Council Minutesminutes

CouncilCouncil MinutesMinutes

2525 MARCHMARCH 20032003

MEETING OF COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 INDEX OF MINUTES

1. Declaration of Opening/Announcement of Visitors...... 1

2. Record of Attendance/Apologies/Leave of Absence...... 1

3. Questions from Elected Members of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion) ...... 1

4. Public Question Time ...... 1

5. Applications for Leave of Absence ...... 4

6. Petitions/Deputations/Presentations ...... 4

7. Confirmation of Minutes...... 4

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion...... 5

9. Committee Reports...... 5

Technical Services Committee ...... 6

TS03.15 Travelsmart Project – Interim Report...... 8 TS03.16 Road Asset Management and Road Resurfacing Program...... 13 TS03.17 Footpaths – Five Year Program...... 22 TS03.18 Selby Street – Construction of a New Footpath...... 28 TS03.19 Empire Avenue – Construction of a New Footpath...... 31 TS03.20 Cambridge Street – Near Jersey Street – Relocation of Bus Shelter ...... 34 TS03.21 Woolwich Street – Kerbside Parking ...... 37 TS03.22 McCourt Street – Kerbside Parking ...... 40 TS03.23 Connolly Street – Kerbside Parking...... 43 TS03.24 Cambridge Street – Kerbside Parking ...... 46 TS03.25 Harrogate Street – Kerbside Parking...... 49 TS03.26 Abbotsford Street – Kerbside Parking ...... 51 TS03.27 Railway Parade – Kerbside Parking ...... 54 TS03.28 Floreat Avenue Landscape Plan – Public Comment ...... 57 TS03.29 Water Strategy – Park Irrigation Compliance ...... 60 TS03.30 Street Trees Policy 4.1.5 – Review...... 65 TS03.31 Coastal Vegetation Management Plan – Grant Application...... 68

Policy and Administration Committee ...... 71

PA03.02 Areas “F” and “G”, Mount Claremont and Former Nursery Site, 73 Salvado Road, Jolimont: Approaches by Hon Minister for Planning and Infrastructure PA03.07 Compliance Audit Return for Local Government – 2002 Program 83 PA03.08 City of Gosnells: Lots 1767 and 1768 Furley Road, Southern River 86 PA03.09 Strategic Plan 2003 to 2008: Appointment of Facilitator 87 PA03.10 Inaugural International Union of Local Authorities Congress 92

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\A Council Front.doc i COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Corporate and Customer Services Committee ...... 95

CCS03.07 Quarry Amphitheatre – Noise Restrictions ...... 97 CCS03.16 Accounts for Payment...... 105 CCS03.17 Investment Schedule...... 106 CCS03.18 Monthly Financial Statements...... 107 CCS03.19 Documents Sealed...... 108 CCS03.20 Investment Strategy...... 110 CCS03.21 Policy – Provision and Accessibility of Council Services for People with Disabilities, Their Families and Carers...... 114 CCS03.22 Disability Services Advisory Committee – Minutes...... 118 CCS03.23 Graffiti Program...... 120 CCS03.24 Beach Users Working Group – Minutes ...... 122 CCS03.25 Dedication of Mitchell Freeway...... 123 CCS03.26 Demolition of Shop at No. 90 Cambridge Street (Pt Lot 91) Leederville ...... 125 CCS03.27 Wembley Golf Complex – Proposed Lease of Telecommunication Site...... 129 CCS03.28 Wembley Golf Complex – Pro Shop Lease Extension ...... 134

Development and Environmental Services Committee...... 139

DES03.19 Southport Street Planning Study ...... 141 DES03.22 Pt Lots 91 and 92 (No. 154) Cambridge Street, West Leederville – Proposed Change of Non-Conforming Use (Office to Consulting Room) – Consideration of Appeal Mediation ...... 149 DES03.23 Lot 3 (No. 5) Station Street, Wembley – Radiology Centre ...... 153 DES03.24 Lot 61 (No. 29) Joseph Street, West Leederville – Proposed Grouped Dwelling Development Comprising Two, Two Storey Dwellings ...... 160 DES03.25 Lot 101 (No. 96) Marlow Street, Corner Herdsman Parade, Wembley – Proposed Grouped Dwelling Development (Two Single Storey Dwellings)...... 165 DES03.26 Lot 247 (No. 3) Baramba Road, City Beach – Proposed Second Storey Addition and Alterations to an Existing Single Storey Dwelling with Undercroft ...... 170 DES03.27 Lot 280 (No.50) Tilton Terrace, City Beach – Proposed Second Storey Addition and Alterations to an Existing Single Storey Dwelling with Undercroft ...... 175 DES03.28 Lot 41 (No. 39) Windarra Drive, City Beach – Proposed Fencing in Front Setback Area...... 179 DES03.29 Lot 8 (No. 15) Coldstream Street, West Leederville – Front Fence...... 182 DES03.30 Lot 256 (No. 683) Hay Street, Jolimont – Front Fence ...... 185 DES03.31 Lot 154 (No. 31) Tilton Terrace, City Beach – Front Fence...... 189 DES03.32 Lot 1722 (No. 68) Herdsman Parade, Wembley – Front Fence ...... 192 DES03.33 Lot 2 (No. 11) Warri Road, City Beach – Alterations and Additions to an Existing Dwelling Including Enclosure of Carport ...... 195 DES03.34 Noise – Automatic Pool Cleaners ...... 199 DES03.35 Subiaco Redevelopment Authority – Omnibus Amendment No.2 ...... 203 DES03.36 Town Planning Scheme No. 1 – Amendment No. 5 – Rezoning of Lot 16 (No. 364) Cambridge Street, Wembley...... 205 DES03.37 Delegated Decisions and Notifications ...... 208 DES03.38 Building Licences Approved Under Delegated Authority ...... 211

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\A Council Front.doc ii COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

10. Elected Members Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given ...... 214

11. Representation on Statutory Authorities and Public Bodies ...... 214

12. Late Items...... 214

13. Confidential Items...... 214

13.1 DES03.39 Proposed Environmental Protection Act Prosecution ...... 214

13.2 DES03.40 67 Ruislip Street, West Leederville - Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Prosecution and Notice...... 216

14. Closure...... 222

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\A Council Front.doc iii

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2003.

1. PRAYER, DECLARATION OF OPENING AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

His Worship the Mayor took the Chair and the prayer was read by the Chief Executive Officer. The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.03 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present:

Mayor: Ross Willcock

Councillors: Marlene Anderton (In at 6.04 pm) Graham Burkett Alan Langer Corinne MacRae (In at 6.05 pm) Ken McAullay Pauline O’Connor JP Hilary Pinerua Kerry Smith

Officers: Graham D Partridge, Chief Executive Officer Jason Buckley, Executive Manager Corporate and Customer Services Chris Colyer, Executive Manager Technical Services Ian Birch, Executive Manager Development and Environmental Services Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer

Apologies:

Nil

Leave of Absence:

Nil

3. QUESTIONS FROM ELECTED MEMBERS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION)

Nil

4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Mrs Stella Hondros, 254 Salvado Road, Floreat Re: Request to Cease Programmed Kerb and Footpath Roundup Spraying

“After going for a walk from my home to Henderson Park on Fri Nov 8th 2002 at about 5.00pm, I didn’t make it back home as I had a severe reaction which left collapsed on the streets verge grass in tachycardia (fast, irregular heartbeat) which required emergency treatment, general anaesthesia and cardioversion (electric shock to the heart) at Charles Gairdner Hospital. Fortunately someone saw your spray truck at about 2.00pm on Friday 8th Nov 2002 between my home and Henderson park and mentioned this to me a

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\A Council Front.doc 1 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

couple of days later. After I rang Council and got spray dates, I realised that this type of event has happened before associated with chemical exposure presumably ROUNDUP GLYPHOSATE. EXAMPLE: Council sprayed between 28th May and 9th June 2002. I had a tachycardia attack on 12th June which nearly killed me as the heart stopped altogether in Emergency Ward. I now have some brain damage, plus general unwellness and chronic fatigue.”

Administration Response:

In preparing a response to Mrs Hondros, the following history and background is relevant as this issue has been the subject of extensive investigation, discussion and correspondence since November 2002.

First letter from Mrs Hondros dated 12 November 2002, was received by Council on 18 November 2002. • Copy of Mrs Hondros letter dated 12 November 2002, which was sent to Councillor O’Connor with covering letter dated 21 November 2002 was forwarded to the administration for investigation and response . Council provided an acknowledgement letter on 22 November 2002 to Mrs Hondros advising that the issues raised would be investigated. • On 30 December 2002 council advised Mrs Hondros that correspondence was being prepared for presentation to Monsanto and WA Health Department seeking comment on the questions raised. It was established that a further letter would be provided to Mrs Hondros when this information was received. • Council wrote to Monsanto and West Australian State Government Health Department on 31 December 2002 requesting comments relating to the product “Roundup” in order to assist with the preparation of answers for all of Mrs Hondros questions. • Council received a reply from Monsanto on 28 February 2003 and WA Health Department 3 February 2003. The W.A. Health Department ( DOH ) response was provided by Mr Martin Matisons who is the Senior Toxicologist. The reply advised that they have had extensive discussions with Mrs Hondros and have provided advice on the action she should follow in relation to her medical condition. Furthermore, advice was given that the DOH did not consider it was possible to prohibit registered use of a pesticide solely based upon an individuals sensitivity or allergy to a particular chemical and that discussion with council should provide an exemption from spray activity adjacent her property. • On 4 March 2003, council wrote back to Mrs Hondros and attached details of Health Department’s reply. • Also on 4 March 2003, council sent letters to Health Department and Monsanto thanking them for their comments and in appreciation of their assistance. • On 5 March 2003, council received a further letter from Mrs Hondros who was seeking answers to questions previously raised. • On 10 March 2003, Council replied to Mrs Hondros letter and advised her to contact Monsanto regarding specific chemical details as some of the questions raised were beyond the expertise of the administration to answer. This letter included as an attachment a full copy of the Monsanto reply received 28 February 2002 and it was considered this attachment and the previously provided letter form the WA Health Department would answer all of the questions raised by Mrs Hondros.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\A Council Front.doc 2 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

• On 17 March 2003, council’s Executive Manager Technical Services, had extensive discussions with Mrs Hondros in relation to the various correspondence provided. Advice was provided that the council considered the replies provided had sufficient data relating to the issues raised and the information provided by the WA Health Department supported councils position that the spraying program would continue with the exemption request still available to all residents • On 20 March 2003, Executive Manager Technical Services spoke to a representative of the Public Health Department, Mr Martin Mathisons (Senior Toxicologist) who again confirmed councils action was responsible. • On 20 March 2003, council received letter from the WA Health Department in regards to a publication Mrs Hondros had supplied relating to the use of Glyphosate including Journal of Pesticide Reform, Vol 18-1998. • On the 24 March 2003 council received this latest letter from Mrs Hondros asking similar questions and attaching questions (typed) that she has previously submitted to the Town. Mrs Hondros requested that these questions be tabled at the council meeting scheduled for 25 March 2003. • The practice of using Roundup to manage weeds on road verges and open space is a common activity conducted by many municipal council’s including all of our immediate council neighbours. Mrs Hondros request would be for all councils to cease using Roudnup due to her medical condition and chemical sensitivity.

Question 1

1.1 I would like to know why was there no warning signs in my street or at the park?

1.2 In all the years I have lived here, I have never seen any signs and have never even realised that you have been spraying – most people don’t know!

1.3 When are you going to tell people you are spraying?

Response

The use of Roundup to manage weeds in road reserves has been in place since the Town was formed in 1994 and prior to this date, when managed by the City of Perth. Verge footpath spraying is advertised in the Post Newspaper approximately 3 weeks prior to spraying. This notifies the residents of the spraying program, and Council invites residents who do not wish the spraying of any verge to contact Council such that they can be placed on a non spraying register. The spraying vehicle is sign posted whilst spraying, however, as the operation is highly mobile, it would be difficult to manage the placement of signs on the verge. All operators are trained and registered in the safe management, handling and application of the chemical.

There is also a register of addresses where spraying does not occur and this is another form of management of the spraying program.

As the chemical Glyphosate is a Schedule 5 rating, ie. low toxicity, this is an acceptable practice of managing this operation, and it is within the guidelines of the Health Department and of similar practices of other Local Authorities.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\A Council Front.doc 3 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Question 2

I would like to ask why you think Monsanto has such a big disclaimer on the material data sheets for Roundup Glyphosate?

Response

This question should be directed to Monsanto and the Health Department of WA for comment prior to further comment by the Town.

Question 3

How soon can Council answer my attached questions? I don’t want Monsantos version. They are not the end users of the spray! You are!

Response

Questions totalling 103 are presented in 20 sections and are identical questions from Mrs Hondros’ letter dated 5 March 2003. Where possible answers have already been provided and summarised in the Council reply provided on 10 March 2003. Information provided by Monsanto and the Health Department supported the reply. It is considered that the Health Department and Monsanto has the relevant expertise to answer these questions.

Question 4

4.1 When are you going to stop spraying?

4.2 Are a few weeds worth this sort of drama?

Response

Based upon the advice received from the WA Health Department and Monsanto, council intend to continue to spray within the guidelines and recommended application methods provided by the Health Department and Monsanto. There is no known effective alternative to manage this problem.

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

6. PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS

Nil

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by McAullay

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 25 February 2003 be confirmed.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\A Council Front.doc 4 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Nil

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS

Prior to consideration of the following reports, members of the public present at the meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification of Council’s position. They were advised to wait for written advice from the Council before taking any action on any matter that they may have before the Council.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\A Council Front.doc 5 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TECHNICAL SERVICES

The report of the Technical Services Committee Meeting held on 11 March 2003 was submitted as under:

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Technical Services Committee open at 6 02 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members:

Cr Pauline O’Connor, JP (Presiding Member) 6. 02 pm 7.50 pm

Deputy Mayor Cr Marlene Anderton 6. 02 pm 7.50 pm Cr Corinne MacRae (Deputy) 6. 02 pm 7.50 pm Cr Hilary Pinerua 6. 02 pm 7.50 pm

Observers:

Mayor Ross Willcock JP 6.02 pm 6.50 pm 6.57 pm 7.02 pm Cr Graham Burkett, JP 7.29 pm 7.50 pm Cr Kerry Smith 6.18 pm 7.50 pm

Officers:

Chris Colyer, Executive Manager Technical Services Richard Watson, Manager Engineering and Waste Management Ross Farlekas, Manager Parks and Landscape Jon Bell, Manager Construction and Operations Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)

Adjournments: Nil

Time meeting closed: 7.50 pm

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Alan Langer - Apology

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 6 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item TS03.15 - Mr Werner Brog, Chief Executive Officer, and Ms Helen Gray Smith Socialdata Australia, Mr Colin Graham, Department of Transport

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr Anderton

That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Technical Services Committee held on 11 February 2003 as contained in the February 2003 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

Carried

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS

Nil

7. REPORTS

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 7 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.15

TRAVELSMART PROJECT – INTERIM REPORT (File Reference: PLA 0059)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To provide Council with an interim report on the progress of the TravelSmart Individualised Marketing Project which is being carried out as a joint initiative between Council and the Department of Transport.

BACKGROUND:

In May 2001, full details of the Travelsmart Project were presented for Council’s evaluation (Item TS01.50). In summary, the program is designed to encourage large numbers of people to make small changes to their travel behaviour and reduce vehicle use by adopting other methods of travel like walking, bicycling, bus, train. The program educates people by empowering them with localised information and advice which allows individuals to reassess their travel behaviour. The overall community benefits are gained if many people make small changes to their travel behaviour.

When assessing the Town’s commitment to participation, it was highlighted that a Council contribution of $89,317 would be required should the Town’s expression of interest be accepted by Transport and that this could be funded over two successive budgets.

