considered three Notices of Motion seeking to change the method of filling the office of mayor in the past twelve years. On each occasion the status quo of the council method for electing the mayor has been strongly supported, with one Councillor voting for change on two occasions, and two voting for change most recently. The City has recently reviewed its ward boundaries and councillor representation with ministerial approval received to increase councillor number to eleven and reduce from four wards to three. The provisions of the Act has an influence on the City’s ability to implement a mayoral election in conjunction with the forthcoming October 2019 local government elections. According to section 2.13(3) of the Act, a decision by Council on this matter has no effect if it is made during the period 80 days before, and ending on election day. Therefore the last date for a decision to change the method of filling the office of mayor (in time for the October elections) is Wednesday 31 July 2019. There are several options for Council to consider on this matter – 1. Retain the status quo of a ‘council elected’ mayor. 2. Conduct a poll of the electors in conjunction with the forthcoming local government elections. 3. Change to an ‘elector elected’ mayor without change to ward boundaries and councillor representation, thereby increasing Council to twelve members (including the mayor). 4. Change to an ‘elector elected’ mayor in conjunction with a change to ward boundaries and councillor representation to reduce councillor numbers (to eleven or less, including the mayor).

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community A petition containing 319 signatures has been received in accordance with Section 2.12 of the Local Government Act 1995. The City was in receipt of several complaints that an offer was made to fund sporting and community groups in return for signatures on the petition (i.e. $1 per signature). This offer is verified on Facebook posts and forums. The number of signatories on the petition represents less than 0.4% of the total number of City of Rockingham electors (i.e. 319 of approx. 83,326). b. Consultation with Government Agencies Enquiries have been made with the Western Australian Electoral Commission in respect to the implications of holding an election by the electors for the office of mayor as well as the cost of conducting a poll of electors. Advice has also been obtained from the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries in respect to the legislative requirements of this matter. c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective(s) contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 4: Deliver Quality leadership and Business Expertise Strategic Objective: Effective Governance – Apply systems of governance which empower the Council to make considered and informed decisions within a transparent, accountable, ethical and compliant environment. d. Policy Nil e. Financial The financial implications on this matter are varied. In retaining the status quo of filling the office of mayor by the ‘Council Elected’ method there are no financial implications.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 GM-016/19 PAGE 176

In pursuing a poll of the electors through the next ordinary local government elections the cost is estimated at $10,000 for preparation of support information, conduct of poll, count, etc. Should an ‘Elector Elected’ mayor be implemented without subsequent changes to councillor numbers, the cost is estimated at $50,000pa covering addition sitting fees and allowances, support materials, training and resources. A further $9,000 - $13,000 would be required for the mayoral election. In the circumstance of an ‘Elector Elected’ mayor being implemented with a reduction in councillor numbers a review of ward boundaries and councillor representation would be require. The cost of a mayoral election would be $9,000 - $13,000, however cost savings would be achieved through the reduction in fees, allowances and support costs. Notwithstanding the above, it is very unlikely that a review could be undertaken in time for implementation for the forthcoming local government elections. f. Legal and Statutory Section 2.11(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) states “a local government may change* the method of filling the office of mayor … used by the local government from the election by the council method to the election by the electors method” (*Special majority required). Section 1.10 of the Act notes that a special majority (as required by section 2.11 above) only applies to those local governments where there are more than 11 offices of councillor. Where there are not more than 11 offices of councillor (such as the City of Rockingham) an absolute majority is required. Section 2.12(1) of the Act 1995 states “a proposal to change the method of filling the office of mayor … used by a local government to the other method … may be made to the local government by electors of the district who – (a) are at least 250 in number; or (b) are at least 10% of the total number of elector of the district. Sub-section (2) of 2.12 stipulates that the proposal (petition) is to comply with any regulations about such proposals. Regulation 11 of the Local Government (Constitution) Regulations 1998 requires that a proposal (petition) by electors under section 2.12 is to be in the appropriate form (Form 4). Section 2.12(3) of the Act requires Council to give consideration of the proposal (petition) “by such means as the council thinks fit after which a motion to change the method of filling the office of mayor … is to be put to the council for decision under section 2.11(2)”. Section 2.13(1) of the Act states “a decision under section 2.11(2) to change to the election by electors method has effect in relation to the filling of the office of mayor or president at the next ordinary elections of the local government held after the decision is made and from then on until a change under section 2.11(4) to the election by the council method takes effect.” Section 2.13(3) of the Act states that a decision under section 2.11(2) has no effect if it is made during the period beginning on the 80th day before, and ending on, the ordinary election day. g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment : High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety : Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 GM-016/19 PAGE 177

Comments

The Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries is currently oversighting the review of the Local Government Act 1995. The Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts, Hon David Templeman MLA has stated (in respect to the ward boundaries and councillor representation review) that given the review of the Act is currently considering the issue of councillor numbers and a decision on that matter has yet to be finalised, it may be prudent for the City to maintain councillor numbers. To restate some of the issues raised in the report to Council in November 2018, the Elections Summary Discussion Paper (for the Act review) addresses the matter of election of mayor and states “The direct election of a mayor/president can increase public confidence and strengthen the role in the eyes of the community. However, the popular election of mayors/presidents has been linked to greater politicisation, instability and friction on council itself, especially when elected on a single issue.” An ‘elector mayor’ elected on a single issue or ‘populist’ platform or with a different mandate to that of councillors/council can lead to the promotion of different agendas and subsequent conflicts, and this has been experienced in various local governments. A review of the findings of Inquiry investigations into a number of local governments bears this observation out, with dysfunction between ‘popularly elected’ mayor, councillors and the local government administration, on occasion resulting in the dismissal of council. An ‘elector mayor’ has a term of office of four years (compared to the two years for ‘councillor’ mayor), which potentially is a lengthy period before the community can ‘voice’ dissatisfaction in a mayor’s performance via the ballot box. This is not to say that dysfunction does not occurs between a ‘councillor’ mayor, and council and the city administration. The key difference is that the council has the ability to address mayoral poor performance every two years in the case of a ‘councillor mayor’, as well as the ability for the electors to register dissatisfaction through the election process for the ward in which the mayoral incumbent sits. It is reasonable to say that appropriate and timely ‘checks and balances’ are not in place for Council or the community to deal with any mayor that causes discord and dysfunction between the Council and/or the City administration, however it is more challenging in the case of an ‘elector’ mayor given the length of tenure. This could potentially hinder Council’s decision making capacity and the ability of the City to deliver services to the community. Council will also need to determine the manner in which an ‘elector mayor’ should be implemented. The City has only recently had the outcome of its review into its ward boundaries and councillor representation, with Council receiving consent to its decision to increase representation to eleven Councillors and reducing wards from four to three. An ‘elector mayor’ system could be introduced by retaining the number of councillors and the new ward structure, and implementing a mayor over the current council, increasing the number of elected members to twelve. In essence this will impose an increase in election costs (for a City- wide mayoral election), in addition to the additional elected member support costs (sitting fees, allowances, IT, etc). This can be achieved for the forthcoming election cycle. Alternatively, Council may decide to introduce the change of election method by reducing councillor numbers to accommodate the inclusion of a ‘popularly elected’ mayor. This will require a revision of the ward boundaries and representation review. Any change will need to be undertaken in accordance with legislative requirements and will not be achieved in time for the local government elections in October 2019. A further option is for Council to incorporate a poll on whether to change the method of filling the office of mayor in conjunction with the forthcoming October elections. A decision on this option would need to be made with sufficient time to enable preparations through the WA Electoral Commission. It would be prudent to use independent consultants to prepare the poll question and ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments for inclusion with the poll. This would be undertaken by the Local Government Advisory Board should the change be from ‘elector elected’ to ‘council elected’ per section 2.12A of the Act.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 GM-016/19 PAGE 178

Council has only recently shown strong support to retain the current method of electing the mayor by council. With the forthcoming election for more than half (six) the positions of councillor, the ‘new’ Council’s views on this matter could potentially be different to that of the current Council. The current Council may consider it prudent for this matter to be considered after the October Council election, providing the opportunity for the outcomes of the Local Government Act review to be incorporated in the decision making, as well as any potential changes to ward boundaries and councillor representation. Should the ‘new’ Council pursue the change of electing the mayor, this could be introduced (with any accompanying ward and councillor number changes) in the 2021 election cycle. An issue that also needs be considered is that once the change to an ‘elector elected’ mayor has been implemented, it is far more complex and challenging to change back (per section 2.12A of the Act), requiring a public submission period, followed by a poll of electors. As noted earlier in the report the reasons for change provided in the petition are as follows –  The electors want to be allowed a fundamental democratic right that is, electing a person from the community to be their community leader, that is the Mayor.  Residents through Facebook polls have demonstrated that they are overwhelmingly in favour (90% of those polled) of electing their Mayor. The ‘fundamental’ democratic right in respect to Western Australian local government is the non- compulsory right to elect a councillor/s to make decisions on the community’s behalf. There are two methods for electing the mayor, prescribed by legislation, both bearing merit, but as stated this ‘fundamental democratic right’ is not extended to any other level of government. Furthermore, the validity of Facebook polls is questionable due to the following reasons –  the question is rarely unbiasedly or independently put;  the arguments put for and against (if any) is rarely balanced, and  the sample population responding is often a closed group or not representative of the general community. The statutory requirement of Council upon receiving a proposal such as that subject to this report is –  Considers the proposal by such means as it thinks fit; and then  Deliberates on a motion to change the method of filling the office of mayor. It is the author’s opinion that the current method of electing the mayor has served the City of Rockingham well. Notwithstanding the receipt of the petition, which is less than half a percent of the total number of electors of the City, there is still no compelling reason to change. It would be appropriate for the question to be reconsidered after the current review of the Local Government Act so any resultant implications can be taken into account by the incoming Council, including any appropriate changes to ward boundaries and councillor numbers should an ‘elector’ mayor be favoured. Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority (in lieu of Special majority)

Officer Recommendation

That Council SUPPORTS the retention of filling the office of mayor of the City of Rockingham through the election by council method.

Committee Recommendation

That Council SUPPORTS the retention of filling the office of mayor of the City of Rockingham through the election by council method. Committee Voting – 2/3

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 GM-016/19 PAGE 179

Councillors having voted for the motion: Cr Liley Cr Burns Councillors having voted against the motion: Cr Stewart (2) Cr Jones NOTE: Due to an equality of votes at the Corporate and Community Development Committee meeting, the Chairperson exercised her obligation to cast a second vote to reach a decision in this matter (Section 5.21(3) of the Local Government Act 1995).