In assessing Report TS01.50 May 2001, Council reached the following decision:-

“That Transport WA be advised that the Town of Cambridge wishes to make an expression of interest in relation to their proposal relating to Partnership Funding of TravelSmart Individualised Marketing (April 2001) and an allowance be considered for inclusion within the 2001/2002 Draft Budget.”

In August 2001, Council was advised that the expression of interest which had been registered with Transport had been accepted and a commitment was required to participate in the program and provide funding totalling $90,000 over successive budget years 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 (Item TS01.84). Council, at that time confirmed a commitment to participate and Transport was advised accordingly of Council’s financial and administrative commitment to the project.

DETAILS:

The project commenced on October 2001 and full co-ordination of the project and data collection was undertaken by Department of Transport. In order to ensure all Town of Cambridge households were contacted in relation to the Travelsmart project, specialist consultants Socialdata Australia were commissioned by Transport. A project team comprising membership from Transport, Socialdata Australia, Town of Cambridge, Transperth and Path Transit met on a fortnightly basis (or as required) to ensure all participants were aware of the progress made and proposals to be implemented. During the period October 2001 to May 2002, these co-ordination meetings were conducted and during this period the process of initial contact, collection of baseline data and provision of information to interested persons was completed. Currently, Socialdata is conducting further data collection relating to an assessment of the behavioural changes made by the Town’s residents.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 8 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

At the last meeting held in May 2002, the following project assessment was presented by Transport:-

“There was a total of 9,402 households contacted (approx. 24,000 persons) of which 4,625 households were interested in using environmentally friendly modes. These households were further broken up into three groups including those interested (2,906), those who are regular users of an environmentally friendly mode who need information (1,214) and those who are regular users of an environmentally friendly mode but do not need information (505). From these groupings a service sheet offering TravelSmart information and material was sent out to two groups, one being those interested and the other being those who are regular users but need information. This was a total of 4,120 households. There was a response rate of 83% from these households giving the project a total of 3,363 households serviced. A home visit service was also provided with 286 asking for public transport appointments, 58 asking for walking appointments and 42 asking for cycling appointments. The most popular brochures requested by residents in this area were cycling and circle route related.

It was reported that questionnaire responses from home visits participants had been very positive. A Socialdata Australia report tabled indicated responses received from residents in the Town of Cambridge relating to traffic, public transport, cycling and walking. The report was broken down into 4 sections with those being recommendations relating to the Town of Cambridge, recommendations relating to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, general comments and responses from residents during the contact phase.”

Path Transit advised on the major operational issues that had affected Path Transit during the Cambridge project. Path Transit had issued 285 test tickets to residents and used a total of 15 drivers and 2 officers to conduct home visits. Path Transit indicated that the majority of drivers were very keen to do the home visits with one driver doing 49 home visits himself. Path Transit then produced some figures from ‘gut feelings’ that the drivers had from their visits. Drivers estimated that 40% of the visits would generate a new regular user of public transport; 20% of household visits had a public transport user in them and the remaining 40% were less positive. Some were confused by the role of the visits and some keen on the test ticket because it was free. Path Transit thought the communication between themselves and Socialdata worked very well.

At the conclusion of the May 2002 meeting, Transport advised that data was still being collected on the total bus passengers in the Town. On a monthly basis, a graph will be produced showing passenger figures before Travelsmart commenced, as well as the months after its introduction. The travel survey will be conducted later in 2002 to provide data on all travel modes. Transport also reported that the final report was expected to be completed by January 2003 with copies going to all stakeholders.

COMMENT:

At this stage, the final report is not available as Socialdata Australia is still collecting and collating the data relevant to the most recent surveys completed.

As this is an interim report and as trends have started to form, this report has not evaluated any firm conclusions. It has been prepared to provide details relating to the work completed and summaries of the data collected to date.

The report attachments provide extensive details relating to data collection by Socialdata Australia and a deputation at Committee by the Chief Executive Officer of Solialdata, Mr Werner Brog, will allow for a summary of results to be evaluated. The data has indicated that as a result of Travelsmart there has been a 7% reduction in car trips over the Town. The data presented

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 9 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

also makes comparison with other Local Government regions who have conducted a Travelsmart project.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Participation in this initiative embraces the Town’s Mission and supports several goals:-

• To achieve a quality lifestyle and amenity. • To provide high quality affordable facilities for all residents and ratepayers including aged, disabled, youth and children. • To encourage an active healthy lifestyle through the provision of a diverse range of affordable community activities. • To provide a safe, secure and clean, physical and natural environment for the Town, through environmentally orientated planning policies, development and operational practices. • To improve the Town’s natural and built assets in consultation with the community, in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Council’s commitments toward this project have been completed with budget allocations of $45,000 in 2001/2002 and 2002/2003.

The total budget for the Travelsmart Project has been as follows:-

Department of Planning and Infrastructure $759,345 Town of Cambridge $ 89,317 Path Transit $ 44,508 $893,170

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

The whole project has been conducted with all participants of the Town and it is the public’s reaction that is now being assessed.

CONCLUSION:

The Travelsmart Individualised Marketing program has been conducted within the Town over the last 14 months. Final data collection on the impact of the project is still being collected and at this point, it is evident the most conclusive result has been a 7% reduction in car trips. Contact and participation rates have been high and at this stage the project can be considered successful.

The report attachment provides extensive preliminary data and assessment of the data which has been compiled by Socialdata Australia. Socialdata representative Mr Werner Brog will be in attendance at Committee to present and discuss the data.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 10 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Anderton, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That the interim report on the results of the TravelSmart Individualised Marketing project be received.

Committee Meeting 11 March 2003

During discussion, Members considered that residents of the Town of Cambridge should have the choice of alternative bus routes other than only to the City and that these bus routes should link with other public transport systems, shopping centres and hospitals in a similar manner to the circle bus route.

Amendment

Moved by Cr Anderton, seconded by Cr MacRae

That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-

(ii) the Department for Planning and Infrastructure be requested to trial a change to the bus route systems in the Town of Cambridge to integrate all public transport modes.

Carried

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) the interim report on the results of the TravelSmart Individualised Marketing project be received;

(ii) the Department for Planning and Infrastructure be requested to trial a change to the bus route systems in the Town of Cambridge to integrate all public transport modes.

Amendment

Moved by Cr Anderton, seconded by Cr O’Connor

That clause (ii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:-

(ii) the Department of Planning and Infrastructure be requested to trial a change to the bus route systems in the Town of Cambridge to integrate all public transport modes, shopping centres and hospitals in a similar manner to the circle bus route.

Amendment carried

The amended motion was then put and carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 11 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The motion, as carried, is as follows:-

That:-

(i) the interim report on the results of the TravelSmart Individualised Marketing project be received;

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 12 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.16

ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT AND ROAD RESURFACING PROGRAM (File Reference: TES 0156)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider a review of road management practice and required expenditure levels for the continued economic maintenance of the Town’s road network, and to consider the impact of these requirements on the existing levels of budget expenditure.

BACKGROUND:

The first step to clearly define a road asset management plan was undertaken by the Administration in 1998. At this time, an assessment was made of the condition of Council’s roads from an on site survey. This data was collated and entered into a computer program for analysis (ROMAN). The Council’s desired 10 year road resurfacing program was then established requiring a level of funds of $900,000 per annum. In 1999, Council agreed to increase the budget for resurfacing on its roads from $300,000 per annum to $600,000 per annum (TS99.27).

A review of this original program has now been undertaken and the results presented for further Council consideration.

DETAILS:

In 2002, the data collected in 1998 in relation to the road asset management analysis was reviewed. A site inspection was undertaken of the roads in poorest condition including the proposed first two years of the recommended five year program.

The attached analysis from the ROMAN data (attachment 1) shows that if the Town is to resurface its highly trafficked roads every 20 years, which is an accepted standard, the Town should be resealing 2.29 kilometres of road for a cost of approximately $550,000 a year. When the same analysis is applied to local roads, which should be resealed every 30 years, the result is 4.01 kilometres a year at a cost of approximately $480,000 per year. Collectively, the total is 6.3 kilometres of road resealed each year with an annual budget of approximately $1,030,000.

Deformation characteristics in asphalt can be quantified for varying levels of annual funding by the ROMAN model. The anticipated deterioration from 1999/2010 is shown in the graphs included in the attachments (No. 2) to this report. The quantifying of the road condition is carried out under the following headings:-

• Binder – this is defined as the brittleness of the bitumen between the stone. • Asphalt – this is the combination of stone and the adhesion of the stone to the bitumen. • Cracking – this is the extent of cracking of the bitumen surface that permits stormwater to penetrate the base and result in pavement failure. • Deformation – this includes the roughness, rutting and depression characteristics.

The rating number ranges from 1 to 5 where 1 is no roads are deteriorating and 5 is all roads deteriorating. Where the asphalt condition is 3, half the roads have asphalt that requires resurfacing. The smaller the rating, the better the road condition. The smaller the rating change, the less the change of condition from 1999 to 2010, for increased resurface budgets.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 13 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Below is a table summarising the deterioration ratings:-

Expenditure Deterioration Characteristics Rating Change 1999 to 2010 Deterioration (%) Improvement (%) $600,000 per annum Binder 3.08 to 3.56 (12)

Asphalt 2.48 to 3.28 (22)

Cracks 2.32 to 2.08 (6)

Deformation 1.0 to 1.12 (3)

$800,000 per annum Binder 3.08 to 3.56 (12)

Asphalt 2.48 to 3.0 (13)

Cracks 2.32 to 1.80 (13)

Deformation 1.0 to 1.08 (2)

$950,000 per annum Binder 3.08 to 3.55 (11)

Asphalt 2.48 to 2.80 (8)

Cracks 2.32 to 1.54 (20) Deformation 1.0 to 1.06 (2)

It is clear that as the extent of funds rises from $600,000 to $950,000 per annum, there is a significant improvement in the condition of the asphalt and a significant improvement in the deformation of the road surface. The length of roads improved would be:-

• Binder 1.5 km • Asphalt 21.0 km • Cracks 21.0 km • Deformation 1.5 km

A check on the level of funding proposed in the ROMAN program has been carried out recognising the total asset. The Town has approximately 46 kms of roads with traffic in excess of 2,000 vehicles per day and if these roads are resurfaced every 20 years compared with the more lighter trafficked roads of less than 2,000 vehicles per day with a resurfacing frequency of 30 years, then the resurfacing program would be approximately $1 million per year. This is significantly similar to the ROMAN assessment of $950,000 per year.

An alternative method of road management is to reconstruct the roads with traffic in excess of 2,000 vehicles per day every 30 years and where the traffic is less than 2,000 vehicles per day, reconstruct these roads every 40 years. Based on this model, the road management expenditure per year is around $2 million per year. It is clear that resurfacing should take place as forecast with the correct level of funding for best economic road management.

If the road reseal program was increased from $600,000 to $900,000, a 5 year road program to accommodate this has been developed and is detailed below. Each year is broken into two sections; roads carrying greater than 2,000 vehicles per day and those with less. The reason for this is that asphalt experiences more wear and tear on the roads with more than 2,000 vehicles per day and can qualify for Main Roads Rehabilitation Grants.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 14 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Year 1 Greater than 2000 vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 1 The Boulevard Templetonia WCH 770 14.8 11396 $20 $227,920 2 Railway Parade Kerr Blencowe 450 11.6 5220 $20 $104,400 3 Selby Street Alderbury Hay 380 18 6840 $20 $136,800 4 Oceanic Drive Alderbury Howtree 510 12.2 6222 $20 $124,440 $593,560 Less than 2000 Vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 5 Talgarth Way Bent Bent 480 6.6 3168 $15 $47,520 6 Skipton Way Bent Bent 290 6.8 1972 $15 $29,580 7 Yanagin Cres Kalari Templetonia 280 9.2 2576 $15 $38,640 8 Barrett Street Gregory Connolly 400 7.4 2960 $15 $44,400 9 Baramba Road Empire Tilton 190 6.8 1292 $15 $19,380 10 Salvado Road Grovedale Lissadell 300 11.9 3570 $15 $53,550 11 Pearson Place Peebles Turriff 370 9.8 3626 $15 $54,390 12 Crieff Street Dumfries Cromarty 110 7.8 858 $15 $12,870 $300,330

Year 2 Greater than 2000 vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 1 Harborne Street Grantham Ruilsip 420 10 4200 $20 $84,000 2 Underwood Ave Border Meagher 600 14.6 8760 $20 $175,200 3 Brompton Road Hale Drabble 270 8 2160 $20 $43,200 4 Cambridge Street Joseph Station 350 13.6 4760 $20 $95,200 5 Cromarty Road Empire Pearson 700 7.5 5250 $20 $105,000 6 Hale Road Brompton WCH 800 7.3 5840 $20 $116,800 $619,400 Less than 2000 Vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 7 Birkdale Street Cambridge The Boulevard 310 11.2 3472 $15 $52,080 8 Tranmore Way Empire Empire 530 6.8 3604 $15 $54,060 9 Sudbury Way Empire Empire 420 6.7 2814 $15 $42,210 10 Meagher Drive Underwood Alderbury 600 7.2 4320 $15 $64,800 11 Blencowe Street Clune Woolwich 520 6.2 3224 $15 $48,360 12 Merley Crescent Tilton Olinda 170 5.2 884 $15 $13,260 13 Gayton Road Landra Oban 150 7.3 1095 $15 $16,425 14 Louth Road Oceanic Glengarriff 120 7.5 900 $15 $13,500 $304,695

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 15 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Less than 2000 Vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 6 Oban Road Yolande Dupont 310 6.7 2077 $15 $31,155 7 Kingsland Avenue Templetonia WCH 670 11 7370 $15 $110,550 8 Glengarriff Drive Ulster Benwee 880 6.9 6072 $15 $91,080 9 Tullow Road Oceanic Roscommon 220 7.4 1628 $15 $24,420 10 Tower Street Holyrood Cul-de-sac 370 7.4 2738 $15 $41,070 11 Regent Street Tower Cul-de-sac 40 6.2 248 $15 $3,720 $301,995

Year 4 Greater than 2000 vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 1 Salvado Road Station Denton 620 13 8060 $20 $161,200 2 Selby Street Alderbury Cambridge 400 30 12000 $20 $240,000 3 The Boulevard Clanmel Bold Park 800 10 8000 $20 $160,000 4 Railway Parade Tate Salvado 160 12 1920 $20 $38,400 $599,600

Less than 2000 Vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 5 Alderbury Street Grovedale Selby 820 7.5 6150 $15 $92,250 6 Kenmore Crescent Grantham Peebles 110 10.1 1111 $15 $16,665 7 The Grove Ruislip St Vincents 330 7.4 2442 $15 $36,630 8 Tate Street Woolwich Ruislip 230 6.2 1426 $15 $21,390 9 St Leonards Woolwich Ruislip 220 6.3 1386 $15 $20,790 10 Coldstream Connaught Woolwich 300 6.3 1890 $15 $28,350 11 Tilton Terrace Baramba Simon 450 7 3150 $15 $47,250 12 Perina Way Yaltara Yaltara 410 7.4 3034 $15 $45,510 $308,835

Less than 2000 Vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 6 Peebles Road Caithness Crosby 1150 7.5 8625 $15 $129,375 7 Keane Street The Boulevard Herdsman 810 7.4 5994 $15 $89,910 8 Perina Way Yaltara Yaltara 410 7.4 3034 $15 $45,510 9 Kilpa Court Brompton Cul-de-sac 170 8 1360 $15 $20,400 10 Karla Place Drabble Cul-de-sac 130 7.3 949 $15 $14,235 $299,430

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 16 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The current Council budget level of funding is supported by the Federal Government’s Roads to Recovery Program and the State Government’s Road Rehabilitation Grants. However, there is a deficit of $300,000 to $400,000 per year to reach the desired $900,000 level. It is proposed that consideration be given to increasing Council’s level of funding so that Council can ensure the maintenance of its road pavement assets and the reliance upon grant funding is managed.

It is recognised that year by year the level of grants may rise and fall. In recognition of the AusLink Green Paper presented by the Federal Government for Council comment, it is clear that there is to be a review of funding for local roads and that additional funds are not expected from the State or Federal Government. It is therefore proposed that additional funding through Council of approximately $400,000 be considered to address the asset management requirement of the road pavement infrastructure. This increase will bring the level of expenditure to around $ 900,000 per year and still be reliant upon obtaining grant funds in the order of $150,000 to achieve this level.

This proposed increase of funding from municipal funds is a significant burden on the community however this action will go a long way to maintaining the level of service that has become expected within the community. If the level of funding is adopted at this stage, then improvements could be started within the next budget. In order to fund this desired program, several options are available. The option most likely to provide the additional funds would be an increase of 1% per year for four years in rates allocated specifically to road resurfacing. This could net approximately $400,000 at the end of the fourth year. It is considered that this incremental increase would be the most appropriate system for increasing the level of funding for road resurfacing. Council should also give serious consideration into collection of the increase of $ 400,000 in the next budget by a specific increase in rates of around 4%.

COMMENT:

The difference between the Town’s road resurface budgets and the road asset requirement is a concern. If roads are not resealed at their scheduled times, the road surface and the road pavement will deteriorate. This deterioration is in the form of longitudinal and crocodile cracking, increased occurrence of potholes, asphalt condition and deformation of the road.

It is recognised that the current level of service of road surface is deteriorating and action now can minimize the future deterioration and consequential reconstruction costs.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Based upon the requirement to consider the ROMAN model of an expenditure of $900,000 per annum on resurfacing of road pavements, three funding options are provided for consideration:-

• Transfer funds from other Council programs. • Increase available funds collected from rates. (1% increase over 4 years or 4% increase over 1 year) • Combination of both.

Roads to Recovery Grants are expected to be increased back to $191,500 for the next two years only and then the Federal Government’s Funding Program is destined to cease. Council has not been successful in attracting a State Government Road Improvement Grant for the 2003/2004 Budget.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 17 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

A summary of the Works and Engineering Capital works and Non Capital construction projects have been provided as follows from the 2002/2003 Budget:-

Item Total Budget Municipal Funds Reserves Grants $ $ $ $ Road Surfacing 493,500 353,300 - 140,200 Roads to Recovery 150,000 - - 150,000 Sub Total 643,500 353,300 - 290,200

Non Capital Works 166,500 166,500 - - Other 100,000 100,000 - -

Road works 337,500 308,600 - 28,900

Footpaths 275,000 245,000 - 30,000

Drainage 40,000 40,000 - -

Laneways 303,600 - 303,600 - Total 1,866,100 1,213,400 303,600 349,100

Note:

• This summary does not include projects carried forward from the 2001/2002 Budget year. • Roads to Recovery Grants are expected to be increased to $191,500 for the next two years only and then the Federal Government’s Funding Program is destined to cease. • Council has not been successful in attracting a State Government Road Improvement Grant for the 2003/2004 Budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The aim of this report is to plan the funding of road resurfacing, to maintain the roads in an economic manner in accordance with Council policy.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

The impact of any decisions reached in regards to this report will be incorporated within the Draft Budget for 2003/04 and in keeping with normal council practice, this document is put out for public consultation prior to adoption by the council

CONCLUSION:

The Town’s road rehabilitation program has been greatly assisted by the Federal Government’s Road To Recovery Grants over the last two years. To date, Council has been successful in obtaining these grants each year and the program is scheduled to cease in two years. This will incurr a large financial impact on the Town’s resurfacing program. A total road resurface budget of $900,000 is considered necessary to maintain the current road pavement asset. This level of funding should be reviewed annually and a comprehensive review should be carried out each five years.

It is recognised from this analysis and within the industry that a road reseal program is the best way to prevent stormwater from entering the gravel road base. If this is undertaken with successive hot mix bitumen overlays, or the profiling or re-sheeting, or crack patching, then the road base will be preserved. If the re-sealing occurs on time and stormwater is kept out of the

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 18 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

base, then the road maintenance costs can be halved when compared with a process of allowing the road to collapse and then reconstruct the base and the surface.

For the good economic management of roads, the resurfacing program should be maintained, and the minimum recommended level of funding is $900,000 per annum. If this is not the case, then the asset management relating to road pavements may result in a faster deterioration rate.

The level of municipal funding and the extent of grants will result in the adjustment of the number of roads that are to be resurfaced in each year. The annual review the road condition will ensure priority roads are considered first.

Committee Meeting 11 March 2003

Cr Anderton requested that she be recorded as voting against the motion.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) consideration be given to allocating $900,000 within the 2003/04 Council Budget for road resurfacing;

(ii) the proposed road resurfacing program for the next five years as indicated below be received and considered within future Council budgets:-

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 19 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Less than 2000 Vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 7 Birkdale Street Cambridge The Boulevard 310 11.2 3472 $15 $52,080 8 Tranmore Way Empire Empire 530 6.8 3604 $15 $54,060 9 Sudbury Way Empire Empire 420 6.7 2814 $15 $42,210 10 Meagher Drive Underwood Alderbury 600 7.2 4320 $15 $64,800 11 Blencowe Street Clune Woolwich 520 6.2 3224 $15 $48,360 12 Merley Crescent Tilton Olinda 170 5.2 884 $15 $13,260 13 Gayton Road Landra Oban 150 7.3 1095 $15 $16,425 14 Louth Road Oceanic Glengarriff 120 7.5 900 $15 $13,500 $304,695

Year 3 Greater than 2000 vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 1 Jersey Street Grantham Cambridge 720 9.7 6984 $20 $139,680 2 Challenger Parade Oceanic WCH 1000 11.5 11500 $20 $230,000 3 Southport Street Cambridge Railway 250 12 3000 $20 $60,000 4 Rochedale Road McClemans Wollaston 300 7.2 2160 $20 $43,200 120m west of St 5 Lake Monger Drive Gregory Vincent's 350 14.6 5110 $20 $102,200 $575,080 Less than 2000 Vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 6 Oban Road Yolande Dupont 310 6.7 2077 $15 $31,155 7 Kingsland Avenue Templetonia WCH 670 11 7370 $15 $110,550 8 Glengarriff Drive Ulster Benwee 880 6.9 6072 $15 $91,080 9 Tullow Road Oceanic Roscommon 220 7.4 1628 $15 $24,420 10 Tower Street Holyrood Cul-de-sac 370 7.4 2738 $15 $41,070 11 Regent Street Tower Cul-de-sac 40 6.2 248 $15 $3,720 $301,995 Year 4 Greater than 2000 vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 1 Salvado Road Station Denton 620 13 8060 $20 $161,200 2 Selby Street Alderbury Cambridge 400 30 12000 $20 $240,000 3 The Boulevard Clanmel Bold Park 800 10 8000 $20 $160,000 4 Railway Parade Tate Salvado 160 12 1920 $20 $38,400 $599,600

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 20 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Year 5 Greater than 2000 vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 1 Cambridge Street Abbotsford Loftus 560 13.6 7616 $20 $152,320 2 Oceanic Drive Tumut Scenic 740 13.8 10212 $20 $204,240 3 Cambridge Street Grovedale 50m East of Lissadel 360 12.6 4536 $20 $90,720 4 Grantham Street Marlow Selby 350 14 4900 $20 $98,000 5 Cromarty Road Empire Crieff 400 7.5 3000 $20 $45,000 $590,280 Less than 2000 Vpd Road From To Length Width Area $/m2 $ 6 Peebles Road Caithness Crosby 1150 7.5 8625 $15 $129,375 7 Keane Street The Boulevard Herdsman 810 7.4 5994 $15 $89,910 8 Perina Way Yaltara Yaltara 410 7.4 3034 $15 $45,510 9 Kilpa Court Brompton Cul-de-sac 170 8 1360 $15 $20,400 10 Karla Place Drabble Cul-de-sac 130 7.3 949 $15 $14,235 $299,430

Carried

Members requested that the vote of all those present be recorded:-

For: Mayor Willcock, Crs Burkett, Langer, MacRae, McAullay, O’Connor, Pinerua and Smith Against: Cr Anderton

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 21 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.17

FOOTPATHS – FIVE YEAR PROGRAM (File Reference: TES0091)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To identify a five year program for the development of footpaths in the Town that will be considered within subsequent Budgets.

BACKGROUND:

In January and February 2003, an assessment was made of the condition of the footpaths within the Town. Based on this assessment, a priority ranking has been established. The priority ranking is dependent on:-

• The condition of the existing footpath. • The need to extend some footpaths to complete a route. • To provide good quality paths adjacent to hospitals. • To provide a footpath link between schools, shopping centres and recreational centres. • Community Requests

Enclosed with attachments to this report is a plan of the existing footpath network.

DETAILS:

The Town has an aging path network. The West Leederville/Wembley standard was to provide a 1.5 metre wide concrete slab path on both sides of each street. Part of this slab footpath network has been laid for over 40 years. The footpath condition assessment was based on variation in level, cracked slabs and gap spacing between slabs.

Council Policy No. 4.2.5 states that Council is to lay in-situ concrete footpaths in residential areas and brick paved footpaths adjacent to suburban shops or commercial areas.

In conjunction with the program of upgrading the old slab footpaths, it is proposed to lay new paths to complete missing links in the network and extend the footpath network to some areas of Floreat and City Beach.

Priority has been given to paths around hospitals and linking schools, shops, reserves and bus routes. It is considered desirable to ensure that roads carrying in excess of 2,000 vehicles per day have a footpath on both sides of the road.

The majority of the footpaths that are constructed within the Town are carried out by contract. These contract rates are used for the development of the budget for the laying of the footpaths included in this five year program.

There are 131 kilometres of footpaths throughout the Town and the intrusion of tree roots, general wear and tear and the general life of concrete requires that they should be replaced approximately every 30 years. If the current budget of $200,000 per year is continued for 30 years, it is adequate to replace the present Town’s footpath network in that time. Additional paths will require additional funds.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 22 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

For a number of years, the Council has allocated approximately $200,000 per year for the improvement to the Town’s footpath network. The five year program developed is based on allocating $200,000 to the replacement of slab footpaths and $60,000 for the continued expansion of the Town’s footpath system as required.

COMMENT:

It is recognised that the five year program presented has been upgraded with the assistance of community requests and site inspections to ensure the requests are in keeping with the principles of the 2003 assessment.

Each year, prior to the submission of the footpath program for the Council Budget, the footpath condition is verified by an on-site inspection.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

There are no changes proposed to the existing Council Policy No. 4.2.5 associated with this recommendation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

It is anticipated that Council continues to fund the footpath program at the level of $260,000 per year in accordance with its Principal Activities Plan. Any variation in this level of funding will result in an adjustment of the five year program.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

This recommendation conforms to the Town’s objectives to provide facilities for the overall benefit of the Town and its people.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

The five year plan has been prepared recognising the existing condition of the footpath network and the community comments.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION:

The attached five year program is a guideline for the future Council Budgets. The actual program will be adjusted to match the level of funds available.

Committee Meeting 11 March 2003

During discussion, the Administration was requested to provide further information on the proposed new footpath in Challenger Parade from Floreat Beach to the West Coast Highway prior to the next meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 25 March 2003.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 23 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That the following 5 year program for upgrading Council footpaths be noted and used as a basis when preparing future annual capital works budgets:-

YEAR 1 2003-04

ROAD NAME LOCALITY FROM TO SIDE LENGTH WIDTH Area $ T$ NEW PATHS BOULEVARD CHIPPING ROAD CITY BEACH DUPONT ACCESS S 310 2.0 620.0 $35 $21,700 KALARI DRIVE CITY BEACH KALINDA DANDALOO S 98 2.0 196.0 $35 $6,860 KALARI DRIVE CITY BEACH DANDALOO TAKARI S 63 2.0 126.0 $35 $4,410 KALARI DRIVE CITY BEACH TAKARI PATONGA S 68 2.0 136.0 $35 $4,760 LOUTH ROAD FLOREAT OCEANIC GLENGARIFF E 100 2.0 200.0 $35 $7,000 JERSEY STREET JOLIMONT EXISTING PATH COUNCIL BORDER E 100 2.0 200.0 $35 $7,000 CARGEN CRECENT FLOREAT KIRKDALE AYR E 130 2.0 260.0 $35 $9,100 REPLACEMENT PATHS MARAPANA ROAD CITY BEACH WINDARRA PALANA W 101 1.5 151.5 $30 $4,545 MARAPANA ROAD CITY BEACH ADINA MEELAH W 100 1.5 150.0 $30 $4,500 MARAPANA ROAD CITY BEACH TEMPLETONIA WINDARRA S 93 1.5 139.5 $30 $4,185 ALYTH ROAD FLOREAT GLAMIS CROMARTY W 550 1.5 825.0 $30 $24,750 EVANDALE STREET FLOREAT LISSADELL BIRKDALE N 250 1.5 375.0 $30 $11,250 FLOREAT AVENUE FLOREAT All 521 2.0 1042.0 $35 $36,470 WEST BARRETT STREET LEEDERVILLE GREGORY CONNOLLY S 400 1.8 720.0 $30 $21,600 WEST RAILWAY PARADE LEEDERVILLE ABBOTSFORD SOUTHPORT N 200 3.0 600.0 $30 $18,000 WEST RAILWAY PARADE LEEDERVILLE KIMBERLEY ROSSLYN N 100 1.5 150.0 $30 $4,500 CAMBRIDGE STREET WEMBLEY HARBORNE STATION N 270 1.7 459.0 $30 $13,770 DODD STREET WEMBLEY HARBORNE END S 220 1.5 330.0 $30 $9,900 HARBORNE STREET WEMBLEY JOHNSON SCADDAN W 300 2.0 600.0 $30 $18,000 HAY STREET WEMBLEY SELBY HALESWORTH N 300 1.2 360.0 $30 $10,800 HAY STREET WEMBLEY SELBY HALESWORTH S 300 1.5 450.0 $30 $13,500 THE BOULEVARD WEMBLEY CAMBRIDGE SALVADO W 100 1.5 150.0 $30 $4,500

$261,100

YEAR 2 2004-05

ROAD NAME LOCALITY FROM TO SIDE LENGTH WIDTH Area $ T$

NEW PATHS MT STEPHENSON AVENUE CLAREMONT MONTGOMERY ROCHDALE E 280 2.0 560.0 $35 $19,600 CATESBY STREET CITY BEACH CHIPPING CLOVELLY N 150 2.0 300.0 $35 $10,500 CATESBY STREET CITY BEACH CLOVELLY STYNE N 110 2.0 220.0 $35 $7,700 TULLOW ROAD FLOREAT OCEANIC GLENGARIFF W 90 2.0 180.0 $35 $6,300 THE CORK ROAD FLOREAT BOULEVARD DONEGAL W 100 2.0 200.0 $35 $7,000 THE THURLES ROAD FLOREAT BOULEVARD DONEGAL E 100 2.0 200.0 $35 $7,000 CHANDLER AVE WEST FLOREAT CHANDLER CARPARK --- 50 2.0 100.0 $35 $3,500

REPLACEMENT PATHS KINGSLAND AVENUE CITY BEACH HESPERIA WEST COAST HWY S 280 1.5 420.0 $30 $12,600

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 24 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