Moved Cr Jones, seconded Cr Stewart: That Council DEFERS consideration of Item GM-016/19 ‘Petition – Proposal to change the method of filling the office of mayor’ to the July 2019 Council meeting. Committee Voting – 3/2 Councillors having voted for the motion: Cr Stewart (2) Cr Jones Councillors having voted against the motion: Cr Liley Cr Burns

NOTE: Due to an equality of votes at the Corporate and Community Development Committee meeting, the Chairperson exercised her obligation to cast a second vote to reach a decision in this matter (Section 5.21(3) of the Local Government Act 1995). The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

To give those Councillors not present at the June 2019 meeting the opportunity to comment and vote on the matter.

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

Moved Cr Hamblin, seconded Cr Liley: That Council SUPPORTS the retention of filling the office of mayor of the City of Rockingham through the election by council method. Carried by Absolute Majority – 6/2

Councillors having voted for the motion: Councillors having voted against the motion: Cr Hamblin Cr Burns Cr Jones Cr Stewart Cr Liley Cr Summers Cr Elliott Cr Sammels

The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-011/19 PAGE 180

Council Resolution – En bloc Resolution Moved Cr Stewart, seconded Cr Burns: That the committee recommendations in relation to Agenda Items CD-011/19 and CD-012/19 be carried en bloc. Carried – 8/0

Community Development Community Support and Safety Services Reference No & Subject: CD-011/19 Recommendation from the City Safe Advisory Committee Meeting held on 9 May 2019 File No: COM/55 Author: Mr Michael Holland, Director Community Development Other Contributors: Ms Mary-Jane Rigby, Manager Community Support and Safety Services Date of Committee Meeting: 18 June 2019

Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Advocacy this Matter: Attachments: City Safe Advisory Committee Minutes held on Thursday 9 May 2019 Maps/Diagrams:

Purpose of Report For Council to direct the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to obtain an update from the State Government regarding the preferred second access route into the Woodbridge Estate, Cooloongup and the Rockingham General Hospital. Recommendations to the Corporate and Community Development Committee

Advisory Committee Recommendation 1 of 1: Request for Update - Second Access Road into the Woodbridge Estate and Rockingham General Hospital That officer’s prepare a report to Council REQUESTING the CEO write to the Premier, Hon Mark McGowan, MLA and Member for Baldivis, Mr Reece Whitby, MLA for an update regarding the status of a second access road into the ‘Woodbridge Estate’, Cooloongup and the Rockingham General Hospital.

Officer Recommendation if Different to Advisory Committee Recommendation

That Council DIRECTS the Chief Executive Officer to undertake further investigation and complete a report into the second access road into the ‘Woodbridge Estate’, Cooloongup.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-011/19 PAGE 181

The Officer’s Reason for Varying the Advisory Committee Recommendation The Advisory Committee recommendation can be interpreted two-fold, does it relate to the congestion at the intersection of Ennis Avenue, Elnora Drive and Grange Drive or does it relate to risks associated by having a single access road for residents and hospital services when there may be an emergency. Or quite simply does it relate to both issues raised above which it is assumed it does. There has been significant work undertaken on this project previously and it is timely to review this body of work and update traffic modelling, including congestion, crashes, entry and egress points, risk management and hospital services. It is more appropriate that before the CEO writes to the Premier seeking an update that a clearer and current position be developed by the City for the project. The City’s Planning and Design team will be reviewing the current capacity of the Ennis Avenue, Elanora Drive and Grange Drive intersection in the 2019/20 financial year. This review will consider current traffic volume, congestion and will involve a risk assessment associated with the single access route. In affect the work that will be undertaken in the preparation of the report will provide the basis to advocate and lobby the State Government if it is deemed appropriate for the second access to be constructed. Therefore, it is considered prudent to complete the report prior to writing to the Premier.

Background

The Woodbridge Estate, Cooloongup is a 117ha residential area that includes Rockingham General Hospital and accommodates approximately 2,300 people. The community has reported safety concerns, due to the one road access in and out of the estate, in particular with relation to the emergency and evacuation access to the hospital over the past 14 years. The Estate is bound by Ennis Avenue to the West, Rockingham Lakes Regional Park to the East, the Perth Mandurah Railway to the North and the Rockingham Golf Course / natural vegetation to the South. Access into and out of the Estate is restricted to one road, Elanora Drive, which is connected to the district road network at Ennis Avenue under traffic signal control. The route of the South West Metropolitan Railway (SWMR) to Mandurah is situated within the Garden Island Highway reservation to the Rockingham railway station (at the corner of Ennis Avenue) and then within the eastern side of the Ennis Avenue reservation. The construction of the SWMR has further exacerbated access to the hospital and the estate by effectively cutting off any potential emergency access/egress that may have been available from the Garden Island Highway and Ennis Avenue road reservations. The works associated with the construction of the SWMR and the proposed upgrade of the Rockingham General Hospital highlighted the need to review the access to the existing hospital and the broader Woodbridge Estate. A Ministerial Working Party was set up by the then Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (Alannah MacTiernan MLA) in early 2005 to address the provision of an additional access road. The Ministerial Working Party held its final meeting on 22 February 2010 where it endorsed a Northern Entry as its preferred route, and resolved the following actions:  Submit a comprehensive report via the Rockingham Kwinana Development Office (RKDO) to the Rockingham Kwinana Planning and Development Taskforce for State Government funding consideration.  Submit an application to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for approval of the Northern Option B. An interim report into the history of the Woodbridge Second Access Study was presented to the RKDO Taskforce meeting held on 12 March 2010. The RKDO noted that the Ministerial Working Party’s brief was to just consider the best route for a second access road. The Ministerial Working

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-011/19 PAGE 182

Party was not requested, nor did it consider, the need for a second access road. The RKDO undertook two studies to consider the question of the need for another access road to the Woodbridge Estate. The first study undertaken was a traffic study of the Ennis Avenue / Elanora Drive intersection to determine if a second access road was required to accommodate future traffic volumes. The second study undertaken was a risk assessment to determine if the risks associated with having a single access road for the residents, hospital and ambulance service represented an unacceptably high risk and, if so, whether a second access road would address this risk. The traffic study concluded that:  By 2021, the performance of the existing Ennis Avenue / Elanora Drive intersection is expected to suffer, following the expansion of the Rockingham General Hospital together with the expected growth in regional traffic on Ennis Avenue.  With a second access road constructed from the eastern end of Elanora Drive to intersect with the existing Dixon Road / Day Road intersection, the Ennis Avenue / Elanora Drive intersection would operate at satisfactory levels in 2031.  The current crash history at the Ennis Avenue / Elanora Drive intersection indicates an over- representation of rear end crashes. With expected increases in traffic volumes entering the intersection and increasing congestion, it is expected that crash frequency would also increase.  The provision of a second access road to the Woodbridge Estate is expected to reduce congestion at the Ennis Avenue / Elanora Drive intersection and positively affect the crash patterns by reducing the frequency of rear end crashes. In 2012 it was estimated that should the second access project be constructed, with a completion date of 2016/2017, the cost would be approximately $22 million. This was declined by the State Government. The projections of the above mentioned traffic study indicate expected congestion by 2021, therefore it is timely that the City undertake a revised review and traffic study in 2019 / 2020. The City’s Planning and Design team will be reviewing the current capacity of the Ennis Avenue, Elanora Drive and Grange Drive intersection in the 2019/2020 financial year. This review will consider current traffic volume, congestion and will involve a risk assessment associated with the single access route. Given the extended timeframes between reports and subsequent lack of current information the development of a new report is a sensible approach to this ongoing issue. This matter has been before Council in April and May 2005, July 2006 and October 2008.

Implications to Consider a. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective(s) contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 2: Grow and Nurture Community Connectedness and Wellbeing Strategic Objective: Community Capacity Building – Empower the community across all ages and abilities to be culturally aware and involved with a diverse range of community initiatives that incorporate volunteering, sport, culture and the arts. Aspiration 3: Plan for Future Generations Strategic Objective: Responsive Planning and Control of Land Use – Plan and control the use of land to meet the needs of the growing population, with consider of future generations.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-011/19 PAGE 183 b. Policy Nil c. Financial An amount has been included in the 2019/20 budget for the report to be completed. d. Legal and Statutory Nil e. Voting Requirements Simple Majority f. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment : High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety : Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Committee Recommendation That Council DIRECTS the Chief Executive Officer to undertake further investigation and complete a report into the second access road into the ‘Woodbridge Estate’, Cooloongup. Committee Voting – 4/0

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution That Council DIRECTS the Chief Executive Officer to undertake further investigation and complete a report into the second access road into the ‘Woodbridge Estate’, Cooloongup. Carried en bloc The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-012/19 PAGE 184

Community Development Community Infrastructure Planning Reference No & Subject: CD-012/19 Tender T18/19-32 – Provision of concept and detailed design services for four buildings and landscaping areas at the Baldivis District Sporting Complex File No: T18/19-32 Proponent/s: Author: Ms Carly Kroczek, Senior Community Infrastructure Planning Officer Other Contributors: Mr Gary Rogers, Manager Community Infrastructure Planning Mr Ian Daniels, Manager Infrastructure Project Delivery Mr Robert Pollock, Major Infrastructure Project Officer Date of Committee Meeting: 18 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Executive this Matter:

Site: Lot Area: Attachments: Maps/Diagrams:

Purpose of Report

Provide Council with details of the tenders received for Tender T18/19-32 – Provision of concept and detailed design services for four buildings and landscaping areas at the Baldivis District Sporting Complex, document the results of the tender assessment, and make recommendations regarding award of the tender.

Background

Tender T18/19-32 – Provision of concept and detailed design services for four buildings and landscaping areas at the Baldivis District Sporting Complex was advertised in the West Australian on Saturday, 9 March 2019. The Tender closed at 2.00pm, Wednesday, 17 April 2019 and was publicly opened immediately after the closing time.