LAUNCESTON AVENUE CITY BEACH CHALLENGER BRANKSOME W 92 1.5 138.0 $30 $4,140 EVANDALE STREET FLOREAT LISSADELL GROVEDALE S 284 1.5 426.0 $30 $12,780 THE BOULEVARD FLOREAT LINDEN LISSADELL S 106 1.5 159.0 $30 $4,770 THE BOULEVARD FLOREAT CORK BOLD PARK DRIVE S 294 1.5 441.0 $30 $13,230 WEST ANTRIM STREET LEEDERVILLE COLDSTREAM SOUTHPORT S 100 1.6 160.0 $30 $4,800 WEST COLDSTREAM STREET LEEDERVILLE WOOLWICH VINCENT E 300 1.5 450.0 $30 $13,500 WEST McCOURT STREET LEEDERVILLE RAILWAY CAMBRIDGE E 250 1.6 400.0 $30 $12,000 WEST ROSSLYN STREET LEEDERVILLE RAILWAY TO END E 100 1.6 160.0 $30 $4,800 WEST RUISLIP STREET LEEDERVILLE BLENCOWE NORTHWOOD N 100 1.5 150.0 $30 $4,500 WEST TATE STREET LEEDERVILLE RUISLIP WOOLWICH E 200 1.6 320.0 $30 $9,600 WEST TOWER STREET LEEDERVILLE HOLYROOD SOUTHPORT S 350 1.5 525.0 $30 $15,750 ESSEX STREET WEMBLEY CAMBRIDGE BOURNVILLE W 354 1.7 601.8 $30 $18,054 GRANTHAM STREET WEMBLEY JERSEY HARBORNE S 700 1.8 1260.0 $30 $37,800 HARBORNE STREET WEMBLEY GRANTHAM SCADDAN E 400 2.0 800.0 $30 $24,000 RUISLIP STREET WEMBLEY JERSEY ALEXANDER N 110 1.8 198.0 $30 $5,940 RUISLIP STREET WEMBLEY MCKENZIE ESSEX S 91 1.8 163.8 $30 $4,914

$264,778

YEAR 3 2005-06

ROAD NAME LOCALITY FROM TO SIDE LENGTH WIDTH Area $ T$ NEW PATHS PEEBLES ROAD FLOREAT KIRKDALE KENMORE S 200 2.0 400.0 $35 $14,000 PEEBLES ROAD FLOREAT KENMORE LINDEN S 180 2.0 360.0 $35 $12,600 PEEBLES ROAD FLOREAT LINDEN MORAY S 210 2.0 420.0 $35 $14,700 PERRY LAKES DRIVE FLOREAT OCEANIC CLUBHOUSE ENTRY E 250 2.0 500.0 $35 $17,500 REPLACEMENT PATHS ASTEN ROAD CITY BEACH EMPIRE TILTON 125 1.5 187.5 $30 $5,625 BOULEVARD SVC DUPONT AVENUE CITY BEACH CATESBY RD W 117 1.5 175.5 $30 $5,265 MARAPANA ROAD CITY BEACH OCEANIC WINDARRA W 96 1.5 144.0 $30 $4,320 MARAPANA ROAD CITY BEACH WINDARRA WCH S 198 1.5 297.0 $30 $8,910 STYNE ROAD CITY BEACH OBAN CATESBY E 210 1.5 315.0 $30 $9,450 TEMPLETONIA CRES CITY BEACH BOULEVARD DAMPIER E 95 1.5 142.5 $30 $4,275 ALDERBURY STREET FLOREAT BIRKDALE LISSADELL N 250 1.5 375.0 $30 $11,250 ALDERBURY STREET FLOREAT SALVADO LICHENDALE E 260 1.5 390.0 $30 $11,700 EVANDALE STREET FLOREAT GROVEDALE ROSEDALE N 220 1.5 330.0 $30 $9,900 SHANNON STREET FLOREAT GLENGARIFF ROSCOMMON E 252 1.5 378.0 $30 $11,340 WEST CAMBRIDGE STREET LEEDERVILLE McCOURT TATE N 100 1.6 160.0 $30 $4,800 WEST RAILWAY PARADE LEEDERVILLE ABBOTSFORD KERR N 200 1.8 360.0 $30 $10,800 WEST ST LEONARDS AVE LEEDERVILLE WOOLWICH RUISLIP W 200 1.8 360.0 $30 $10,800 HIGHBURY STREET FLOREAT BOURNVILLE WINMARLEY S 230 1.5 345.0 $30 $10,350 WEST WOOLWICH STREET LEEDERVILLE COLDSTREAM END N 200 1.5 300.0 $30 $9,000 ALEXANDER STREET WEMBLEY CAMBRIDGE BOURNVILLE E 358 1.8 644.4 $30 $19,332 ESSEX STREET WEMBLEY CAMBRIDGE BOURNVILLE E 354 1.5 531.0 $30 $15,930 HARBORNE STREET WEMBLEY DODD JOHNSON W 350 2.0 700.0 $30 $21,000 RUISLIP STREET WEMBLEY DAGLISH MCKENZIE S 92 1.8 165.6 $30 $4,968 SELBY STREET WEMBLEY SALVADO EVANDALE E 100 2.4 240.0 $30 $7,200 THE BOULEVARD WEMBLEY SELBY KEANE N 110 1.5 165.0 $30 $4,950

$259,965

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 25 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

YEAR 4 2006-07

ROAD NAME LOCALITY FROM TO SIDE LENGTH WIDTH Area $ T$

NEW PATHS BENT STREET CITY BEACH YALLAMBEE KEANEY N 200 2.0 400.0 $35 $14,000 KALARI DRIVE CITY BEACH TEMPLETONIA PATONGA S 350 2.0 700.0 $35 $24,500 ELPHIN STREET FLOREAT CULDESAC THE BOULEVARD --- 50 2.0 100.0 $35 $3,500 THE CLANMEL ROAD FLOREAT BOULEVARD DONEGAL W 100 2.0 200.0 $35 $7,000 SELBY STREET FLOREAT GRANTHAM NTH BORDER W 170 2.0 340.0 $35 $11,900 REPLACEMENT PATHS KINGSLAND AVENUE CITY BEACH BORONIA HESPERIA S 210 1.5 315.0 $30 $9,450 OCEAN COURT CITY BEACH BRANKSOME OCEANIC S 127 1.5 190.5 $30 $5,715 PENRYN AVENUE CITY BEACH CALLINGTON FALMOUTH W 204 1.5 306.0 $30 $9,180 TEMPLETONIA CRESCENT CITY BEACH MARAPANA KINGSLAND W 200 1.5 300.0 $30 $9,000 ALDERBURY STREET FLOREAT LICHENDALE ARBORDALE N 130 1.5 195.0 $30 $5,850 EVANDALE STREET FLOREAT BIRKDALE SELBY S 250 1.5 375.0 $30 $11,250 EVANDALE STREET FLOREAT BIRKDALE LISSADELL S 242 1.5 363.0 $30 $10,890 PEARSON STREET FLOREAT DUMFRIES CROMARTY SW 122 1.5 183.0 $30 $5,490 BOLD PARK THE BOULEVARD FLOREAT POOL SCOUT HALL S 440 1.5 660.0 $30 $19,800 BOLD PARK THE BOULEVARD FLOREAT DRIVE BOLD PARK POOL S 285 1.5 427.5 $30 $12,825 WEST NORTHWOOD STREET LEEDERVILLE CAMBRIDGE WOOLWICH W 200 1.8 360.0 $30 $10,800 WEST ST LEONARDS AVE LEEDERVILLE CAMBRIDGE WOOLWICH W 200 1.6 320.0 $30 $9,600 GRANTHAM STREET WEMBLEY SELBY JERSEY S 700 1.8 1260.0 $30 $37,800 HARBORNE STREET WEMBLEY SCADDAN JOHNSON E 300 2.0 600.0 $30 $18,000 JOHNSON STREET WEMBLEY GREGORY HARBORNE S 100 1.5 150.0 $30 $4,500 RUISLIP STREET WEMBLEY MCKENZIE ESSEX S 91 1.8 163.8 $30 $4,914 RUISLIP STREET WEMBLEY ESSEX NANSON S 91 1.8 163.8 $30 $4,914 WALKER STREET WEMBLEY DAGLISH HERDSMAN S 200 1.5 300.0 $30 $9,000

$259,878

YEAR 5 2007-08

ROAD NAME LOCALITY FROM TO SIDE LENGTH WIDTH Area $ T$ NEW PATHS FLOREAT CHALLENGER PARADE CITY BEACH BEACH WCH W 650 2.0 1300.0 $35 $45,500 OCEANIC DRIVE FLOREAT ARBORDALE HOWTREE N 210 2.0 420.0 $35 $14,700 REPLACEMENT PATHS EVANDALE STREET FLOREAT GROVEDALE LISSADELL N 280 1.5 420.0 $30 $12,600 HARBORNE STREET WEMBLEY JOHNSON DODD E 350 2.0 700.0 $30 $21,000 GRANTHAM STREET WEMBLEY KEANE SELBY N 100 1.5 150.0 $30 $4,500 HORNSEY ROAD FLOREAT CHANDLER THE BOULEVARD W 121 1.5 181.5 $30 $5,445 JERSEY STREET WEMBLEY CAMBRIDGE SALVADO E 115 1.5 172.5 $30 $5,175 JOHNSON STREET WEMBLEY HARBORNE HERDSMAN S 400 1.5 600.0 $30 $18,000 MT ROCHDALE ROAD CLAREMONT TESLIN MCCLEMANS S 266 1.5 399.0 $30 $11,970 RUISLIP STREET WEMBLEY SIMPER MARLOW N 105 1.5 157.5 $30 $4,725 SALTASH ROAD CITY BEACH LAUNCESTON BRANKSOME S 227 1.5 340.5 $30 $10,215 SIMPER STREET WEMBLEY BOURNVILLE GRANTHAM E 325 1.5 487.5 $30 $14,625 WEST ST LEONARDS AVE LEEDERVILLE CAMBRIDGE WOOLWICH W 200 1.6 320.0 $30 $9,600 WEST ST LEONARDS AVE LEEDERVILLE CLUNE RUISLIP E 250 1.5 375.0 $30 $11,250 TEMPLETONIA CRESCENT CITY BEACH HESPERIA DAMPIER E 148 1.5 222.0 $30 $6,660

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 26 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

EVANDALE STREET FLOREAT SELBY BIRKDALE N 246 1.5 369.0 $30 $11,070 RUISLIP STREET WEMBLEY HARBORNE GREGORY N 100 1.5 150.0 $30 $4,500 RUISLIP STREET WEMBLEY NANSON HOLLAND S 92 1.8 165.6 $30 $4,968 RUISLIP STREET WEMBLEY PANGBOURNE JERSEY S 96 2.0 192.0 $30 $5,760 ALDERBURY STREET FLOREAT LISSADELL GROVEDALE N 271 1.5 406.5 $30 $12,195 GROVEDALE ROAD FLOREAT CAMBRIDGE ALDERBURY E 333 1.8 599.4 $30 17982.0 WEST BLENCOWE STREET LEEDERVILLE CAMBRIDGE WOOLWICH W 200 1.6 320.0 $30 $9,600

$262,040

During discussion, Members noted that the proposed footpath on Challenger Parade, linking West Coast Highway and Floreat Beach should be omitted from the Year 5 program as the data is incorrect and the pathway is currently under construction. This will result in an amended total for the Year 5 program of $216,540.

Amendment

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Smith

That the motion be amended by deleting Challenger Parade from Year 5 of the Footpath Program and the relevant totals be amended accordingly.

Amendment Carried

The amended motion was then put and carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 27 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.18

SELBY STREET – CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FOOTPATH (File Reference: TES0091)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider an objection from six residents in Selby Street opposed to the proposed construction of a new footpath in Selby Street between The Boulevard and Bournville Street.

In supporting the request by deferring the construction, it is suggested that the funds be transferred to an alterative footpath project.

BACKGROUND:

The 2002/2003 Budget includes an amount of $15,000 for the construction of a new footpath on the west side of Selby Street between The Boulevard and Bournville Street (Account C306-013). The residents of this section of street were notified of the proposed work by letter drop on 7 February 2003. Subsequently, the residents of five of the seven properties on this section have advised of their objection to the proposed footpath by a multi-signature letter dated 10 February 2003. The construction of this path was therefore deferred until the matter could be considered by Council. The residents were advised of this course of action and were invited to prepare a statement of their specific objections to the proposed path.

DETAILS:

The footpath on the eastern side of Selby Street, from Hay Street to Herdsman Parade, is complete. The proposed footpath on the western side of Selby Street between The Boulevard and Bournville Street is one of the missing links in the footpath on the western side of Selby Street. The other is a continuation of this path between Bournville Street and Winmarley Street.

A path is considered necessary on the western side as it is in keeping with Council Policy 4.2.5 and because it:-

• Provides a north / south footpath route on a road that has a traffic volume of approximately 17,000 vehicles per day. • Will improve access to four areas of public open space behind the properties that front on to Selby Street. • Provides a convenient pedestrian route to the commercial area on Herdsman Parade.

COMMENT:

Footpaths encourage people to walk instead of drive and this can significantly reduce the volume of traffic on the road, particularly when schools are open. The Travelsmart Program emphasises that 47% of the Australian population do not have a driving licence and are reliant on either footpaths, public transport or a special car trip.

The proposed footpath is in accordance with the objective of Policy 4.2.5 “Footpaths – Upgrading Of” to provide a footpath on both sides of a road carrying more than 2,000 vehicles per day. This strategy is funded in the current Budget with $101,500 for the provision of new concrete paths on various roads.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 28 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

At present, pedestrians using the footpath on the western side of Selby Street have a section of grassed verge to walk on between The Boulevard and Winmarley Street.

One statement of objection has been received from a resident and include:-

• The number of people using this verge to walk on can be counted on one hand. • There is already a footpath on the eastern side of Selby Street. • None of our neighbours have been consulted about the proposed footpath and none of them are in favour of it. • The proposed new crossovers will mean an expensive realignment of driveways. • The proposed footpath will interfere with my sprinkler system. Just shifting it will not work as the sprinklers are designed to cover the existing area. If it is shifted out a lot of water will end up on the road. • The cost of this work will run into tens of thousands of dollars. That money could be used elsewhere or else to help in a cut back in our rates.

This statement has been supported by a multi signature letter of objection from five properties and, due to the high proportion of residents objecting to this section of path, alternative footpath projects could be considered for using the $15,000 funds allocated. The Administration’s recommendations then would be:-

1. Add $8,000 to Account 308-024 Grantham Street – Nanson to Essex. This will allow this section of slab path in front of commercial properties to be replaced with brick paving in accordance with Policy 4.2.5. At present, the current funding of $9,000 is sufficient for a concrete path. 2. Add $7,000 to Account C002-003 Hale Road – Maloney to West Coast Highway Cycleway. This project has funding of $60,000 and is complete. However, it will over- expend by approximately $6,000 mainly due to the decision to construct a red asphalt path with a kerbed edge. The original budget estimate allowed for a widening of the existing concrete path on the original alignment. 3. Construct another section of path on the western side of Selby Street between Bournville Street and Winmarley Street. This option may not be acceptable to the residents on the western side of Selby Street based upon their current objection.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Policy 4.2.5 Footpaths – Upgrading of. The objective is to construct a footpath on both sides of streets with more than 2,000 vehicle per day. This may be achieved on the west side of Selby Street in a future budget with less conflict with residents after further public consultation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

This project is currently funded in the 2002/2003 Budget with $15,000 funds. If the project is deferred, then the funds should preferably be utilised on another footpath project.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

To ensure that the Town’s assets perform in accordance with the appropriate, recognised, acceptable standards for the safety and benefit of the community.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 29 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

The residents of the seven properties affected by the proposed path were notified on 7 February 2003. The residents of five of these properties have registered an objection to the proposed path. These residents were advised that the path would be deferred until considered by Council. They were advised of the reasons for the footpath and requested to provide a statement of their objections. The resident of one property has provided reasons for their objection, which is supported by a multi signatured letter.