Details

The scope of the contract is for the detailed design for the district pavilion, maintenance shed, indoor recreation centre, junior pavilion and landscaping areas including car parks, central

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-012/19 PAGE 185 pedestrian spine and the interface with the playing fields. Contract management services throughout the construction phase are also included as part of the scope. A panel comprising the Manager Community Infrastructure Planning, Manager Infrastructure Project Delivery, Senior Community Infrastructure Planning Officer and Major Infrastructure Project Officer undertook tender evaluations. The Manager Parks Services also provided technical advice and input into the landscaping component of the assessment. In order to assess the submissions, tenderers were required to provide information on:  the organisational structure  the organisations project management framework, and that proposed specifically for this project  industry experience, particularly in relation to projects of a similar nature  role and experience of all personnel nominated for the project, including sub consultants  ability to provide sufficient personnel and equipment to perform the services  status of the organisation in respect to quality accreditation systems  proposed project management methodology for completion of the contract requirements  their knowledge and understanding of the contract outcomes, requirements and processes  their ability to meet project timeframes Evaluation of the tender, in accordance with the advertised tender assessment criteria, produced the following weighted scores: Assessment Criteria Level of Understanding Tendered Total Service of Tender Price/s Weighted Requirements Scores Max. Points 30 Pts 40 Pts 30 Pts 100 Pts Site Architecture 23.9 28.6 29.1 81.7 Christou 27.8 34.3 15.9 77.9 Hames Sharley 25.3 32 20.2 77.5 Hodge Collard Preston 25.1 25.5 25.0 75.6 Donovan Payne Architects 24.3 27.3 22.1 73.7 DI WA Pty Ltd 21 21 29.4 71.4 Lantern Architecture 18.6 21.8 30.0 70.4 Bollig Design Group 22.2 20.9 26.4 69.5 Carabiner Pty Ltd 22.1 24.3 22.4 68.8 Paterson Group Architects 22.4 25.6 20.5 68.5 Taylor Robinson Pty Ltd 22 25.6 19.3 66.9 Gresley Abas Pty Ltd 20.6 25 19.0 64.6 Parry and Rosenthal Architects 20.3 27 16.6 63.9 Holton Connor 20.4 18.4 23.1 61.9 Cameron Chisholm Nicol (WA) Pty Ltd 22.8 22.8 16.2 61.7 Fratelle Group 19.8 19.3 20.8 59.9 Slavin Architects 20.7 17.3 15.6 53.5

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-012/19 PAGE 186

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community Not Applicable b. Consultation with Government Agencies Not Applicable c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective(s) contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 3: Plan for Future Generations Infrastructure planning: Plan and develop community, sport and recreation facilities which meet the current and future needs of the City's growing population. d. Policy In accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy, for purchases above $150,000, a public tender process is to be conducted in accordance with the provision of section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995; and Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, Part 4, Division 2, regulation 11A(1). e. Financial There are sufficient funds available to award this contract. There is a total of $5.5 million in the 2018/2019 budget allocated to this project. An additional $9.4 million will be available in the 2019/2020 budget. f. Legal and Statutory In accordance with section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, Part 4, Division 2, regulation 11(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 $150,000 unless sub regulation (2) states otherwise’. g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment: High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety: Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Comments

The level of detail provided, demonstrating the tenderers understanding of the contract requirements, varied in each submission. Following consideration of all submissions in accordance with the tender assessment criteria, the submission received from Site Architecture Studio is recommended as the preferred tenderer. The submission demonstrated that Site Architecture Studio had a highly skilled and experienced architectural and sub consultant team, with previous experience designing sporting infrastructure for Western Australian local governments. They demonstrated a good understanding of the contract outcomes and requirements, and have the relevant systems and processes in place to manage a project of this nature. When considering all assessment criteria including level of service, understanding of tender requirements and price, Site Architecture Studio demonstrated best value to the City.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-012/19 PAGE 187

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Officer Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted from Site Architecture Studio, for Tender T18/19-32 – Provision of concept and detailed design services for four buildings and landscaping areas at the Baldivis District Sporting Complex in accordance with the tender documentation for the lump sum value of $706,590 (ex GST).

Committee Recommendation

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-013/19 PAGE 188

Community Development Community Capacity Building Reference No & Subject: CD-013/19 Rockingham Education and Training Advisory Committee change of representation (Absolute Majority) File No: CSV/3100-02 Proponent/s: Author: Ms Jillian Obiri-Boateng, Collaborative Manager Community Capacity Building Other Contributors: Ms Tenille Voges, Coordinator Recreation and Wellbeing Date of Committee Meeting: 18 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Executive this Matter:

Site: Lot Area: Attachments: Minutes from the Rockingham Education and Training Advisory Committee meeting 27 May 2019 Maps/Diagrams:

Purpose of Report

To request Council to appoint Mr Jim Bell as the Department of Education’s representative to the Rockingham Education and Training Advisory Committee (RETAC).

Background

Mr Gary Anderson was appointed as the Department of Education’s representative to the Rockingham Education and Training Advisory Committee following the review of all Advisory Committees at Council meeting conducted on 28 August 2018.

Details

Following the Department of Education’s review of the division of work boundaries a new role has been created. Schools within the Rockingham area will now fall into the portfolio of the new position, therefore representation to RETAC will no longer be relevant to Mr Anderson’s role. The Department of Education’s new nomination to RETAC is Mr Jim Bell.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-013/19 PAGE 189

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community Nil b. Consultation with Government Agencies Department of Education c. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective(s) contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 4: Deliver Quality Leadership and Business Expertise Strategic Objective: Effective Governance – Apply systems of governance which empower the Council to make considered and informed decisions within a transparent, accountable, ethical and compliant environment. d. Policy The Governance and Meeting Framework Council Policy outlines the membership composition and appointment of memberships on Advisory Committees. The RETAC membership composition requires a Department of Education representative. e. Financial Nil f. Legal and Statutory Local Government Act 1995 Section 5.10 (1) A Committee is to have as its members - (a) persons appointed by absolute majority by the local government to be members of the committee. g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment : High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety : Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Comments

The appointment of Mr Jim Bell is in line with the Department of Education’s review of work boundaries which has identified Mr Bell as the relevant RETAC member.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

Officer Recommendation

That Council APPOINTS Mr Jim Bell as member of the Rockingham Education and Training Advisory Committee, representing the Department of Education.

Committee Recommendation

That Council APPOINTS Mr Jim Bell as member of the Rockingham Education and Training Advisory Committee, representing the Department of Education. Committee Voting – 4/0

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-013/19 PAGE 190

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

Moved Cr Hamblin, seconded Cr Stewart: That Council APPOINTS Mr Jim Bell as member of the Rockingham Education and Training Advisory Committee, representing the Department of Education. Carried by Absolute Majority – 8/0 The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-014/19 PAGE 191

Community Development Community Capacity Building Reference No & Subject: CD-014/19 Recommendation from the Sports Advisory Committee Meeting held on 6 May 2019 File No: RCS/163-03 Author: Ms Jillian Obiri-Boateng, Collaborative Manager Community Capacity Building Other Contributors: Date of Committee Meeting: 18 June 2019 Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Executive this Matter: Attachments: Minutes of the Sports Advisory Committee Meeting held on 6 May 2019 Maps/Diagrams:

Purpose of Report

To present to Council a recommendation from the Sports Advisory Committee.

Recommendations to the Corporate and Community Development Committee

Advisory Committee Recommendation 1 of 1: Recommendations for the World Masters Games 2021

That Council: 1. SUPPORTS the World Masters Games and investigate options for grant support for participants to take part in the Games via the Travel Subsidy Scheme (TSS). 2. DIRECTS the Executive Support to request relevant officers to review the TSS Grants and provide recommendations/options to the Sports Advisory Committee. 3. DIRECTS the Executive Support to present options to the Community Grants Committee and the Global Friendship Committee for their input/consideration.

Officer Recommendation if Different to Advisory Committee Recommendation

That Council NOT SUPPORT the recommendations from the Sports Advisory Committee.

The Officer’s Reason for Varying the Advisory Committee Recommendation

While the City supports the concept of the World Masters Games in principle, the recommendations from the Sports Advisory Committee (SAC) are actions that should be investigated by officers in the first instance and then their findings taken to SAC for further discussion.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-014/19 PAGE 192

Recommendation 1 is unclear in the use of the word support, making it difficult to know what type of support is intended. However support through the TSS grant is available to individuals and teams who are authorised by their association’s governing body to participate in accredited interstate and international competitions travelling outside of Western Australia. TSS grant applications are all considered on their own merit. Recommendation 2 is not supported as the review of the TSS grant is not deemed relevant as it is governed through the existing Council Policy, Executive Policy and guidelines within the City’s Community Grants Program and Community Grants Program Committee. That being said applications through the TSS from local athletes or teams who are authorised by their association’s governing body to participate in accredited interstate and international competitions travelling outside of Western Australia such as the Masters Games will be considered in line with the Policies and guidelines. Recommendation 3 is not supported for the reason given at recommendation 2. However Officers are already working in collaboration with the Global Friendship Committee in relation to the World Masters Games. While the SAC recommendations are not supported, actions will be undertaken by officers to investigate how the City can best support the World Masters Games through the TSS and this will be reported back to SAC for further discussion.

Background

The World Masters Games are an international multi-sport athletic competition held every four years by the International Masters Games Association for athletes over the age of 30 and into their middle age and senior years. The games are held in the year following the Olympics. The first World Masters Games were held in 1985 in Toronto, Canada. The latest Games (the 9th hosting) took place in Auckland, New Zealand in the year 2017. In 2021 the Games will be held in Japan, the first hosting in Asia. This auspicious 10th hosting will be in the western part of Japan—the Kansai region. The Games will be held from Friday 14 May 2021 to Sunday 30 May 2021 and will include 59 events across 35 sports.

Implications to Consider a. Strategic Community Plan This item addresses the Community’s Vision for the future and specifically the following Aspiration and Strategic Objective(s) contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2019-2029: Aspiration 2: Grow and Nurture Community Connectedness and Wellbeing Strategic Objective: Community capacity building – Empower the community across all ages and abilities to be culturally aware and involved with a diverse range of community initiatives that incorporate volunteering, sport, culture and the arts. b. Policy The Community Grants Program Policy encompasses the TSS grants. c. Financial Nil d. Legal and Statutory Nil e. Voting Requirements Simple Majority

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 CD-014/19 PAGE 193 f. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment : High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety : Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil Committee Recommendation

That Council NOT SUPPORT the recommendations from the Sports Advisory Committee. Committee Voting – 4/0

The Committee’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Implications of the Changes to the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

Council Resolution

Moved Cr Stewart, seconded Cr Jones: That Council NOT SUPPORT the recommendations from the Sports Advisory Committee. Carried – 8/0 The Council’s Reason for Varying the Committee’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 194

14. Receipt of Information Bulletin

Moved Cr Burns, seconded Cr Summers: That Council RECEIVES the Information Bulletin as follows: 1. Planning and Development Services Bulletin – June 2019; 2. Engineering and Parks Services Bulletin – June 2019; 3. Corporate and General Management Services Bulletin – June 2019; and 4. Community Development Bulletin – June 2019. Carried – 8/0

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 MR-006/19 PAGE 195

15. Report of Mayor

City of Rockingham Mayor’s Report

Reference No & Subject: MR-006/19 Meetings and Functions Attended by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor File No: GOV/3 Proponent/s: City of Rockingham Author: Cr Barry Sammels, Mayor Other Contributors: Cr Deb Hamblin, Deputy Mayor Date of Council Meeting: 25 June 2019 Previously before Council: Disclosure of Interest: Nature of Council’s Role in Executive this Matter:

Purpose of Report

To advise on the meetings and functions attended by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor during the period 29 May 2019 to 25 June 2019.

Background

Nil

Details

Date Meeting/Function 31 May 2019 Women in Business Lunch attended by Deputy Mayor Deb Hamblin 4 June 2019 Meeting with Foreshore business attended by Deputy Mayor Deb Hamblin Australian Citizenship Ceremony 5 June 2019 WALGA State Council meeting attended by Deputy Mayor Deb Hamblin 6 June 2019 Design WA Presentation attended by Deputy Mayor Deb Hamblin Parks and Leisure Awards night attended by Deputy Mayor Deb Hamblin 7 June 2019 190th Anniversary of Navy on Garden Island 10 June 2019 Meeting with WALGA South West Group Board Meeting 11 June 2019 Meeting with Landcorp Meeting with Port Kennedy Residents Association VP attended by Deputy Mayor Councillor Engagement Session 13 June 2019 City Safe Committee 15 June 2019 Baldivis Volunteer Fire and Emergency Service 40th Anniversary

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 MR-006/19 PAGE 196

Date Meeting/Function 17 June 2019 A Drop in the Ocean – Memory Café and RAD Walkers First Anniversary Probus 30th Birthday event attended by Deputy Mayor Deb Hamblin Meeting with Resident Planning and Engineering Services Committee Meeting 18 June 2019 WA Grants Commission attended by Deputy Mayor Deb Hamblin 19 June 2019 South Metro Tafe Governing Council attended by Deputy Mayor Deb Hamblin 20 June 2019 Community Grants Committee Meeting Official Opening of Communicare, Rockingham Global Friendship Committee 21 June 2019 Rockingham Flames Basketball game 24 June 2019 Australian Coastal Councils Association Executive Tele-conference Meeting with Resident SWCDeF Meeting attended by Deputy Mayor Deb Hamblin South West Zone Meeting attended by Deputy Mayor Deb Hamblin 25 June 2019 Council Meeting

Implications to Consider a. Consultation with the Community Nil b. Consultation with Government Agencies Nil c. Strategic Nil d. Policy Nil e. Financial Nil f. Legal and Statutory Nil g. Risk All Council decisions are subject to risk assessment according to the City’s Risk Framework. Implications and comment will only be provided for the following assessed risks. Customer Service / Project management / Environment : High and Extreme Risks Finance / Personal Health and Safety : Medium, High and Extreme Risks Nil

Comments

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Officer Recommendation

That Council RECEIVES the Mayor’s Report for the period 29 May 2019 to 25 June 2019.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 MR-006/19 PAGE 197

Council Resolution

Moved Cr Stewart, seconded Cr Jones: That Council RECEIVES the Mayor’s Report for the period 29 May 2019 to 25 June 2019. Carried – 8/0 The Council’s Reason for Varying the Officer’s Recommendation

Not Applicable

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Council Minutes Tuesday 25 June 2019 PAGE 198

16. Reports of Councillors

Nil

17. Reports of Officers

Nil

18. Addendum Agenda

Nil

19. Motions of which Previous Notice has been given

Nil

20. Notices of Motion for Consideration at the Following Meeting

7:44pm The Mayor identified one Notice of Motion for consideration at the July 2019 Council meeting.

In accordance with Clause 3.9 of the City of Rockingham Standing Orders, Cr Whitfield has submitted the following Notice of Motion for consideration at the July 2019 meeting: “That Council: 1. SUPPORTS helping homeless people in Rockingham. 2. DIRECTS the Chief Executive Officer to compile 5 options that could genuinely and quantifiably assist homeless persons in Rockingham and to prepare a report (including costings) for the council’s consideration by October 2019.”

21. Questions by Members of which Due Notice has been given

Nil

22. Urgent Business Approved by the Person Presiding or by Decision of the Council

Nil

23. Matters Behind Closed Doors

Nil

24. Date and Time of Next Meeting

The next Ordinary Council Meeting for the City of Rockingham will be held on Tuesday 23 July 2019 at 6:00pm in the Council Chambers, Civic Boulevard, Rockingham.

25. Closure

There being no further business, the Mayor thanked those persons present for attending the Council Meeting, and declared the meeting closed at 7:45pm.

CONFIRMED AT A COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23 JULY 2019 MAYOR (B W SAMMELS)

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Submissions for Proposed Differential Rates and Minimum Payments 2019/2020

Name Address Issues Raised Officer Response

1 Ms R N Waretini Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Property values/rents have decreased  Rate increases are not aligned to the rental market or property values. Rates are calculated on either Gross Rental Valuation or Unimproved Valuation provided by Landgate. 2 Ms P McGinley Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase – reduce  Noted increase  The City applies minimum rates to  Objection to minimum rates ensure similar contributions are made by all ratepayers. 3 Mrs J Cockeram Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Cost of living increasing  Wages are not increasing  General comments not related to Differential Rates 4 Mrs C Hansord Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Cost of living increasing  General comments not related to Differential Rates 5 Mr D A Bolton Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  General comments not related to Differential Rates 6 Mrs E J Murphy Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase – reduce  Noted increase  Rate increases are not aligned to the  Property values/rents have decreased rental market or property values. Rates  Cost of living increasing are calculated on either Gross Rental  Wages are not increasing Valuation or Unimproved Valuation  Reduce unnecessary expenditure provided by Landgate.

D19/97361 Page 1 of 10

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Submissions for Proposed Differential Rates and Minimum Payments 2019/2020

Name Address Issues Raised Officer Response

 Established suburbs not benefiting from  New infrastructure is provided where rate increases/paying for infrastructure in required and is funded by a number of new suburbs sources not just rates. 7 Mr L Foulger Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  Cost of living increasing  General comments not related to Differential Rates 8 Mr J Miles Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase – reduce  Noted increase  Wages are not increasing  Cost of living increasing  Review new projects to reduce need for rate increases 9 Mr JS Canvert Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Cost of living increasing  Rate increases are not aligned to the  Property values/rents have decreased rental market or property values. Rates  General comments not related to are calculated on either Gross Rental Differential Rates Valuation or Unimproved Valuation provided by Landgate. 10 Mr K Koyd Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Cost of living increasing  New infrastructure is provided where  Need alternative revenue sources required and is funded by a number of  Established suburbs not benefiting from sources not just rates. rate increases/paying for infrastructure in new suburbs 11 Mr E S Rybak Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  Review new projects to reduce need for rate increases

D19/97361 Page 2 of 10 Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Submissions for Proposed Differential Rates and Minimum Payments 2019/2020

Name Address Issues Raised Officer Response

12 Mr H S Teo Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increases  Noted  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  New infrastructure is provided where  Review new projects to reduce need for required and is funded by a number of rate increases sources not just rates.  Established suburbs not benefiting from rate increases/paying for infrastructure in new suburbs 13 Mr H S Teo Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted

14 Ms R Hamilton Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Wages are not increasing  Cost of living increasing  Reduce unnecessary expenditure 15 Mrs D Park Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase – reduce  Noted increase  Cost of living increasing  General comments related to State Government responsibilities or charges  Reduce unnecessary expenditure 16 Mrs S A Van De Griendt Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Wages are not increasing  General comments not related to Differential Rates 17 Mrs A Steenkamp Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  Wages are not increasing  New infrastructure is provided where  Cost of living increasing required and is funded by a number of  General comments related to State sources not just rates. Government responsibilities or charges

D19/97361 Page 3 of 10

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Submissions for Proposed Differential Rates and Minimum Payments 2019/2020

Name Address Issues Raised Officer Response

 Established suburbs not benefiting from rate increases/paying for infrastructure in new suburbs 18 Mr M P Hams Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Wages are not increasing  Reduce unnecessary expenditure 19 Mr S I Walker Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  Wages are not increasing  Need alternative revenue sources  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  Review new projects to reduce need for rate increases 20 Ms E C Bray Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  New infrastructure is provided where  Established suburbs not benefiting from required and is funded by a number of rate increases/paying for infrastructure in sources not just rates. new suburbs 21 Mrs M A Farrell Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Wages are not increasing  Reduce unnecessary expenditure 22 Ms DA Cox Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Cost of living expenses 23 Mrs T M Janczyk Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  Rate increases are not aligned to the  Property values/rents have decreased rental market or property values. Rates are calculated on either Gross Rental Valuation or Unimproved Valuation provided by Landgate. 24 Mrs P Fereday Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Cost of living expenses

D19/97361 Page 4 of 10

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Submissions for Proposed Differential Rates and Minimum Payments 2019/2020

Name Address Issues Raised Officer Response

 General comments not related to Differential Rates 25 Anonymous for CRM Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  Rate increases are not aligned to the  Review new projects to reduce need for rental market or property values. Rates rate increases are calculated on either Gross Rental  Property values/rents have decreased Valuation or Unimproved Valuation  Objection to minimum rates provided by Landgate.  General comments not related to  The City applies minimum rates to Differential Rates ensure similar contributions are made by all ratepayers. 26 Mr W B Hill Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Established suburbs not benefiting from  New infrastructure is provided where rate increases/paying for infrastructure in required and is funded by a number of new suburbs sources not just rates.  General comments not related to Differential Rates 27 Mr C R Essery Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase – reduce  Noted increase  Cost of living expenses 28 Mr N Pretorius Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  Review new projects to reduce need for rate increases 29 Mrs D Devlin Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Wages are not increasing  Rate increases are not aligned to the  Property values/rents have decreased rental market or property values. Rates are calculated on either the Gross Rental Valuation or Unimproved Valuation provided by Landgate.