CONCLUSION:

As two footpath projects included in the current Budget could benefit from additional funds, it is recommended that the $15,000 funding for the Selby Street footpath project be reallocated to these two projects.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) an amount of $15,000 be reallocated from Budget Item C306-013 Selby Street – The Boulevard to Bournville Street – west side to:- • Budget Item C002-003 Hale Road – Maloney Street to West Coast Bicycle Path ($7,000); • Budget Item C308-024 – Grantham Street – (Essex Street to Nanson Street) – north side ($8,000);

(ii) the requirement for construction of a footpath on the western side of Selby Street be further investigated.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 30 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.19

EMPIRE AVENUE – CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FOOTPATH (File Reference: TES0091)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider a request from residents in Empire Avenue who reside adjacent to the proposed construction works to cancel construction of a proposed new footpath link in Empire Avenue between Chidley Road and Chipping Road.

BACKGROUND:

The 2002/2003 Budget includes two accounts for the construction of a footpath on the south side of Empire Avenue: Account C169-002 ($6500) for Chidley to Baramba and Account C169-003 ($6,500) for Baramba to Chipping. The footpath is proposed to be constructed next to the kerb and will connect the existing footpath that terminates at Chidley Road with the footpath on Chipping Road and the beach access’s over West Coast Highway.

Six residents of this southern section of street were notified of the proposed work by letter drop on 15 February 2003. No letter drop was made to any resident on the northern side of Empire Avenue. Subsequently Mr Don Smith of 43 Empire Avenue corresponded with council’s administration and advised that:-

• The provision of a footpath in Empire Avenue had been considered by Council about five years ago. Based on objections from many residents on this section of Empire Avenue, the westernmost section was not constructed. • The path would be better placed on the north side of Empire Avenue because many of these verges are side boundaries. The bus stops are on that side because the bus is departing from the terminus in Chipping Road. • He has lived in the area for 28 years and is keen to raise the standard of the streetscape. He would prefer that the footpath is not constructed across the verge in front of his property at 43 Empire Avenue which is midway between Chidley Road and Baramba Road. • He accepts that if no other resident objects to the path, then the path should be constructed. He is rallying support of adjacent residents.

In consideration of the substance to this objection, the construction of the path was deferred until the matter could be considered by Council. This resident was advised of this course of action and was invited to prepare a statement of his specific objections to the proposed path for inclusion in the report to Council.

Research of council’s files has identified that the provision of this footpath link on Empire Avenue was previously considered by council at the ordinary council meeting on 23 January 1996. Based upon the number of objections received on the path location at this western end of Empire Avenue, the Council decision was:-

“That the length of footpath construction on the southern side of Empire Avenue be reduced to the area from Brompton Road to Dorking Road only at this stage.”

A review of the correspondence received in 1996 indicates that no support for the footpath link was given on both the northern and southern side of Empire Avenue as both sides preferred for the construction to be on the other side.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 31 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DETAILS:

As at 4 March 2003, the Administration has received further correspondence from another four residents of the southern side of Empire Avenue who object to the footpath construction. Compiled with the original objection five of the six properties do not support the construction. Copies of the objections are included within the attachment to this report.

COMMENT:

The footpath on the southern side of Empire Avenue is complete except for the two sections between Chipping Road and Chidley Road. This footpath is considered necessary because:-

• It provides the missing link between the existing path on Empire Avenue, Chipping Road and the beach access. • The traffic volume on this section of Empire Avenue is approximately 4,000 vehicles per day. • The residents in this area do not have an alternative access via a public open space behind their properties. • It improves pedestrian access to the public open spaces and Ocean Village commercial area south of Empire Avenue. • This section of Empire Avenue is a bus route with a terminus in Chipping Road.

Footpaths encourage people to walk instead of drive and this can significantly reduce the volume of traffic the road, particularly when schools are open. The Travelsmart Program emphasises that 47 % of the Australian population do not have a driving licence and are reliant on either footpaths, public transport or a special car trip.

The proposed footpath is in accordance with the objective of Policy 4.2.5 “Footpaths – Upgrading Of” to provide a footpath on both sides of a road carrying more than 2,000 vehicles per day and on one side for roads carrying less than 2,000 vehicles per day. This section of Empire Avenue carries approximately 4,000 vehicles a day and easily justifies the provision of one footpath.

At present, pedestrians using the footpath on the southern side of Empire Avenue have a section of grassed verge to walk on between Chidley Road and Chipping Road. This is not usually an impediment to pedestrians but forces primary school age children on bicycles, people with prams and people on electric vehicles to use the road.

The Administration’s recommendation will be to construct the path as planned on the southern side of Empire Avenue in consideration of:- • The substance of the objections from the affected residents on the south side. • The previous lack of support from residents on the North side of Empire Avenue. • The relatively high traffic volume of 4,000 vehicles per day which indicates a requirement for a footpath link. • The lack of response from four of the residents until another resident rallied them. • The location of the existing path on the south side of Empire Avenue east of Chidley Road and the extension of this path providing a continuous link for the path. • The strategic location of this path and the number of properties it services.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 32 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Policy 4.2.5 : Footpaths – Upgrading Of. The objective is to construct a footpath on both sides of streets with more than 2,000 vehicle per day and one side of streets with less than 2,000 vehicles per day. The provision of new paths to meet this objective is funded in the current budget with a total of $101,500 for various paths throughout the Town.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

This project is currently funded in the 2002/2003 Budget with a total of $13,000 funds.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

To ensure that the Town’s assets perform in accordance with the appropriate, recognised, acceptable standards for the safety and benefit of the community.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

The residents of the six properties located on the southern side and directly affected by the proposed path were notified on 15 February 2003. A copy of the letter is included as an attachment to this report. The resident of one of these properties has registered an objection to the proposed path. This resident was advised that the path would be deferred until considered by Council. He was advised of the reasons for the footpath and requested to provide a statement of his objections. Subsequently a facsimile has been received containing comment from four other residents and copies of these are included within the report attachment.

CONCLUSION:

In consideration of the strategic importance of this footpath, it is recommended that the two sections of path are constructed as originally listed in the 2002/2003 Budget as this will provide a missing link within the existing footpath network.

The alternatives to this proposal would be :-

• Construct the path on the north side of Empire Avenue. • Defer the construction to another year to allow further public consultation to be carried out.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That the proposed new footpath link on Empire Avenue between Chidley Road and Chipping Road be constructed on the southern side with funds from Accounts C169-002 and C169-003 in the 2002/2003 Budget.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 33 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.20

CAMBRIDGE STREET – NEAR JERSEY STREET – RELOCATION OF BUS SHELTER (File Reference: TES0039)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider a request to improve sight distance past the bus shelter located on the north side of Cambridge Street and west of Jersey Street and adjacent to the petrol station.

BACKGROUND:

At the Technical Services Committee meeting held 11 February 2003, Item 9.9 in General Business an Elected Member advised that advertising on the east side of this bus shelter prevented drivers from seeing oncoming traffic. An investigation and report to the Technical Services Committee was requested on the matter.

DETAILS:

The original bus shelter at this location was replaced with a new shelter by Perth Sign Company in early 2002. This was the fourth shelter to be installed in an approved location by Perth Sign Company under their agreement with the Town. The new shelter has a large advertising panel at the eastern end and this restricts sight distance for motorists exiting from the eastern crossover of the Caltex Service station adjacent to the shelter. Sight distance from the western crossover is not restricted by the shelter.

COMMENT:

A plan of the current location of the bus shelter is an attachment to this report. This bus shelter is within the Wembley Town Centre Project which will include a review of the current parking and bus bays arrangements.

The Austroads “Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 5 Intersections at Grade” advises that for a motorist turning left or right into traffic moving at 60 km/h, a minimum sight distance of 105 metres to the approaching vehicles is required. This can be reduced if the vehicle is turning left and the motorist only has to look in one direction, however, the absolute minimum is 55 metres based on the safe stopping distance of the vehicles approaching at 60 km/h.

Without the shelter in place, the sight distance is limited by other obstacles as far as the intersection of Alexander Street which is 75 metres to the west and to Jersey Street which is 75 metres to the east.

With the shelter in its current location, a motorist can obtain the full 75 metres of sight distance in both directions but only if they stop behind the shelter. If the motorist stops by the side of the shelter with their bumper in line with the kerb, the sight distance to approaching vehicles is restricted to about 45 metres, with the motorist leaning forwards. The motorist then either has to reverse back 2 metres to see behind the shelter or move their bumper past the kerb by 0.3 metres to obtain a safe sight distance to approaching vehicles.

There appears to be four remedies to this conflict:-

1. Move the shelter 8 metres west so that the large side is midway between the crossovers and the shelter is against the front property line. This will provide the full sight distance of

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 34 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

75 metres available up to the intersection of Alexander Street and Jersey Street. Perth Sign Company advise that this will cost approximately $2,500. 2. Remove the advertising panel. Perth Sign Company advise that this is not acceptable to them because this is the only advertising they put on the shelter. 3. Remove the shelter completely to another location and leave the bus stop without a shelter. A seat may be provided under the awning of the bike shop. This is estimated to cost approximately $5,000 and Perth Sign Company will have to negotiate with their advertising client about the new location and discuss with Council the impact this will have on their existing contract. 4. Remove the shelter completely and relocate the bus stop 30 metres west. A seat may be provided under the awning of the pizza shop. This has the same disadvantages as Option 3. In addition, the pizza shop owner has expressed concern about losing the short term parking bays where the bus will stop.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The estimated cost to move the shelter is $2,500 and this may be funded from existing allocations.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

To ensure that the Town’s assets perform in accordance with the appropriate, recognised, acceptable standards for the safety and benefit of the community.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

The operator of the Caltex Service Station was interviewed about the location of the shelter. His responses were:-

• He was only aware of one complaint from one motorist who does not live in the area. • He does not mind if the shelter is left as is or moved to another location in front of his service station. • He and most other motorists have no problem exiting on to Cambridge Street because they stop short of the footpath and look behind the shelter.

The operator of the bike shop next to the service station was interviewed and he advised that he would like the shelter moved further away from the crossover because he saw many motorists straining to see past it.

Perth Sign Company has been requested to supply a quote for relocating the shelter to the preferred location. A verbal quote was $2,500.

CONCLUSION:

The location of the bus shelter can foreseeably restrict sight distance for motorists to less than the accepted standards published by Austroads. The Town has the ability to correct the problem and there is a feasible solution costing $2,500. Therefore, the Town has a duty of care

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 35 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

to carry out the solution, that is, relocate the shelter closer to the road reserve boundary and midway between the crossovers to the service station.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Anderton, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That Perth Sign Company be requested to relocate their bus shelter to a location against the road reserve boundary and with the large side panel midway between the crossovers to the service station.

Committee Meeting 11 March 2003

During discussion, Members agreed that the relocation of the bus shelter adjacent to Caltex Service Station, Cambridge Street should be undertaken in association with the Wembley Town Centre works.

The Administration’s recommendation was therefore voted upon and lost.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That the relocation of the bus shelter adjacent to Caltex Service Station, Cambridge Street, Wembley be incorporated in the works associated with the Wembley Town Centre.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 36 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.21

WOOLWICH STREET – KERBSIDE PARKING (File Reference: PKG 0006)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the kerbside parking in Woolwich Street from McCourt Street to St Leonard’s Avenue in West Leederville.

BACKGROUND:

A request has been received for Council to give consideration to the implementation of kerbside parking restrictions on the northern and southern side of Woolwich Street between McCourt Street and St Leonard’s Avenue. This request has been received because long term parking has recently moved into this section of Woolwich Street during the week Monday to Friday. A site inspection has confirmed this.

In April 2002 (Item CCS02.40), it was decided:-

“That:-

(i) an agreement be put in place with the St John of God Hospital Subiaco to allow parking restrictions to be established and enforced under the provisions of the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law in hospital car parking areas at 175 Cambridge Street, West Leederville;

(ii) nominated senior employees of the St John of God Hospital Subiaco be appointed as Parking Inspectors under the provisions of the:-

(a) Local Government Act 1995, Sections 9.10 and 9.15;

(b) Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law;

(iii) a progress report be submitted to Council following twelve months of implementation of the parking restrictions.”

The St John of God Hospital Administration has proceeded with the introduction of these parking restrictions including five on-site pay and display units.

It is reported that hospital staff are moving into the residential precinct north of Cambridge Street to seek kerbside parking in lieu of paying on site fees. The hospital Administration indicate there is adequate on-site parking for staff and visitors at weekends.

DETAILS:

The section of Woolwich Street between McCourt Street and St Leonard’s Avenue is sufficiently wide to accommodate kerbside parking on both the northern and southern side of the road, plus two-way traffic. There are commercial business on the south east and south west corners of the Woolwich Street/McCourt Street intersection, the balance of this section of Woolwich Street is residential.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 37 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

This section of Woolwich Street was the side property for residential blocks facing McCourt Street, Tate Street and St Leonard’s Avenue. To date, two of the properties have been developed such that additional residential properties now front Woolwich Street. It is desirable that kerbside parking is permitted in this area to assist adjacent residential owners, however, it is considered that long term parking where there is no restriction at present is undesirable.

The existing parking restrictions in West Leederville are predominantly two hour and one hour restrictions. There are some 15 and 30 minute restrictions adjacent to commercial businesses. For ease of enforcement, it is proposed that one hour parking restrictions be established.

Residential parking permits are given to owners of residential properties where required and approved under the existing Council policy. The proposed introduction of parking restrictions in this report would qualify the adjacent residents for application for residential visitor parking permits. These permits are to be displayed in the vehicle when the kerbside parking by the holder or their nominee exceeds the time on the parking restriction.

COMMENT:

A request has been received for Council to provide protection against the intrusion of commercial and commuter parking in the residential precinct adjacent to residential properties. The proposed parking restrictions in the residential precinct will protect the residential properties from commuter and business parking.

It is proposed that the existing restrictions in place for events at Subiaco Oval will remain. The residential parking permits will override both the proposed and existing parking restrictions.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The strategic direction of this report is to ensure that long term parking is not providing a detrimental affect on the residential environment.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost of introducing the additional signs will be borne from the Council’s Infrastructure Signs Budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This recommendation is in accordance with the Council’s policy for implementing kerbside parking restrictions to assist residential amenity and residential parking.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

A letter has been sent to the eight adjacent residents seeking their comment concerning this proposed restriction. An updated summary of the community comments will be forwarded to the Technical Services Committee. To date, two replies have been received in support of the proposal.

CONCLUSION:

It has been brought to Council’s attention that long term parking has encroached into Woolwich Street between McCourt Street and St Leonard’s Avenue in West Leederville. To curtail this practice and protect the residential environment, it is recommended that a one hour parking

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 38 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

restriction be implemented. The major time of impact of this event is Monday to Friday from 8.00am until 6.00pm. The Subiaco Oval Event parking restrictions will remain.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) a “1 Hour Parking” restriction be introduced from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, along the northern and southern kerbline on Woolwich Street from McCourt Street to St Leonard’s Avenue in lieu of the existing unrestricted parking;

(ii) a section of 10 metres of “No Stopping on Road or Verge” be implemented at the intersections of Woolwich Street with McCourt Street, Tate Street and St Leonard’s Avenue, as indicated on Plan Number E283-03-01.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 39 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.22

McCOURT STREET – KERBSIDE PARKING (File Reference: PKG 0006)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the kerbside parking in McCourt Street from Woolwich Street to Cambridge Street in West Leederville.