D19/97361 Page 5 of 10

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Submissions for Proposed Differential Rates and Minimum Payments 2019/2020

Name Address Issues Raised Officer Response

30 Mrs L F Cranch Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Established suburbs not benefitting from  New infrastructure is provided where rate increases/paying for infrastructure in required and is funded by a number of new suburbs. sources not just rates. 31 Mr D Rogers Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase – reduce  Noted increase  Cost of living increasing  General comments related to State Government responsibilities or charges. 32 Mr CN Allen Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  Rate increases are not aligned to the  Cost of living increasing rental market or property values. Rates  Property values/rents have decreased are calculated on either the Gross Rental  Review new projects to reduce need for Valuation or Unimproved Valuation rate increases provided by Landgate. 33 Mr G Bohan Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  Cost of living increasing  Wages are not increasing  Review new projects to reduce need for rate increases 34 Mr H Bennett Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  Review new projects to reduce need for rate increases 35 Mr M Lightfoot Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  Property values/rents have decreased  Rate increases are not aligned to the rental market or property values. Rates are calculated on either the Gross Rental Valuation or Unimproved Valuation provided by Landgate.

D19/97361 Page 6 of 10

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Submissions for Proposed Differential Rates and Minimum Payments 2019/2020

Name Address Issues Raised Officer Response

36 Mr I Tinosn Share Your Thoughts  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Property values/rents have decreased  Rate increases are not aligned to the rental market or property values. Rates are calculated on either the Gross Rental Valuation or Unimproved Valuation provided by Landgate. 37 Mr J Rocke Share Your Thought  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  Cost of living increasing  Wages are not increasing  Review new projects to reduce need for rate increases 38 Sandra Giles By email  Objection to rate increase – reduce  Noted increase  General comments not related to Differential Rates 39 Robert Fereday By email  Objection to rate increase  Noted  General comments related to State  New infrastructure is provided where Government responsibilities or charges required and is funded by a number of  Cost of living increasing sources not just rates.  Wages are not increasing  Established suburbs not benefitting from rate increases/paying for infrastructure in new suburbs. 40 Doug Hartland By email  Objection to rate increase – reduce  Noted increase  General comments not related to Differential Rates 41 H. Firby By email  Objection to rate increase – reduce  Noted increase

D19/97361 Page 7 of 10

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Submissions for Proposed Differential Rates and Minimum Payments 2019/2020

Name Address Issues Raised Officer Response

 Cost of living increasing 42 Stuart Walker By email  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  Wages are not increasing  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  Need alternative revenue sources 43 Steve Davis By email  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  New infrastructure is provided where  Cost of living increasing required and is funded by a number of  Wages are not increasing sources not just rates.  Review new projects to reduce need for rate increases  Established suburbs are not benefiting from rate increases/paying for infrastructure in new suburbs. 44 Tara Asphar By email  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Property values/rents have decreased  Rate increases are not aligned to the  Reduce unnecessary expenditure rental market or property values. Rates are calculated on either the Gross Rental Valuation or Unimproved Valuation provided by Landgate. 45 Shona Miller By email  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Cost of living increasing 46 Jarl Christian Andersen By email  General comments not related to  Noted Differential Rates 47 Nigel Seaman By email  Objection to rate increase  Noted  General comments not related to Differential Rates 48 Leanne Andrews By email  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  Wages are not increasing  Cost of living increasing

D19/97361 Page 8 of 10

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Submissions for Proposed Differential Rates and Minimum Payments 2019/2020

Name Address Issues Raised Officer Response

 General comments not related to Differential Rates 49 Roy & Christine Sprong By email  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  General comments related to State Government responsibilities or charges 50 Helen Toms By email  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Wages are not increasing  General comments not related to Differential Rates 51 Goran Prvulovic By email  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  Cost of living increasing  General comments not related to Differential Rates 52 Jason Edhouse By email  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Cost of living increasing  Need alternative revenue sources 53 Tara Gaunt By email  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Cost of living increasing 54 Dean Hird By email  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  General comments not related to Differential Rates 55 John Watts By Post  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  General comments not related to Differential Rates 56 Nigel Seaman By email  General comments not related to  Noted Differential Rates 57 Tony Stevens By email  Objection to rate increase  Noted  Wages are not increasing  Reduce unnecessary expenditure

D19/97361 Page 9 of 10

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Submissions for Proposed Differential Rates and Minimum Payments 2019/2020

Name Address Issues Raised Officer Response

58 Helen Gray By email  Objection to rate increase above CPI  Noted  Wages are not increasing  Reduce unnecessary expenditure  General comments related to State Government responsibilities or charges

D19/97361 Page 10 of 10

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020 045.2019.00042243.001 Ms R N Waretini 17 Aspera Elbow, Baldivis, WA 6171 3/06/2019 4:53:00PM There is no way rates should go up, if anything they should go down as rental and property values have dropped considerably.

045.2019.00042247.001 Ms P McGinley 2 Honeysuckle Mews, Baldivis, WA 6171 3/06/2019 6:12:00PM

I agree with rates rise of 2.6 as per councillor Whitfield motion. Currently my home is below the rental value of the minimum payment and been consistently below this for the last 3 years. I do not believe that I should be paying any more.

045.2019.00042249.001 Mrs J Cockeram 19 Oakdale Close, Safety Bay WA 6169 3/06/2019 6:20:00PM

Whilst I appreciate for Mrs Liley that fantails are a small cost to her, as a family on one income it's a massive cost. For my family you are talking about me being able to afford a reputable brand of formula vs a home brand formula. You are talking about my infant nutrition. You are taking away the little we have to splurge on an "icecream" date for you toddler. As a family who have always been in Rockingham, we love and appreciate the area. We are a one income home because I along with being a mum am also a full time nursing student. My husband spends countless hours of our precious family time volunteering for the Baldivis fire brigade where he does not get paid for the time he spends there helping the community. My husbands paid job is not increasing his pay to pay for these increases in rates and mortgage hikes. Can you please stop to think about the fantails that you can afford and think about the everyday joes who are struggling to keep a roof above their children 's heads. The city is expanding so much with the development in secret harbour and Baldivis. Surely all those extra rates are enough to keep you guys going. Please I beg please think about all the little people on average incomes with families to support

045.2019.00042251.001 Mrs C Hansord 26 Tallong Loop, Baldivis WA 6171

As an owner occupier of our current home I don't agree with you massive increase of rates. Especially considering the current economic state we live in at the moment where everyone is battling with the prices and increases as it is and you want to put further pressure in our pockets to fuel you over managed and over spendings as the lack of budgeting on your own behalf so you want us to dig into our already penniless pockets. Come on give us battlers a fair go.

045.2019.00042256.001 Mr D A Bolton 5 Porto Santo Green, Secret Harbour WA 6175 3/06/2019 7:53:00PM

I think this is not fair. Works on roads utilizing contracting companies for traffic management. I think a far better management using council staff should be used. Also the overseas trips to be stopped . Chronical to be stopped and utilized electronically. Also on weekend the cleaning of parks etc from litter busters should only take place during standard working hours. The workman spend more time in the truck than outside . An overall overhaul of Management, spending and more consultation with ratepayers before undertaking projets. Dont give control to councillors as they dont properly consult with the general public.

D19/96247 Page 1 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020 045.2019.00042258.001 Ms E J Murphy 7 Kingfisher Way, Singleton WA 6175 3/06/2019 8:53:00PM

Wages aren't increasing, house value is decreasing drastically and now you want to increase rates. The significant rate increase doesn't benefit Singleton, it leaves families like mine that are already struggling to come up with the extra money. It's sad that it's cheaper to rent, where is the incentive to buy a home in Rockingham when it's an area with the highest rates. I'm all for increasing in line with other rates etc but when Rockingham is proposing a higher rate than all you got to have a think about where they are allocating funds... mismanagement of funds and now we are suffering with a large rate increase. Not happy at all how about staggering the rate increase - ease into it don't just hit us with it.

045.2019.00042259.001 Mr. L Foulger 19 Baystone Road, Baldivis WA 6171 3/06/2019 9:04:00PM

I do not feel the rates increase of in excess of 3% is acceptable. Many things can be done to cut spending like not producing a GLOSSY full colour magazine, Black and white with some colour and less expensive paper would be far cheaper. Cut the overseas visits unless deemed absolutely essential, many of these are not essential and could easily be deferred. Cut the number of people that go on these visits. Tighten up on expenses no first class travel for starter. Max 1% payrise and only for those earning under $100k anybody on any more 0 rise. The community is hurting enough with power bill increases, lost equity etc. The council appears to never listen to public opinion and does these 'consultation' purely as lip service. Prove me wrong and listen to the community

045.2019.00042261.001 Mr J Miles 119 Kendall Boulevard, Baldivis WA 6171 3/06/2019 9:30:00PM

Stagnant wages mean many people are struggling to make ends meet! The council needs to take this into account and minimise the rate rises! Massive growth in the city should give the council plenty of money for new projects and if not we should be reviewing the timeline of these projects Kwinana council listened to the people and reviewed their rates! I'm highly encouraging Rockingham council to do the same, it might not seem like much to you guys but every cent counts in these tough times

045.2019.00042263.001 Mr J S Canvert 40 Baroness Road, Baldivis WA 6171 3/06/2019 9:52:00PM

How can you justify another increase when everyone is struggling! House and land prices are down, business is bad, economic growth is weak, we can't even put what we want in our verges! I park out the front of my own house and get regular fines for a tiny bit tire being on the footpath and now you want to increase rates again? You guys really need to reassess yourselves. It's not right.

045.2019.00042298.001 Mr K Koyd 13 Avena Garden, Baldivis WA 6171 4/06/2019 8:14:00AM

Why is the councils bank balance. More important than current tax payers. Every year there are ridiculous hikes in all service bills and yet people pay don't increase. More discussions with the local public required to come up with alternative means of raising funds instead of just increasing rates so much. Its a disgrace every year paying so much in rates for newly established suburban when old preexisting suburban is Waikiki and safety bay are low.

D19/96247 Page 2 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020 045.2019.00042320.001 Mr E S Rybak 8 Axminster Street, Warnbro WA 6169 4/06/2019 8:52:00AM

It is time that the council lives within its means. Not just increase rates willy nilly. Contract out services if its cheaper. Defer projects till money is in the bank. Like public servants ensure that pay rises for staff are kept at $1000. Police pay rises are kept to this why not council employees.