BACKGROUND:

A request has been received from a number of residents in McCourt Street for Council to give consideration to the implementation of kerbside parking restrictions on the eastern side of McCourt Street between Woolwich Street and Cambridge Street. This request has been received because long term parking has recently moved into this section of McCourt Street during the week Monday to Friday. A site inspection has confirmed this. In April 2002 (Item CCS02.40) it was decided:-

“That:-

(ii) nominated senior employees of the St John of God Hospital Subiaco be appointed as Parking Inspectors under the provisions of the:-

(a) Local Government Act 1995, Sections 9.10 and 9.15;

(b) Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law;

(iii) a progress report be submitted to Council following twelve months of implementation of the parking restrictions.”

The St John of God Hospital Administration has proceeded with the introduction of these parking restrictions including five on-site bay and display units.

It is reported that hospital staff are moving into the residential precinct north of Cambridge Street to seek kerbside parking in lieu of paying on-site fees. The hospital indicates that there is adequate on-site parking for staff and visitors at weekends.

DETAILS:

The section of McCourt Street between Woolwich Street and Cambridge Street is sufficiently wide to accommodate kerbside parking on both sides, plus two-way traffic. There are commercial businesses on the south west and south east corner of McCourt Street and Woolwich Street; and on the north east corner of Cambridge Street and McCourt Street. The balance of the street is residential.

There is a 2 hour parking restriction on the western side of McCourt Street between Cambridge Street and Woolwich Street and a short section of 15 minute parking adjacent to the business on the south western corner of Woolwich Street and McCourt Street.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 40 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

There is a bitumen sealed right of way for access to the rear of the properties on both sides of McCourt Street. Eleven of the fourteen properties on the eastern side of this section of McCourt Street have a 15 metre frontage and three properties have a 10 metre frontage. Half the properties have crossover access to McCourt Street and the balance use either rear access or kerbside parking.

The proposed parking restrictions are 1hr – 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday.

Existing kerbside parking restrictions exist to protect residential properties from excessive Subiaco Oval Event parking and these will remain.

Residential parking permits are given to owners of residential properties where required and approved under the existing Council policy. The proposed introduction of 1hr parking restrictions on the eastern side of McCourt Street in this report would qualify the adjacent residents for application for residential visiting parking permits. These permits are to be displayed in the vehicle when the kerbside parking by the holder or their nominee exceeds the time on the parking restriction.

COMMENT:

Residential property owners have requested that Council provides some protection against the intrusion of commercial and commuter parking in the residential precinct adjacent to residential properties. It is proposed that the existing restrictions in place for the Subiaco Oval Events will remain. The residential parking permits will override both the proposed and existing parking restrictions.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The strategic direction of this report is to ensure that long term parking is not providing a detrimental affect on the residential environment.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost of introducing additional signs will be borne from the Council’s Infrastructure Signs Budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This recommendation is in accordance with Council’s policy for implementing kerbside parking restrictions to assist the residential amenity and residential parking.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

A letter has been sent to the 14 residents on the eastern side of McCourt Street between Cambridge Street and Woolwich Street. An updated summary of the community comments will be forwarded to the Technical Services Committee. To date, nine replies have been received in support of the 1 hour restriction from residents on the eastern side of McCourt Street. A further four replies have been received from people on the western side of McCourt Street supporting the proposal.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 41 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CONCLUSION:

It is been brought to Council’s attention that long term parking has encroached into the eastern side of McCourt Street between Woolwich Street and Cambridge Street in West Leederville. To curtail this practice and protect the residential environment, it is recommended that a 1 hour parking restriction be implemented. The major time of impact of this event is Monday to Friday from 8.00am to 6.00pm. These restrictions will correspond and support the Subiaco Oval Events parking restrictions, which will remain.

Committee Meeting 11 March 2003

During discussion, Members noted that letters had been received from 13 residences of McCourt Street requesting that 1 hour restricted parking for non permit holders be introduced in McCourt Street. It was agreed that copies of the letters be circulated to all Elected Members.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) a ‘1hr Parking Residential Permit Parking Excepted’ restriction be introduced from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday, along the eastern side of McCourt Street between Woolwich Street and Cambridge Street in lieu of the existing unrestricted parking;

(ii) the section of ‘No Stopping’ be implemented for a distance of 32 metres north of Cambridge Street and 24 metres south of Woolwich Street at all times as indicated on the attached Plan Number E258-03-01.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 42 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.23

CONNOLLY STREET – KERBSIDE PARKING (File Reference: PKG 0006)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the kerbside parking in Connolly Street from Cambridge Street to Woolwich Street in West Leederville.

BACKGROUND:

A request has been received for Council to give consideration to the implementation of kerbside parking restrictions on both the eastern and western side of Connolly Street from Cambridge Street to Woolwich Street. This request has been received because confusion exists because of the relationship between Subiaco Oval Event parking and the time restriction parking, as well as variation of kerbside parking restrictions in this short section of street.

A letterbox drop has been distributed requesting feedback from residents with a view to reducing the 2 hour parking restriction to 1 hour.

The existing kerbside parking restriction on the eastern side of this section of Connolly Street is ‘2hr at Parking at all Times ‘ and Subiaco Oval Event parking. The existing kerbside parking on the western side of Connolly Street is:-

• A ‘2hr Parking at all Times’ from Cambridge Street to the right of way at the rear of the block facing Cambridge Street. • ‘2hr parking at all Times’ and Subiaco Oval Event parking between the above right of way and Barrett Street. • ‘No Parking’ from Barrett Street to Woolwich Street.

DETAILS:

The road pavement width in Connolly Street from Cambridge Street to Barrett Street is of a sufficient width to accommodate kerbside parking on both sides of the road plus two-way traffic. The existing road pavement narrows to approximately 7 metres between Barrett Street and Woolwich Street. In this section of road pavement, there is adequate width for two-way traffic and kerbside parking on one side only.

The land use in Connolly Street north of Barrett Street is residential. The adjacent land use in Connolly Street south of Barrett Street is a mixture of residential and commercial businesses including medical businesses. It is clear that the businesses benefit from the 2 hour parking and the residential properties can utilise their residential parking permits for extended kerbside parking time.

It is proposed that 2 hour parking Monday to Friday 8.00am to 6.00pm and 8.00am to 11.00am on Saturday mornings be introduced on the eastern and western side of Connolly Street from Cambridge Street to Barrett Street and this 2 hour parking be extended northwards to Woolwich Street on the eastern side of Connolly Street. In addition to these signs, the Subiaco Events sign restrict parking from 6.00pm to 11.00pm Monday to Friday and 11.00am to 11.00pm on Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays, with residential parking permits exempt, be established.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 43 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

These restrictions will assist those businesses on Monday to Friday where customer parking requires up to a 2 hour consultation. It will clearly prevent all day parking associated with staff at the businesses. On site parking for staff and some customers is provided on most of the commercial premises. The 2 hour parking restriction Monday to Friday and Saturday mornings will assist residents to park adjacent to their property and is an extension of the current restrictions on the western side of Connolly Street south of Barrett Street.

Residential parking permits are given to owners of residential properties where required and approved under the existing Council policy. The proposed introduction of parking restrictions as in this report would qualify the adjacent residents for application for residential visitor parking permits. These permits are to be displayed in the vehicle when kerbside parking by the holder or their nominee exceeds the time of the parking restriction.

COMMENT:

The proposed parking restrictions have been introduced recognising the residential amenity of the area, the intrusion of commercial parking in a residential area, the adjacent commercial properties and the Subiaco Oval events parking overflow. The Ranger enforcement of this parking restrictions will be simplified from the existing restrictions.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The strategic direction of this report is to ensure parking is available for residential property owners, as well as commercial interests, however, long term parking during the Subiaco Oval events period and normal trading hours is not encouraged.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost of introducing additional signs will be borne from the Council’s Infrastructure Signs Budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This recommendation is in accordance with Council’s policy for implementing kerbside parking restrictions to assist the residential amenity, commercial businesses. The restrictions will encourage the Subiaco Oval Events parking issues to be moved further away from the residential close proximity to the Oval and therefore will be more widely dispersed or encourage the motorist to use public transport.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

A letter has been sent to the 12 adjacent properties seeking their comment concerning the proposed restriction. An updated summary of the community comments will be forwarded to the Technical Services Committee. To date, two replies have been received in support of a 2 hour parking restriction. One was a commercial architectural business seeking Monday to Friday client overflow parking and the other a residential owner seeking visitor parking. The residential visitor parking will be accommodated by residential parking permits.

CONCLUSION:

It has been brought to Council’s attention that it is difficult to enforce the kerbside parking restrictions in Connolly Street during Subiaco Oval Events. The proposed amendments will provide the desired support for the residents and businesses.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 44 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) a ‘2 hour Parking Resident Permit Parking Excepted’ restriction be established from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 11.00pm Saturday, along the western side of Connolly Street commencing 19 metres north of Cambridge Street and extending northwards to a point 10 metres south of Barrett Street;

(ii) a ‘No Parking Road or Verge’ restriction be introduced from 6.00pm to 11.00pm Monday to Friday and 11.00am to 11.00pm on Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays, Residential Parking Permits Excepted, along the western side of Connolly Street commencing 19 metres north of Cambridge Street and extending northwards to a point 10 metres south of Barrett Street;

(iii) a ‘No Stopping Road or Verge’ be established on the western side of Connolly Street, commencing at Cambridge Street and extending 19 metres northwards, plus commencing 10 metres south of Barrett Street and extending to the Barrett Street;

(iv) a ‘2 hour Parking Resident Permit Parking Excepted’ restriction be introduced from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 11.00am on Saturday along the eastern side of Connolly Street commencing 12 metres north of Cambridge Street and extending northwards to a point 12 metres south of Woolwich Street;

(v) a ‘No Parking’ restriction be introduced on the road or verge commencing at 6.00pm to 11.00pm Monday to Friday and 11.00am to 11.00pm Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays, residential parking permits exempt on the eastern side of Connolly Street commencing 12 metres north of Cambridge Street and extending northwards to a point 12 metres south of Woolwich Street;

(vi) a ‘No Stopping’ restriction road or verge be introduced on the eastern side of Connolly Street commencing at Cambridge Street and extending 12 metres northwards, plus commencing 12 metres south of Woolwich Street and extending to Woolwich Street;

(vii) the above parking restrictions be implemented as indicated on the Plan Number E253-03-01.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 45 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.24

CAMBRIDGE STREET – KERBSIDE PARKING (File Reference: PKG 0006)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the kerbside parking in Cambridge Street from McCourt Street to Blencowe Street in West Leederville.

BACKGROUND:

It has been brought to Council’s attention that there has been a number of extensions of the six metre kerbside parking ‘No Stopping’ restriction introduced at intersections along Cambridge Street, however, the intersections from McCourt Street to Blencowe Street have not been adjusted to date.

A review of the intersection of McCourt Street, Tate Street, St Leonard’s Avenue and Blencowe Street, all with Cambridge Street has been carried out. Northwood Street and Kimberley Street to the east, as well as Joseph Street and Connolly Street to the west have been adjusted.

DETAILS:

The Cambridge Street road pavement is of sufficient width to accommodate two-way traffic in each direction, plus a central median island. The kerbside lane is utilised for parking when the Clearway signage is not in operation. The frequency of the bus stops along Cambridge Street does assist with providing adequate sight distance for motorists exiting the side streets.

The six metre setback for kerbside parking does provide sight distance if the motorist stops at the holding line at the side street and proceeds approximately two metres forward to view through traffic prior to entering the through traffic. Recognising the traffic volume in Cambridge Street, this manoeuvre is difficult. Further, recognising the limited gaps in the traffic volume along Cambridge Street, it is often impractical to cross or turn right into Cambridge Street and the left hand turn is the only safe manoeuvre. This is the case during peak hour traffic and during parts of the day Monday to Friday. At other times, the limitations due to traffic volume in Cambridge Street are not apparent.

It is recognised that parking is well used along Cambridge Street. Kerbside parking is important to the adjacent businesses and shops. The recommendation in this report recognises these issues.

It is proposed that a 20 metre setback be imposed for parking to the right of the motorist and 15 metres to the left. This variation in distance recognises that the traffic coming from the left can be seen at a greater distance than the right because of the distance across the road. This will provide the motorist in the side street to have stopping sight distance when waiting behind the holding line. A movement forward of one or two metres (ie. into the parking lane) will provide additional sight distance and provide a margin of safety for traffic travelling at excess speed.

The intersection parking restriction will be extended beyond these distances where crossovers or bus stops coincide with the limit. The exception to this is the shop on the north west corner of Cambridge Street and Tate Street. It is proposed that the kerbside parking be extended at this point from 6.0 metres to 12.0 metres and this will reduce the kerbside parking from two vehicles to one vehicle. This is proposed in recognition of the importance of kerbside parking to the

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 46 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

businesses and the fact that the accidents at this intersection are minimal (ie. one per year during the last five years).

COMMENT:

The proposed amendments to kerbside parking in Cambridge Street between McCourt Street and Blencowe Street have been proposed as a result of community requests seeking additional sight distance when exiting the side streets of McCourt Street, Tate Street, St Leonard’s Avenue and Blencowe Street. It is considered that these amendments will improve the safety of traffic and pedestrians in Cambridge Street.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The strategic direction of this report is to ensure road safety and uniformity of kerbside parking.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost of introducing additional signs will be borne from the Council’s Infrastructure Signs Budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This recommendation is in accordance with Council’s policy for implementing kerbside parking restrictions to ensure road safety and to assist businesses.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

There has been no public consultation associated with this report, except for the shop at the intersection of Cambridge Street and Tate Street. It is recognised that all properties do have extensive on-site parking to accommodate their staff, clients and visitors.

CONCLUSION:

It has been brought to Council’s attention that there is an inconsistency in the kerbside parking restrictions along Cambridge Street, namely that the distance of ‘No Stopping’ at the intersections between McCourt Street and Blencowe Street warrant review. This review has been carried out and adjustments have been included in the recommendation.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) a ‘No Stopping on Road or Verge’ restriction be introduced along Cambridge Street commencing:-

• at McCourt Street and extending 20 metres eastwards on the southern side of Cambridge Street; • at McCourt Street and extending 15 metres eastwards on the northern side of Cambridge Street;

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 47 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

• at Tate Street and extending 20 metres westwards on the northern side of Cambridge Street; • at Tate Street and extending 15 metres westwards on the southern side of Cambridge Street; • at Tate Street extending 15 metres eastwards on the northern side of Cambridge Street; • at Tate Street extending 20 metres eastwards on the southern side of Cambridge Street; • at St Leonard’s Avenue extending 12 metres westwards on the northern side of Cambridge Street; • at St Leonard’s Avenue extending 15 metres westwards on the southern side of Cambridge Street; • at St Leonard’s Avenue extending 15 metres eastwards on the northern side of Cambridge Street; • at St Leonard’s Avenue extending 20 metres eastwards on the southern side of Cambridge Street; • at Blencowe Street extending 20 metres westwards on the northern side of Cambridge Street; • at Blencowe Street extending 15 metres westwards on the southern side of Cambridge Street; • at Blencowe Street extending 26 metres eastwards on the northern side of Cambridge Street; • at Blencowe Street extending 20 metres eastwards on the southern side of Cambridge Street;

in lieu of the existing unrestricted parking;

(ii) the above parking restrictions be established as indicated above on the Plan Number E303-03-02.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 48 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.25

HARROGATE STREET – KERBSIDE PARKING (File Reference: PKG 0006)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the kerbside parking in Harrogate Street from Oxford Close to Southport Street in West Leederville.

BACKGROUND:

There is a new Technology Company occupying the buildings on the south western corner of Harrogate Street and Oxford Close. They have requested that a 2 hour parking zone be established on the northern side of Harrogate Street from Oxford Close to Southport Street.