045.2019.00042348.001 Mr H S Teo 7 Brussels Circuit, Port Kennedy WA 6172

As an Aged Pensioner, I cannot see the justification of a 3.6% increase in Council Rates when the Aged Pension has not even risen One Percent ! What do I get for this 3.6% increase status quo. Port Kennedy is neglected in most of your City Planning spending schemes with all my rates being spent in Rockingham City. How about reviewing.

Council expenditure? What kind of POSH cars do the CEO and other executives drive around? A Toyota Camry or something similar can do the job of a Holden Statement!! Why do Councillors get an allowance of nearly $1000 (maybe more) for "Communication" when they use their mobile devices for personal use too. Am I paying for their internet data usage??? I am aware that Council workers are going to ask for salary increases as the Cost of Living increases but don' t forget Aged Pensioners get NO increases in pensions as the cost of living increases. The Council should not add to our burden. I can add on, but I have picked on only certain ones where I seriously feel the Council can shave costs so as NOT to increase Council Rates on the people of living in the City of Rockingham. Thank you.

045.2019.00042366.001 Mr H S Teo 7 Brussels Circuit, Port Kennedy WA 6172 4/06/2019 9:35:00AM

My question is WHY must the increase of rates be 3.6% which is WELL OVER the current Australian inflation rate of 1.3%. “The annual inflation rate in Australia fell to 1.3 percent in the first quarter 2019 from 1.8 percent in the previous period and missing market expectations of 1.5 percent. It was the lowest inflation rate since the third quarter 2016, amid a slowdown in petrol and housing prices." The Council' s suggested increase is almost TRIPLE the ongoing inflation rate .

045.2019.00042381.001 Ms R Hamilton 22 Parkland Drive WARNBRO WA 6169 4/06/2019 9:40:00AM

Considering the lack of wage increases for the general public (Non government) and the rise of COL I do not understand why the local government for Rockingham needs a 3.6% rates increase. There is no need for it, perhaps you could find the money you are looking for in other areas such as EL salaries instead of taking from the people you represent. I really think rate increases need to be regulated, cut your unnecessary spending before you create civil unrest.

D19/96247 Page 3 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020 045.2019.00042736.001 Mrs D Park 24 Kirkbride Meander, Waikiki WA 6169 4/06/2019 6:22:00PM

With the cost of living, increased utility bills, road tax, insurances etc people are really struggling. The amount of outstanding rates owed to C of R is proof in itself that people can't afford any increase. 2.5% would still give you plenty of capital. You have to take control of budgets when using ratepayer funds . The foreshore budget has gone way over the initial predicted budget. Perhaps look at cost cuttings within council, we don' t want it or need the Chronicle in its glossy format delivered by Aus post wrapped in plastic !!! Hundreds of thousands of dollars just thrown in recycling bin and costing us money to get rid of. You really have to wake up Councillors listen to the residents and stop working to your own personal agendas.

045.2019.00042737.001 Mrs S A Van De Griendt 12 McCormick Street, Warnbro WA 6169 4/06/2019 6:52:00PM

I think there should be a rate freeze and Government workers should step into the real world where you work overtime and don't get paid, your pay doesn't increase in five years and you have to work 10 to 12 days/fortnight and you get less than 10% in Super. Until things change no increase especially as house value is at it's lowest. Wake up for God's sake.

045.2019.00042738.001 Mrs A Steenkamp 23 Champlain Road, Secret Harbour WA 6173 4/06/2019 6:58:00PM

Don't agree with the rate increase. Several increases received this year & last with regards to utilities (gas/elec & water). Rate above inflation and both myself & hubby have had no increases at work during the last 2yrs. No recent updates/maintenance in our area. Understand there has to be increases, but keep it at inflation rate.

045.2019.00042745.001 Mr M P Hams 4 Agave Turn, Baldivis WA 6171 4/06/2019 8:13:00PM

I have not seen any direct return on the increased rates that I continue to pay over the past several decades. I do not support the excessive amount proposed for the rates increase. I have not for years received such a massive pay rise despite obscenely excessive rate rises of which I have not benefited or seen any return on my investment (Rates paid by me). Keep increasing Rates like this and I won't have any more money left to give. Seeing wastage like the resurfacing of Baldivis Road and the roundabout at Safety Bay and Baldivis Roads are a clear example why Rates don't need to go up further. All that is required is better decision and planning needed before the continued wastage of my monies paid.

045.2019.00042747.001 Mr S I Walker 7 Heaton Way, Safety Bay WA 6169 4/06/2019 9:12:00PM

The proposed rate rise of 3.6% is completely out of line with the current economy. It's hard enough keeping up with 1.7% inflation each year (when you haven't had a wage increase in 5 years) let alone this absolute kick in the guts from your local council. Pull you heads in and find another way to raise funds or cut spending because this is getting ridiculous. Every damn year rates are raised out of line with what is happening in the local economy. Use your brains and stop asking the ratepayers to pay for your mismanagement. Can't wait for the next council elections.

D19/96247 Page 4 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020 045.2019.00042748.001 Ms E C Bray 42 Athens Entrance, Port Kennedy WA 6172 4/06/2019 9:33:00PM

I am concerned by the proposed rate increase. Living in Port Kennedy our rates are extremely high (especially compared to rockingham and surrounds). We see little benefit to our specific area yet seem to always being paying for it??

045.2019.00042843.001 Mrs M A Farrell 6A First Avenue, Shoalwater WA 6169 5/06/2019 9:43:00AM

The recent rise discussed at the council meeting is unacceptable to the rate payers. Our City has one of the highest rates in WA and there is a slump in wages and people are finding it hard to cope as it is. It would be far better if councillors realized the fact that rate payers are doing it tough, therefore council should reign in spending, especially when it comes to travel and parties etc. There have been consistent higher rises for the past few years.

045.2019.00042907.001 Ms D A Cox 14 Triton Avenue, Waikiki WA 6169 5/06/2019 11:08:00AM

I do not agree with this at this time of financial tightness esp in wa it would be an added expense to already stretched households.

045.2019.00042948.001 Mrs T M Janczyk 11 Caracas Close, Safety Bay WA 6169 5/06/2019 11:40:00AM

I do not think that the council can justify to the rate payers that a 3.6% increase is required. I have drainage issues in front of my house that will not be addressed by the City and many other amenities and facilities are not maintained with our rate money. I agree with Councillor Whitfield that there are other ways to cut Council spending to alleviate the cost to rate payers. Housing prices are at all time lows and higher rates do not encourage buyers to the area.

045.2019.00043128.001 Mrs P Fereday 15 Eiffel Crescent, Port Kennedy WA 6172 5/06/2019 6:04:00PM

This rate increase will hurt the health of my family. We already pay $1931 over the year in monthly installments which together with all the other bills and loan repayments puts us on a very tight budget. As a family of 4 on 1 income and a mortgage to pay, this will increase our already significant financial stress and will result in us having to rethink things such as private health insurance, extracurricular sport and other activities, family outings and spending locally. I know my concerns are not just felt by myself. Working closely in the community with families, I know many people are feeling the stress of unemployment and tight finances. My husband lost his job nearly 6 years ago and as a well educated man of 10yrs university has not been able to secure any work due to the poor employment opportunities throughout Perth. So, while it may be less than $100 per annum increase, that is $100 we just don't have when everything else is already so tightly budgeted. I do not feel comforted by my roads being occasionally swept, toddler playgrounds being built when my own children are too old for these or a pretty foreshore area to visit when they are the cause of my daily headache!! I just want my local council to support my community and show some understanding in these tough times!

D19/96247 Page 5 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020 045.2019.00043141.001 Anonymous for CRM - C/-City of Rockingham Civic Boulevard 6/06/2019 5:46:00AM ROCKINGHAM WA 6168

so the poor who can only afford a small modest home , have to pay the same as someone with a larger and more valueable property. (Minimum values) I think this is an exercise in money grabbing from the poorer members of our community. Give them a break from this stupid idea that we need to make the City bigger and better than inner Perth. In these times of economic downturn and unseen land/house valuations, cut back on some of the grandious plans that are being dreampt up by bored staff. A bit like spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for fancy signs around the City that no one really wants or needs.

Mr W B Hill 18 Port Royal Drive, Safety Bay WA 6169 6/06/2019 11:18:00AM 045.2019.00043313.001

We keep paying our rates, over 30 years in safety bay, and have seen very little improvement to our water front! No swing up grades, no skate parks like Mandurah, Scarborough, Capel, Busselton, Bunbury, Margaret Ruver and many other cities and towns have put in. Our council would rather spend $1000s on wasted tax payers money travelling to Japan's! Why not fix our boat ramps; remove rotting seaweed, up grade our parks in safety bay and Rockingham I and not just Baldivis or Secret Harbour? Way too far to travel for local residents close to our beaches! We just do t see where our very expensive rates are spent near by us ?

045.2019.00043442.001 Mr C R Essery 20 Darlie Street, Hillman WA 6168 6/06/2019 2:38:00PM

Strike a balance on the rate increase to 2.6 per cent .The current economic climate faced by ratepayers has not been taken into account as to all the people in the city finding it very hard at the moment,I think this year the council needs to show some common sense in this matter and take a note out of City of Kwinana that listened to feedback from the community and reduced there rates.So come on City of Rockingham do the same.

045.2019.00043489.001 Mr N Pretorius 13 Hilda Road, Waikiki WA 6169 6/06/2019 4:48:00PM

I object to the rates as suggested, as the council don't spend money it collects correctly but wants to get more revenue to misallocate to poorly thought out plans such as the waterfront debacle which could've been used to market Rockingham but instead you changed it into a school playground with lots of maintenance... If plans are better thought through and adds to the city then we can rethink this. Thank you

045.2019.00043881.001 Mrs D A Devlin 115 Grand Ocean Boulevard, Port Kennedy WA 6172 7/06/2019 6:28:00PM

The proposed rate increase is too high. House values are down, so are wages and people are doing it hard. As a Port Kennedy resident I don't feel we are getting value for our money, as our area seems to be forgotten

D19/96247 Page 6 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020 045.2019.00043906.001 Mrs L F Cranch 19 Royce Street, Singleton WA 6175 8/06/2019 11:29:00AM

Ratepayers have suffered increases in rates for many consecutive years . I would think that a very large portion of funds is expended providing sporting and community facilities throughout the city. As we are an aging city a lot of that has already been done. However in newer suburbs these are still required. My thought is that the Developers of these new estates should be required to provide these facilities or at least contribute a very large proportion of them. Yes this would make the land in that estate more expensive BUT it would put the cost where it belongs - on the users of said facilities. Most other ratepayers don't go out of their area to use community or sporting facilities. This would lessen the burden on the council and flow on to ratepayers. Please consider.

045.2019.00043949.001 Mr D Rogers 37 Tamworth Boulevard, Baldivis WA 6171 9/06/2019 11:24:00AM

Bearing in mind the financial pressure on households and increases in utilities bills announced in the state budget to come inflation consistently below 2%, a rate increase of 2.5% would be more reasonable, or is the 3.6% to make up for the shortfall from residents in arrears or declaring bankruptcy?

045.2019.00044350.001 Mr C N Allen 56 Rivergums Boulevard, Baldivis WA 5171 10/06/2019 4:17:00PM

In this economical climate, businesses closing, Rockingham-Baldivis, house prices falling and state charges increasing, the cost of living is putting pressure on everybody, and the phrase, we all have to tighten our belts, seems very appropriate, in my opinion the council should take a sympathetic view in their rate proposal increases, it should be more in line with the CPI, and put on hold some of the future major infrastructure on hold, and tighten their belts, the rate payers of Rockingham would be more appreciative of this action by the council and would not worry about the future plans being placed on hold.

045.2019.00039885.001 Mr G Bohan 98 Bancoura Parkway, Secret Harbour WA 6173 31/05/2019 11:42 AM

These proposals when combined may equate to a very significant increase in Rates which I understand is likely for 19/20. This is not acceptable in the current climate of cost of living increases and wage stagnation. You should be seeking comments about shifting some initiatives to the right to allow for a lower adjustment to rates to allow people to adjust. The currently proposed Rate increase would be overwhelmingly rejected if you sought public feedback (not hidden within council meeting agenda items).

045.2019.00045788.001 Mr H Bennett 31 Wavelea Street Safety, WA 6169 14/06/2019 12:14 PM

I do not support these ongoing rate hikes. Work with the money you have and revisit your capital and project expenditure and reduce the number of big projects. Rockingham is a lower socioeconomic area these continued rises well above CPI simply aren't necessary.

D19/96247 Page 7 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020 045.2019.00045930.001 Mr M Lightfoot 19 Flametree Loop, Baldivis WA 5175 16/06/2019 4:59 PM

Can you tell me if the proposed rate increase is above CPI, if so why? Also as my house value has significantly dropped in Value (partly due to the number of new builds approved by you) does this mean that our rateable value will decrease?

045.2019.00047569.001 Mr I Tinosn 205 Secret Harbour Boulevard, Secret Harbour WA 6173 18/06/2019-1:26 PM

Received via website. LA in the last 5 years my house price has dropped approx... 10-20percent, rental prices have stayed the same or lowered, how can rates increase again this year when everyone is struggling with this economy.

045.2019.00047728.001 Mr J Rocke 2 Kirkwall Close, Warnbro WA 6169 20/06/2019-5:12 PM

The impending rate rise by the City of Rockingham has once again shown a misstep by the councillors, who are representing the rate payers. In a time of high unemployment and zero wages growth, any rise over CPI is totally unjustifiable. It is understood that the city needs to move forward with capital projects and other developments but at this time of the economy cycle and the lack of money available within the community, the council should be ashamed to heap additional costs onto the constituents. There is not additional money available in the average household! Stop wasting money on projects that are not needed – what about the # million spent on the cycle path from Warnbro train station to Baldivis (used by about 3 people a week)., the ridiculous changes installed at the Safety Bay Road/Warnbro Sound Avenue intersection, (dangerous and ineffective). Start focussing on value added projects (Marina) and encouraging business and tourism to the area and leave the rate payers alone!.

045.2019.00043527.0001 Sandra Giles 10 Barossa Approach, Rockingham WA 6168 06/06/2019-5:56 PM

I read in the sound telegraph newspaper where there was a debate re: 3.6% rise compared to 2.6% put forward by Councillor Matt Whitfield. I strongly object to the higher rate considering the mess that has been made on our perfectly fine Rockingham foreshore. People I have spoken to have been outraged at the money being ploughed into this project. Digging up lawn to replace it with paving is ludicrous and the lack of parking that has always been a sore spot now is going to almost non-existent. The poor restaurants that have been trying to exist down there whilst the mess continues is disgraceful. So how, you want the struggling people or Rockingham to dig into their pockets to pay for this by slugging us (and I’m a pensioner) for 3.6% rise in our rates…. Be aware when next your constituents vole for their Councilors…Matthew Whitfield is the only sure winner.

045.2019.00043219.0001 Robert Fereday 19 Eiffel Crescent Port Kennedy WA 6169 05/06.2019-7:30 PM

As Rockingham (Port Kennedy) resident and rate payer, I strongly protest the proposed rate increase of 3.6% In the last decade I have seen my rates double, annual vehicle license triple and property reduce in value. I don’t want to mention electricity and gas prices. I am highly educated engineer who has been retrenched on 3 occasions during this time and have been unable to find work in my profession for the past six years, and receive no assistance or support from centrelink.

D19/96247 Page 8 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020

My wife is now the sole provider for myself and two primary school age children. Our finances are under ongoing and continued pressure, and our marriage is under significant strain which is not helped by the relentless increases in daily living expenses.

At a time of increasing unemployment, flat wage growth, decreasing property values and zero inflation, it is unreasonable to increase rates, and the decision demonstrates that councilors are ‘out of touch’ with the local community and WA economy.

As Port Kennedy residents we have seen no additional benefits to services in our area that justify rate increases. Indeed, it would appear that we are funding projects in other areas such as the Rockingham foreshore development which in the opinion of many residents was not needed.

045.2019.00042345.001 Doug Harland 9 Bibanup Court, Hillman WA 6168 05/06/2019-11:13 AM

Can I please have an order signed by the high court of Australia stating we have to pay rates under the freedom of information

045.2019.00042347.001 Doug Harland 9 Bibanup Court, Hillman WA 6168 04/06/2019-9:31 AM

Something Governments and Council to thin about…. Magna Carta, or “Great Charter”, signed by the King of England in 1215, was a turning point in human rights… Among them was the right of the church to be free from governmental interference, the rights of all free citizens to own and inherit property and to be protected from excessive taxes.

045.2019.0000000.001 Doug Harland 9 Bibanup Court, Hillman WA 6168 04/06/2019-9:14 AM

I can understand rates need to increase but a 3.6% rise is a bit steep especially with the economy the way it is. Don’t increase by 3.6% but 2.6% instead. There is a homeless problem in our city and families are struggling to pay bills as it is. Also don’t take our tip passes away or cut them down. For the last 5 years rates have increased and for what? Also I think we the constituants need to vote for our Mayor.

045.2019.00042823.001 Helen Firby 19 Limoges Elbow, Port Kennedy WA 6172 05/06/20199:37 AM

The proposed 3.6% is too high. With other costs continually rising families can’t afford this!!!! We understand a rise is needed but perhaps 2 – 2.5% would cause less hardship. Quoting figures to people living pay check to pay check does not mean anything apart from we have less to feed/clothe our families.

D19/96247 Page 9 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020 045.2019.00042776.001 Stuart Walker 7 Heaton Way, Safety Bay, WA 6169 04/06/2019-9:25 PM

The proposed rate rise of 3.6% is completely out of line with the current economy. It’s hard enough keeping us with 1.7% inflation each year (when you haven’t had a wage increase in 5 years) let alone this absolute kick in the guts from your local council. Pull your heads in and find another way to raise funds or cut spending because this is getting ridiculous. Every damn year rates are raised out of line with what is happening in the local economy. Use your brains and stop asking the ratepayers to pay for your mismanagement. Can’t wait for the next council elections.

045.2019.00042768.001 Steve & Kay Davis 186 Kent Street, Rockingham WA 6168 04/06/2019-4:46 PM

A 3.6% hike in residential rates eh? This on top of the over the top increases for every year since 2014 when we moved to Rockingham. You guys have got to be joking? This increase is significantly more than CPI… again, I can’t believe that the excuse being proffered is that it is in accordance with the 10 year plan. Well out there in the real world, we have plans too. Our plan is reviewed regularly and adjusted accordingly depending on our employment status, financial situation and anyone of a number of life changing matters. We don’t have the luxury of extracting more from a captive audience like gov’t institutions but we start make savings from our expenses. This is what we expect not to continually hike rates without taking into consideration current economic circumstances.

Its no secret that its tough out there. Together with my workmates, we have just signed off on a 2 year EBA with no wage increases. This is on top of no wage increase for the last 2 years, yet we are expected to cope with cost of living expenses. This is on top of no wage increase for the last 2 years, yet we are expected to cope with cost of living increases and subsequent falls in standard of living. And I don’t get the argument that’s its “only” about 60 bucks extra per annum when we have to forgo something or find savings.

I have heard the argument that extra money is required to fund infrastructure in the fast growing areas of Rockingham City. Why is it those of us in the older house and more established areas are expected to contribute over and above for new areas short on infrastructure? Maybe it about time the people who choose to live in the area or / and developers contribute more in this respect so the additional burgen doesn’t fall on ratepayers.

What really annoys me is those councillors that were elected on a lower rates platform. I note only one councillor objected to the proposed rate increase whilst the others like sheep have fallen into line. Well we will see how that pans out with the council elections later this year. The anger out there in ratepayer land is palpable and hopefully some if not all will be looking for something new to do post council elections.

045.2019.00042386.001 Tara Asphar 16 Chalmers Avenue, Waikiki WA 6169 03/06/2019-8:07 PM

If the rates are based on rental income and rental income has gone down, why are the rates going up?? By 3.6 percent! That’s huge! For the second year running. We are Rockingham not Peppermint Grove. The council need to think about the people that live here and stop spending money we don’t have just because they want it.

D19/96247 Page 10 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020 045.2019.00042315.001 Shona Miller 10 Indee Pass, Secret Harbour WA 6173 03/06/2019-9:38 AM

I am writing to you against your decision for rate rises as I for one struggle as a working single mother who gets no benefits from being single ie (sports funding for kids, no health card, no school funding) as I choose to work. I own my home and the bills are so high now for ancillaries that it’s not worth the work I do to keep going. Please consider this in your decision making that not all home owners have two wages coming in.