The request is substantiated by the applicant’s observation that kerbside parking is utilised by motorists who park their cars all day and collecting them after 5.00pm, thus utilising this ‘No restricted’ zone as a free public carpark. The technology business has container trucks delivering equipment to their warehouse on a regular basis. They find it almost impossible to reverse the truck into the warehouse with the cars parked on the northern side of Harrogate Street. They find that cars parked in the existing time zone on the south side of Harrogate Street are visitors to the nearby offices. The owners are asked to move their vehicles temporarily so the container trucks can manoeuvre quickly within the street to access their warehouse.

A copy of their letter is included in the attachments to this report.

DETAILS:

The road pavement in this section of Harrogate Street is approximately 10 metres wide and is an adequate width for kerbside parking on both sides of the road and two-way traffic, however, the unusual size of the delivery container trucks causes a problem. It is also recognised that 2 hour parking is commensurate with businesses in the area.

The critical area on the north-western corner of Harrogate Street and Oxford Close is the site of the recently demolished Leederville Mitsubishi Car Service. At present, there are three newly subdivided lots fronting Harrogate Street and the United Credit Union building at the western end.

The United Credit Union building has expressed an interest in maintaining the unrestricted kerbside parking designation to provide parking for their staff. They have on-site parking for a number of their senior staff customers and others park in the West Leederville Town Hall carpark, however, some staff and customers do use this northern side of Harrogate Street.

The critical property owner is Lot 57 on the north western corner of Harrogate Street and Oxford Close. The owner of this property has agreed to support the 2 hour parking restriction. The other two property owners have not responded to the requests for consideration for the adjustment of the kerbside parking.

It is proposed that the kerbside parking be restricted for a distance of up to 45 metres west of Oxford Close and this would be encompassing the existing crossovers and the Lot 57 who has agreed to the restriction. This amendment will satisfy the requirements of the technology business.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 49 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COMMENT:

The proposed kerbside parking restrictions are those that conform to the essential requirements for the technology business, plus have the support of the adjacent property owner.

It is not current practice to introduce Subiaco Oval Events kerbside parking restrictions in this area. The commercial nature of this section of Harrogate Street would be compatible to evening and weekend parking by patrons of the sporting events.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The strategic direction of this report is to ensure that the kerbside parking restrictions in the commercial area is commensurate with the commercial businesses and in accordance with the adjacent landowner.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost of introducing the additional signs will be borne from the Council’s infrastructure signs budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This recommendation is in accordance with Council’s policy for implementing kerbside parking restrictions to assist the adjacent businesses.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

A letter has been sent to the adjacent residents seeking their comment concerning this proposed restriction. The proposed restriction is in accordance with the responses that have been received.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed restrictions have been introduced as a result of the technology business on the south west corner of Harrogate Street and Oxford Close requesting a ‘2 hour Parking’ Restriction to be introduced to assist with the loading and unloading of equipment from container trucks. The container trucks find it difficult to manoeuvre within the street with kerbside parking. They are keen that the 2 hour parking is introduced so that they can arrange for people in the adjacent businesses to adjust their parking in the 2 hour zone to permit more convenient truck manoeuvring.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That a ‘2 Hour Parking’ restriction be introduced in lieu of the existing unrestricted parking on the northern side of Harrogate Street commencing 10 metres west of Oxford Close and extending 35 metres westwards from 8.00am until 6.00pm Monday to Friday as indicated on Plan Number E297-03-01.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 50 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.26

ABBOTSFORD STREET – KERBSIDE PARKING (File Reference: PKG 0006)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the kerbside parking in Abbotsford Street from Railway Parade to Cambridge Street in West Leederville.

BACKGROUND:

It has been drawn to Council’s attention that the kerbside parking signs in Abbotsford Street are too close to the intersection with Cambridge Street and this results in a potential traffic hazard.

The 2 hour parking restriction signs on the western side of Abbotsford Street are not commensurate with the desired Subiaco Oval Events parking restriction signs proposed for this street.

Recent developments in Abbotsford Street show that the standard six metre setback for kerbside parking from an intersection is not adequate for vehicles waiting to exit Abbotsford Street and turn into the District Roads of Cambridge Street and Railway Parade.

From experience of policing the kerbside parking restriction of ‘2hr Parking at all Times’ and the Subiaco Oval Events restriction, it is evident that community support and adjustments are required for practical enforcement.

DETAILS:

Abbotsford Street is 6 metres wide. This pavement width is adequate for two-way traffic or one-way traffic and kerbside parking on one side only. The current traffic volumes and parking restrictions enable this road to work satisfactorily. The exception is at the intersection at each end where there is insufficient stacking room for traffic to wait prior to entering the District Distributor Road.

It is proposed that the ‘No Stopping’ kerbside parking restriction on the western side of Abbotsford Street south of Cambridge Street and on the eastern side of Abbotsford Street north of Railway Parade be extended from 6 metres to 24 metres to accommodate vehicles waiting to enter the District Road.

The entry side of Abbotsford Street has existing ‘No Stopping’ 6 metres from Railway Parade and Cambridge Street. It is proposed to extend this ‘No Stopping’ zone from 6 metres to 18 metres from both the Railway Parade and Cambridge Street ends to ensure that there is adequate manoeuvring room for vehicles to enter Abbotsford Street without blocking traffic on the District Roads.

From consultation with businesses, it is recognised that 2 hour parking in lieu of Subiaco Oval Events parking during the week Monday to Friday is required.

The conflict for policing the ‘2 hour Parking Restriction at all Times’ and the Subiaco Oval events parking restriction will be resolved by placing the Subiaco Oval Eventsparking restriction above the ‘2 hour Parking Restriction’ and include the words under the 2 hour parking restriction ‘At all other Times’.

There have been no other kerbside parking requests for Abbotsford Street.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 51 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COMMENT:

The proposed amendments to the Abbotsford Street kerbside parking restrictions will have little impact on the adjacent residents and commercial properties but will:-

• Improve safety at the intersection of Abbotsford Street/Cambridge Street and Abbotsford Street/Railway Parade. • Simplify the policing of the kerbside parking restrictions.

Council has received a request from a resident seeking Council take the necessary action to establish and enforce a one-way traffic system whereby:-

• Traffic in Abbotsford Street be one-way northwards. • Traffic in Kerr Street be one-way southwards.

Any development of a one-way traffic system within the existing road network will need to be discussed with adjacent residents and advertised for community comment through the newspaper prior to taking any further action. This issue will be developed separately when the requirement can be established.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The strategic direction for this report is to ensure road safety and practical enforcement of kerbside parking.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost of introducing additional signs will be borne from the Council’s Infrastructure Signs Budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This recommendation is in accordance with Council’s policy for implementing kerbside parking restrictions to ensure road safety and practical enforcement.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

There has been no public consultation associated with this report as:-

• The alterations will have little impact on the adjacent properties. • The adjustments are required for traffic safety. • The adjustments are desirable for practical enforcement.

CONCLUSION:

It has been brought to Council’s attention that there are issues concerning road safety at the intersection of Abbotsford Street/Railway Parade and Abbotsford Street/Cambridge Street. The recommendation that this report will resolve these two issues.

The conflict in the kerbside parking signs on the western side of Abbotsford Street will be resolved by the implementation of this report. The request from businesses to permit ‘2 hour parking’ during the evenings Monday to Friday has led to modified Subiaco events parking signs.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 52 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The existing verge restriction and Subiaco Oval Events restrictions will remain.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) a ‘No Parking on Verge’ restriction be retained on the verge on the western side of Abbotsford Street;

(ii) a ‘No Parking on Road or Verge’ restriction be reduced in length on the eastern side of Abbotsford Street commencing 24 metres north of Railway Parade and extending northwards to a point 18 metres south of Cambridge Street;

(iii) a section of ‘No Stopping on Road or Verge’ be established:-

• on the western side of Abbotsford Street for a distance of 18 metres north of Railway Parade and 24 metres south of Cambridge Street;

• on the eastern side of Abbotsford Street for a length of 24 metres north of Railway Parade and 18 metres south of Cambridge Street; (iv) a ‘2 Hour Parking’ restriction ‘At all other times Residential Parking Permits Excepted’ be introduced on the western side of Abbotsford Street commencing 24 metres south of Cambridge Street and extending southwards to a point 18 metres north of Railway Parade; (v) a ‘No Parking 6.00 pm to 11.00 pm Friday and 11.00am to 11.00pm Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays, Residential Parking Permits Excepted’ parking restriction be introduced on the western side of Abbotsford Street commencing 24 metres south of Cambridge Street and extending southwards to a point 18 metres north of Railway Parade; (vi) the above parking restrictions be established as indicated on Plan Number E290-03-01.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 53 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.27

RAILWAY PARADE – KERBSIDE PARKING (File Reference: TES 0088 : PKG 0006)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the kerbside parking in Railway Parade adjacent to St Leonard’s Avenue in West Leederville.

BACKGROUND:

A request has been received for Council to give consideration to the implementation of kerbside parking restrictions on the northern side of Railway Parade both east and west of St Leonard’s Avenue. The request has been received because kerbside parking restricts motorists’ sight distance when exiting St Leonard’s Avenue into Railway Parade.

A site inspection shows that the existing kerbside parking restrictions extends for a distance of six metres both east and west of St Leonard’s Avenue. This is in accordance with the Road Traffic Act. In these cases, it is anticipated that the motorist will stop at the holding line in St Leonard’s Avenue and proceed forwards up to two metres to get clear vision in Railway Parade before proceeding when a safe gap in traffic flow is available.

It is clear that during peak traffic the volume along Railway Parade has few gaps for side streets to enter. This does discourage rat-running between Cambridge Street and Railway Parade.

A letter has been sent seeking residents’ comments with respect to the extension of the ‘No Stopping’ kerbside parking on the northern side of Railway Parade both east and west of St Leonard’s Avenue. A summary of their comments is included in this report.

DETAILS:

Railway Parade is approximately 10 metres wide and has adequate pavement width for kerbside parking on both sides and one lane of traffic in each direction.

The resident on the north-west corner of St Leonard’s Avenue and Railway Parade has requested that a limited extension (one vehicle length) to the ‘No Stopping’ along Railway Parade be implemented. Further, that the ‘No Stopping’ adjacent to his crossover off Railway Parade be extended. This resident has limited kerbside parking off St Leonard’s Avenue and the side boundary along Railway Parade is his major visitor parking site.

The two residents along Railway Parade east of St Leonard’s Avenue have approximately 15 metre frontages onto Railway Parade. Their blocks have significant depth in the same direction as St Leonard’s Avenue. The corner property has good carparking available along St Leonard’s Avenue however, the second block only has kerbside parking along Railway Parade. The third block east of St Leonard’s Avenue has vehicle access available off the laneway adjacent to the side of their property. The properties along Railway Parade east of St Leonard’s Avenue have not responded to the survey letter to date.

COMMENT:

There are a number of factors that influence the convenience for St Leonard’s Avenue traffic entering Railway Parade. These include:-

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 54 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

• Traffic volume in Railway Parade. • Traffic speed in Railway Parade. • The proximity of kerbside parking along Railway Parade.

This recommendation proposes that the kerbside parking restriction adjacent to St Leonard’s Avenue be extended from the existing 6 metres to 15 metres. The Council decided in February 2003 (Item TS03.04) to reduce the maximum speed limit from 60 kph to 50 kph and this will also assist.

The extension of the ‘No Stopping’ restriction recognises the request from the adjacent resident on the western side of St Leonard’s Avenue. Further, it acknowledges the need for the property at 308 Railway Parade to have kerbside parking adjacent to their property and that the property on the north-east corner of St Leonard’s Avenue and Railway Parade has kerbside parking available in St Leonard’s Avenue.

It has been suggested that a ‘Clearway’ be established on the northern side of Railway Parade from McCourt Street to Loftus Street. This issue should be considered separately recognising the varying land uses and traffic volumes along this section of Railway Parade. The new road works that have been established in Railway Parade do provide for a five metre pavement width for eastbound traffic and this is a minimum standard for kerbside parking and through traffic. If the ‘Clearway’ is established, excessive speed of two lanes of traffic may become an issue. The ‘Clearway’ proposal on the northern side of Railway Parade will best be considered when the 50kph restriction is introduced.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The strategic direction of this report is to ensure traffic safety.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost of introducing additional signs will be borne from the Council’s Infrastructure Signs Budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This recommendation is in accordance with Council’s policy for implementing kerbside parking restrictions to assist road safety, residential amenity and residential parking.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

A letter has been sent to the adjacent residents seeking their comment concerning this proposed restriction. The recommendation conforms to their requests that have been received to date.

CONCLUSION:

It has been brought to Council’s attention that kerbside parking in Railway Parade does restrict the sight distance for traffic exiting St Leonard’s Avenue in West Leederville. The proposed kerbside parking restrictions will assist with this issue and provide some kerbside parking for adjacent residents. The existing Subiaco Oval Event restrictions to remain.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 55 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) a ‘No Stopping on Road or Verge’ restriction be introduced on the northern side of Railway Parade extending 15 metres both east and west of St Leonard’s Avenue in lieu of the existing unrestricted parking;

(ii) a ‘No Parking’ restriction be established on the northern side of Railway Parade commencing 30 metres west of St Leonard’s Avenue and extending 18 metres westwards;

(iii) the above two parking restrictions be as indicated on Plan Number E304-03-01.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 56 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.28

FLOREAT AVENUE LANDSCAPE PLAN – PUBLIC COMMENT (File Reference: TES 0167 : PRO 0067 : TES 0247 : TES 0367)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To present to Council the details of the public comments received on the landscape plan for Floreat Avenue Floreat.

BACKGROUND:

Council, at its meeting held on 17 December 2002 (Item TS02.113) decided as follows:-

“That:-

(i) the Landscape Plan for Floreat Avenue be received and approved for public comment;

(ii) a budget item be developed for consideration within the 2003/2004 Draft Budget for the streetscape improvements in Floreat Avenue between Oceanic Drive and The Boulevard.”

DETAILS:

Public comments were invited from affected residents concerning the proposed landscape plan, for a three week period from 30 January 2003 to 21 February 2003. The landscape plan, a reply comment form and a covering letter (provided as attachments to this report) was sent to 11 residents in Floreat Avenue on 28 January 2003.

Residents were also advised that the proposed landscape plan for Floreat Avenue, at a larger scale, was also available for viewing during office hours on the Notice Board in the Council Office Foyer, at 1 Bold Park Drive and the Cambridge Library Foyer at the Floreat Forum.

The landscape plan proposed is aimed at introducing a new street tree theme for the area and to provide screening of the shops for adjacent residents. A total of 36 new advanced Jacaranda trees are proposed to be planted on both sides of the street located 3 metres from the kerb. In addition, approximately 80 screening shrubs are proposed to be planted along the western verge opposite house numbers 10 to 22. Up to 6 trees will be removed for safety and health reasons from the western verge opposite house numbers 10 to 14. Other removals proposed will be from verges in front of properties however, these will be in consultation with each individual resident.

A total of 6 submissions were received from a possible 11 representing a 55% response rate. Details of responses can be summarised as follows:-

Question 1 : Do you support the proposed landscape improvement as indicated on the attached plan?

• Yes = 5 No = 1

Question 2. If an existing tree on the verge outside your property hinders the growth of the new Jacaranda, are you in favour of Council removing it?

• Yes = 3 No = 3

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 57 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Question 3. Do you have any comments on the proposed plan?

• Two residents advised that they don’t wish to have a new verge tree.

• One resident advised that they want to be consulted before doing anything on the verge. They also advised that Removal of the Gum tree (Eucalyptus citriodora), would be “over my dead body “.

Question 4. Any other comments?

• One resident advised that they are very sorry if the Gum tree has to go.