045.2019.00042305.001 Jarl Andersen 19 Mckenzie Road, Shoalwater WA 6169 02/06/2019-8:44 PM

As I don’t really understand how the GRV is calculated, or exactly what it is, other than perhaps a set evaluation of my property which if that is the case, is unbeknown to me. On this basis I cannot determine whether or not I agree with it. I am told it is fairer and perhaps it is, I understand the minimum is set at $1200.00 and kind of understand tht every dollar above that is calculated using the GRV (whatever it is?) at $0.0726 in the dollar. I do have an idea of what my property might be worth, but have no idea it it aligns with evaluations by local government of the bank for that matter. I live in Shoalwater on a quarter acre block, 500m from the beach and perhaps I pay more in differential rate than someone who lives in Hillman, because the GRV for my property is evaluated higher? But the services I receive from the City of Rockingham are no more or less than for someone who lives in Hillman, so why is it fair that I pay more? In ract, I don’t know if it is the case, it is just an example of my poor understanding. In any case, I am not against paying rate, I understand there is no free lunch and running the business of council for the benefit of the collective, we all have to chip in. I trust the City of Rockingham manages the council economy responsibly.

045.2019.00042277.01 Nigel Seaman 5 Ortona Crescent, Secret Harbour WA 6173 01/06/2019-12:29 PM

“At its meeting on 28 May 2019, Council adopted the following proposed rates and the City is now seeking a statement of objects and reasons for the proposal” This looks rather like putting the cart before the horse.

Did none of the Councillors ever receive pocket money when they were young? You chose your lollies according to the contents of your pocket, not vice versa. The council should not just keep increasing rates to feed their delusions of grandeur and tailor their projects to the depths of their pocket. To raise rates in the face of falling interest rates is unfair to those who are dependent on their investments which are already “deemed” greater than they are.

It is not clear why the rates are being increased to cover loss of income in other areas.

In 10 years, Secret harbour has received no City development other than the ill-conceived architectural masterpiece SHSLC building with its unleased “restaurant” and unjustified meeting rooms (for whom). Who carries the unjustified cost of this edifice?

D19/96247 Page 11 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020

045.2019.00041547.01 Leanne Andrews 37 Lombadina Parade, Secret Harbour WA 6173 30/05/2019-9:48 AM

I wish to raise my serious concerns regarding the proposed rate rise in Rockingham – this is double the rate of inflation, and is completely unjustified. The cost of living is soaring, wages are decreasing and houses prices have plummeted. Kwinana agreed to raise by 2.5% what makes Rockingham more? I am also, again, extremely concerned by the fact that we only have one councillor who seeks the good of the community – Councillor Matt Whitfiled, who was unanimously defeated against the decision – 8-1.

We, as a country, nation, state and council are already struggling with debt, mental health etc – this is only going to add to the stress for households. I look forward to hearing from you.

045.2019.00041551.01 Roy and Christine Sprong 6 Mikonos Mews, Secret Harbour WA 6173 30/05/2019-10:19 AM

My husband and I are both pensioners and any rate rise is going to make things very difficult for us. Especially when the rate rise is above the rate of inflation. It would seem we pay more now and receive less from the time we moved into Secret Harbour 23 years ago. It has become a dangerous place to live in and if you are going to increase the rates for goodness sake build a police station in Secret Harbour

045.2019.00041622.01 Helen Toms 10 Pastrana Crescent, Port Kennedy WA 6172 30/05/2019-12:15 PM

I think it’s disgusting that you are putting up the Rates people are just living as it is. Wages don’t go up but you keep doing it. I think it is time you stopped having parties at our expense and the trip overseas put that money to the things you need to do. It’s very sorry state of affairs when you can’t do the right things bye rate payers. Just remember we put you there.

045.2019.00041634.01 Goran Prvulovic 64 Turtles Bend, Secret Harbour WA 6173 30/05/2019-12:31 PM

I hereby raise my concerns over the latest proposal to raise rate raise in Rockingham shire. This is not in line with the current inflation rate, social status or difficulties ordinary people are still experiencing as a result of mining downturn. There are many families, an increased amount in fact, which are struggling to make ends meet, I hereby ask the councillors to walk away from the fancy offices and walk their streets, speak to people and take notes as to how many home owners will be pro and how many against.

Council decision to even consider the raise again is yet again ignorant of social impact these completely unnecessary decisions are making on ordinary people. This decision will further widen the gap between thee councils and ratepayers in a situation most people are already convinced that the council has completely removed itself from reality.

May I remind the members of the council that their primary role is to look after the interests of its ratepayers and one of those is to be mindful and observant of the economic climate and rate of unemployment and low salaries in community. And what services exactly does the council provide to an average rate payer to even justify current rates?

D19/96247 Page 12 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020 045.2019.00041545.01 Jason Edhouse 15 Bristlebird Approach, Baldivis WA 6171 30/05/2019-9:55 AM

I am very disappointed to hear that you are putting rates up again.

Isn’t it time you looked at how much the Mayor and all his cronies are getting paid?? We are a single income family and no amount of rate smoothing is going to help us out when it comes to paying all the bills and putting food on the table. Sure the Council could derive income from Advertising or other methods. This yearly increase has to stop thou as it is hitting everyone in the hip pocket. Thanks for your time.

045.2019.00041515 Tara Gaunt 8 Dundee Close, Warnbro WA 6169 29/05/2019-10:43 PM

Please please please do not raise the Council rates. I am a single mother of two working 4 days a week and studying part time and I really cant afford it. I don’t buy anything for myself if its not secondhand and that’s not frequent. I am finding it hard to find $50 to get a birth certificate for my children to start applying for schools. The cost of living is rising and my pay hasn’t increased in years. Please find a better way for Rockingham residents.

045.2019.00041137.01 Dean Hird 14 Warne Road, Baldivis WA 6171 28/05/2019-9:49 PM

Please advise why the city of Rockingham keeps increasing the annual rates when the national rate of inflation keeps reducing. Also please advise how rate payers can secure a controlling influence in this determination where the city of Rockingham councillors and CEO have no choice but to follow the rate payers direction.

045.2019.00044912.01 John Watts 236 Safety Bay Road, Safety Bay WA 6169 06/06/2019

I thought I would forward a few comments regarding recent publications being issued by your Council. Firstly you required comment on your intended rate increase for the year end June 30, 2020. Naturally no one other than yourself and the majority of councillors are in favour of a 3.6% increase in council rates and it will be interesting to examine your Councils financial statements after they are presented at year end. If there are large cash balances reported then there will be need to bring this to the attention of ratepayers through the news media. As you are aware the increase of 3.6% is above inflation and ratepayers who have been absolutely screwed by rate increases over several years couldn't be impressed by the current intended rate rise.

Secondly your Councils recent stupidity regarding ratepayers who beautify their verge areas and the front areas of their properties with false lawn. The Council should be ashamed of areas throughout the council where weeds are allowed to grow to a couple of feet in height in verge areas which are the responsibility of the council. Should the council wish to attempt to prosecute anyone who has gone to substantial expense to beautify their residence by utilising false lawns there are paths to be followed by ratepayers. The first would be to go to court on the issue and where ratepayers have e-mails from council employees prior to allowing them to carry out the work it will be interesting to see how the courts view the issue. Secondly ratepayers who over the years have gone to the expense of grassing verge areas, watering, fertilising, mowing and edging the area which is the responsibility of council they can easily cut the water off these areas and stop looking after the area and so place the responsibility back on council so making the area look fairly ordinary.

D19/96247 Page 13 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020

The third issue for comment is the wishes of council to promote tourism in the area. This really is of no financial interest to the average ratepayer of the area, but the following comments are issued. Firstly attempt to carry out some work by replacing smashed and damaged footpaths and cycleways. Secondly areas where the Waikiki motel was how can this be left as a mess for so long. Why haven't developers been given a timetable on the development of this. Why in the middle of Safety Bay has the property which was recently vacated by Glenway been allowed to deteriorate to the state it is in. Why opposite IGA in Rockingham has the fuel station site not either been developed or knocked over. Why do caravan park and other areas of accommodation get demolished and nothing happen on these sites for years.

For your comments please. Thankfully council elections are coming up shortly and some changes may be made for the better as the average comment by ratepayers is treated with complete disregard. It may be wise to have some progressive thinking ratepayers on a committee to give your council some ideas how to improve things as it is obvious it is needed.

For your comments please.

Nigel Seaman 5 Ortona Crescent, Secret Harbour WA 6173 14/06/2019-4:11 PM 045.2019.00045919.001

Clarification is required as to whether the stated “minimum payment” for rates chargeable on residential properties is subject to discount for Seniors and/or Concession Cards.

I assume that the discounts will still apply and therefore the “minimum payment” should be qualified by a statement to this effect.

045.2019.000045770.001 Tony Stevens 49 Eldon Street, Shoalwater WA 6169 13/06/2019

I am writing to you about the increases in the council rates.

Over the past three years my wages have been steadily decreasing, at present I am earning about 40% less than I was three to four years ago. Last year for the first time I had to pay our council rates in instalments. It appears that I am not alone in this present situation of low wages. I would appreciate if you could look at decreasing our council rates by cutting back on some expenditure as a lot of Rockingham residents are having to do.

045.2019.00047452 Helen Gray 3/10 Bayview Street, Rockingham WA 6168 20/06/2019-11:00 AM

I am writing advise of my opposition to the proposed rate increase of 3.6%. Rates should not be increased for the 2019/2020 financial year and rates should never be increased above CPI.

Rates have been substantially increased in recent years, well in excess of CPI. Ratepayers have also had very large increases for power, gas, water and vehicle registration to name but a few.

D19/96247 Page 14 of 15

Attachment to CS-010/19 (Council Minutes) Share Your Thoughts for Notice of Differential Rates 2019/2020 A lot of ratepayers have not had pay increases for a long time. Pensioners and self-funded retirees have had no increase and in a lot of cases have had income reduced as income from investments has been reduced.

I appreciate the works that Council are doing in the area, however, spending needs to be controlled. Council needs to responsibly budget, not keep increasing rates to fund projects.

We budget our household costs based on income, which has not increased for over 5 years. There are many things we would like to spend money on, however we prioritise based on money we have in the bank.

Council need to act responsibly and take into account the excessive rates imposed in the past. Rates for the coming year should not be increased. At no time should rates increase beyond CPI.

D19/96247 Page 15 of 15