• One resident advised that if a Gum tree is stressed, it may become dangerous.

• One resident advised the lighting needs urgent attention

• One resident advised that he wants screening of the carpark and small electrical switchboard. It was also requested the existing gum tree on the verge to remain or be replaced by another tree in the same spot

A community comment form was also sent to the Project Manager of Bovis Lend Lease, together with a letter explaining the proposed landscape plan for Floreat Avenue. This letter is attached to this report. The Administration has not received any response from Bovis Lend Lease at the time of writing this report.

COMMENT:

Resultant from the comment process, the Town received a 55% response rate (6 returns). Of these 83% (5), support the landscape plan proposal for Floreat Avenue. The one resident that did not support the Plan actually wants more screen planting from within Bovis Lend Lease land ( Floreat Forum) and made no negative comments about the Plan.

These results demonstrate that the Landscape Plan has community support. If the budget is approved for financial year 2003/2004, the commencement of the works program would depend on availability of advanced Jacaranda tree stock and could be as early as September 2003 but as late as April 2004.

The cost to implement the landscape plan for Floreat Avenue has previously been identified at $15,000. This will now be listed in the 2003/2004 Draft Budget. Other works proposed that have previously been identified in Council report TS02.113, December 2002, include:-

• Replacing existing old slab pathways. • Replace existing old kerbing. • Replace existing old street lighting.

These works will also be included in the 2003/2004 Draft Budget.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

This Project embraces the following goals of the Town’s Strategic Plan: -

• To improve the Town’s natural and built assets in consultation with the community, in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 58 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

• To effectively manage public open space to meet the needs of the community.

• To provide a safe, secure and clean, physical and natural environment for the Town, through environmentally oriented planning policies, development and operational practices.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

An amount of $15,000 will be listed in the 2003/2004 draft budget for Council consideration.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

This report relates to the public consultation undertaken for the proposed Floreat Avenue landscape Plan.

CONCLUSION:

Public comment was invited on the Floreat Avenue landscape plan over a three week period ending on 21 February 2003. Six responses were received representing a 55% response rate. Of these 83% (5) support the Landscape Plan. No response was received from the management of Bovis Lend Lease at the time of preparing this report. The landscape Plan for Floreat Avenue will now be included in the 2003/2004 Draft Budget.

Other improvements for the street such as the replacement of the existing old slab pathways, the replacement of the existing old kerbing and the replacement of existing old street lighting will also be included in the 2003/2004 Draft Budget.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) the landscape plan for Floreat Avenue be approved for construction;

(ii) the requirement for replacement of slab paths, kerbing and street lighting be noted;

(iii) works associated with (i) and (ii) above be listed in the 2003/2004 Draft Budget for Council consideration.

(iv) all residents who provided comments in relation to the landscape plan for Floreat Avenue be advised of Council’s decision.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 59 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.29

WATER STRATEGY – PARK IRRIGATION COMPLIANCE (File Reference: RES 0099)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To advise Council of how the Town’s park irrigation systems operate and how this operation relates to the recently announced State Water Strategy by the Western Australian Government.

BACKGROUND:

The Western Australian Government released a State Wide Water Strategy for Western Australia on 4 February 2003. It is based on a wide range of input from community members, including those who in 2002 took part in a series of water forums across the state and delegates to the Water Symposium at Parliament House from 7 to 9 October 2002.

DETAILS:

The Water Strategy aims to encourage the adoption of water efficient appliances and practices. Eight key initiatives have been identified within the strategy and these can be summarised as follows:-

1. Financial incentives to encourage the uptake of water efficiency measures, including rebates for the installation of garden bores, rainwater tanks, water efficient shower heads and washing machines rated AAAA or better. 2. Penalise domestic water wastage by substantially increasing the price of scheme water for individuals who consume more than 550 Kl. 3. Promote and enhance water related research and development activities in Western Australia. 4. Establish a target of 20% reuse of treated waste water by 2012. 5. Achieve a consumption level of 155 Kl per person per year for consumers served by the integrated supply scheme by 2012. 6. Continue the daytime sprinkler restrictions that apply between 9.00am and 6.00pm to all garden bores and extend the restrictions to Local Government. 7. Develop two new dams at Samson Brook and Wokalup Creek in the South West. 8. Undertake an investigation to enable a decision to be made on water allocations from the South West Yarragadee project, which could provide a new source of 45 Gl a year.

Page 29 and Section 4.10 of the strategy relates to Local Government. This section states that many Local Governments have reduced the amount of water used to irrigate parks and ovals, but there is still an opportunity to further reduce the amount of water used to maintain public open space by upgrading infrastructure to avoid daytime watering and to ensure more appropriate design of water use areas.

In relation to Local Government Water Management, the State Government has identified three main areas where it will work with Local Government to bring about change as follows:-

1. The State Government will work with Local Authorities to ensure that by no later than 1 July 2003, watering is limited to the period 6.00pm to 9.00am. Where it can be

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 60 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

demonstrated that this time line cannot be met because of exceptional circumstances, exemptions can be considered. 2. A water conservation plan will be required before a bore water allocation license is issued or renewed. The plan will outline water efficiency objectives and timeframes. License conditions will require implementation of the plan to an agreed schedule. 3. The State Government will support the establishment of a Local Government water campaign in partnership with WALGA and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Through this new partnership, the State Government will work with Local Government to implement a complementary sustainable water management program, which will assist Local Government to address local water management issues.

COMMENT:

The Town has 90 irrigated parks and road reserves representing around 300 hectares of reticulated area. Of these, only 4 (Perry Lakes Stadium, Perry Lakes Warm Up Track (Rugby), Matthews Netball Centre, Lake Monger Reserve Stage 3) totalling approximately 36ha, are currently irrigated manually. All of the Town’s automatic irrigation systems operate on a night cycle and comply with the current water restrictions. In addition, a total of 20 sportsgrounds and major parks representing 160ha are centrally controlled by computer and connected to a weather station. This allows the Town’s Parks to be irrigated according to local weather conditions as opposed to a set program. This results in a much reduced park water application as the weather station will take into account rainfall, temperature, humidity, wind intensity, solar radiation and evapotranspiration and will calculate a water application amount according to these weather conditions.

The conversion of manual irrigation systems to automatic has been taking place within the Town since 1997 when an Irrigation Improvement Program was developed (included as an attachment to this report) and funded on an annual basis. An amount of $3.13 million has been spent as at June 2002, with a further $613,000 programmed this financial year. The only remaining manual system yet to be converted to automatic is the final stage of Lake Monger Reserve Stage 3 and the southern section of Matthews Netball Centre, total cost $410,000. These have been included in the 2003/2004 draft budget. The Perry Lakes Stadium adjacent Warm Up track and Matthews Netball Centre north section are two areas that have not been programmed for conversion due to future development issues associated with these locations.

In support of the strategy the Administration has already put in place a self imposed restriction whereby the manual systems are not operated between the hours of 12 noon and 2.00pm. This strategy has been in place for several years. Additionally, staff monitor these sites to ensure effective use of water to minimise water running down the road or other non turf areas.

It should be recognised that to ensure the operation of the automatic systems are as efficient as possible, they need to be checked on a regular basis. This checking of sprinklers and bores is undertaken during the day between the hours of 7.00am to 4.00pm. Signs are placed out to advise the general public that the sprinklers are not operating to water turf, but they are operating so that staff can check the systems and identify faults, undertake repairs and make sure that they are operating effectively and efficiently.

It is important that the State Government works with Local Government to develop an implementation model. To this end, Western Australian Local Government Association has and will be liaising with the Waters and Rivers Commission (who are responsible for bore licenses in the State) to develop a Local Government position on this issue.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 61 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Under the Waters and Rivers Commission proposal, Councils will have the opportunity to seek a temporary exemption of specific irrigation activities from the direction of water restrictions, on the further condition that an agreed irrigation improvement program is put in place. The maximum timeframe for improvements to be completed is proposed to be three years.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

This Project embraces the following goals of the Town’s Strategic Plan: -

• To improve the Town’s natural and built assets in consultation with the community, in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner.

• To effectively manage public open space to meet the needs of the community.

• To provide a safe, secure and clean, physical and natural environment for the Town, through environmentally oriented planning policies, development and operational practices.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

An amount of $917,500 is listed in the 2003/2004 Draft Budget for Automatic Irrigation Improvements. Of this amount $410,000 (Lake Monger Reserve stage 3, $290,000 and Mathews Netball Centre $120,000) is directly related to the Town conforming to the Water Restrictions that will come into force on 1 July 2003.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

The Town’s watering programs have been produced and are constantly refined in consultation with the community including Sporting Clubs and residents living adjacent to neighbourhood parks. The recent Environmental Management Plan that was developed for Perry Lakes Reserve in consultation with the community, identified 3 different irrigation regimes for the Reserve, Average Use, Low Use and No Use. Average being the turf areas surrounding barbecues, picnic areas and playgrounds, Low use were areas where visitors walk and No Use areas were where visitors did not walk or rarely walked in. This same scenario is applied to all of the Town’s parks and ensures that parks are maintained to a quality level dependent upon their usage.

CONCLUSION:

The Water Strategy aims to encourage the adoption of water efficient appliances and practices. Eight key initiatives have been identified within the strategy one of which relates to local government, ie, to continue the daytime sprinkler restrictions that apply between 9.00am and 6.00pm to all garden bores and extend the restrictions to Local Government.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 62 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Page 29 and Section 4.10 of the strategy relates to Local Government where a requirement for change has been identified in two areas:-

• Upgrading of infrastructure to avoid daytime watering.

• Ensure more appropriate design of water use areas.

The State Government has identified three main areas where it will work with Local Government to bring about change as follows:-

1 Form 1 July 2003, watering will be limited to the period 6.00pm to 9.00am. Exemptions can be considered because of exceptional circumstances on the condition that the Council has an improvement Program that will ensure these systems are upgraded within three years. 2 A water conservation plan will be required before a bore water allocation license is issued or renewed. 3 The State Government will support the establishment of a Local Government water campaign in partnership with WALGA and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and work together to implement a complementary sustainable water management program.

The Town has 300ha of irrigated parks and road reserves, representing a total of 90 parks. By the end of financial year 2002/2003, eighty six (86) parks will operate on a night cycle and comply with the current water restrictions. In addition, a total of 20 sportsgrounds and major parks approximately 160ha, are centrally controlled by computer and connected to a weather station. This allows the Town’s Parks to be irrigated according to local weather conditions as opposed to a set program.

Only four sites, (Perry Lakes Stadium, Perry Lakes Warm Up Track (Rugby), Matthews Netball Centre and Lake Monger Reserve Stage 3) are currently irrigated manually. In relation to these, the Administration has put in place a self imposed restriction whereby the systems are not operated between 12 noon and 2.00pm. Additionally, staff monitor these sites to ensure effective use of water to minimise water running down the road or on other non turf areas.

Since 1997, the Town has spent $3.13 million (plus $613,000 for the current financial year) upgrading its irrigation systems according to a program which is attached to this report. The only remaining manual system yet to be converted to automatic, is the final stage of Lake Monger Reserve Stage 3 and the southern section of Matthews Netball Centre. The Perry Lakes Stadium, the adjacent Warm Up track and Mathews Netball Centre north section, are two areas that have not been programmed for conversion due to future development issues associated with these locations.

It is important that the State Government works with Local Government in addressing the issue of implementing an Irrigation Improvement Program for Local Governments and how these can be funded. To this end, Western Australian Local Government Association has and will be liaising with the Waters and Rivers Commission (who are responsible for bore licenses in the State) to develop a Local Government position on this issue.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 63 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMIITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

That:-

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

(i) the Town’s Park Irrigation compliance details in relation to the recently produced Water Strategy by the State Government be noted;

(ii) the installation of automatic irrigation to Lake Monger Reserve Stage 3 and the southern section of Matthews Netball Centre be considered for inclusion in the 20003/2004 Draft Budget;

(iii) the Town continues to progress the Irrigation Improvement Program.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 64 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.30

STREET TREES POLICY 4.1.5 – REVIEW (File Reference: TES 0013)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To endorse the review of Policy No. 4.1.5 - Management of Street Trees, as an outcome of the recommendations of the recently adopted Treescape Plan 2002 – 2012.

BACKGROUND:

In October 2002 (Item TS02.82), Council endorsed a Treescape Plan for the Town for future management of the Town’s Street tree assets. One of the Treescape Plan’s recommendations was that following the adoption of the plan, Council should review and amend, if necessary, the Management of Street Trees Policy No. 4.1.5.

DETAILS:

The current Management of Street Trees ( Policy No. 4.1.5 ) was last reviewed in June 2000. The policy is divided into four sections:-

• Planting. • Pruning. • Removal. • Pruning Removal for Property Developments.

The Policy works effectively in assisting the Administration to manage the Town’s street trees.

A review has now been undertaken and the Policy (which is an attachment to this report) has been amended to ensure it reflects the strategies and recommendations of the Treescape Plan, as well as making it flexible to cater for different situations, environmental conditions and resident concerns.

There are no wholesale changes to this policy. As previously highlighted in Council report TS02.82 in October 2002, the Treescape Plan will not have a significant impact on the Town’s Management of Street Trees Policy No. 4.1.5. As listed in the Treescape Plan (Section 4.8), there will not be any single or wholesale removal of trees that are not included in the recommended trees list (other than Ficus hillii trees).

As stated in the Treescape Plan and according to the current practice, the Administration will continue to encourage not force residents to have a street tree planted on the verge. Removals will only occur if a tree significantly declines in condition, is dead, or falls outside the Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE).

In relation to tree species, the plan is flexible in that, if residents fail to comment during the public consultation process and subsequently object to various species of trees being planted, the Administration may alter the recommended tree species of the street, on the condition that the resident can obtain the majority of consensus from residents of that street and the alternate tree species is consistent with the selection criteria in Section 4 of the Treescape Plan.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 65 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COMMENT:

The review of Management of Street Trees Policy No. 4.1.5 will enable the Administration to manage street trees in accordance with the newly developed Treescape Plan 2002 – 2012. The review of this policy now makes reference to the Treescape Plan and all issues in relation to the management of street trees within the Town will be dealt with in accordance with the Treescape Plan.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

This Project embraces the following goals of the Town’s Strategic Plan: -

• To improve the Town’s natural and built assets in consultation with the community, in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner.

• To effectively manage public open space to meet the needs of the community.

• To provide a safe, secure and clean, physical and natural environment for the Town, through environmentally oriented planning policies, development and operational practices.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The review of the Management of Street Trees Policy No. 4.1.5 has been undertaken and this report relates to the review of this policy.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

The Treescape Plan 2002 – 2012 went through a rigorous public consultation process in June and July 2002 with the majority of respondents supporting the Plan. The Management of Street Trees Policy No. 4.1.5 relates to this Plan and now requires to be amended,

CONCLUSION:

A review of Policy No. 4.1.5 – Management Street Trees has now been undertaken. The Policy (which is an attachment to this report) has been amended to ensure it reflects the strategies and recommendations of the Treescape Plan, as well as making it flexible to cater for different situations, environmental conditions and resident concerns.

In relation to tree species, the plan is flexible in that, it allows the Administration to alter the recommended tree species of the street, on the condition that the resident requesting the change can obtain a majority of consensus from residents of that street and the alternate tree species is consistent with the selection criteria in Section 4 of the plan.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 66 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

There are no wholesale changes to this Policy. Its review will enable the Administration to manage street trees in accordance with the newly developed Treescape Plan 2002 – 2012. The review of this policy now makes reference to the Treescape Plan and all issues in relation to the management of street trees within the Town will be dealt with in accordance with the Treescape Plan.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That Policy No. 4.1.5 – Management of Street Trees be amended and endorsed and the management of street trees be in accordance with the Town’s Treescape Plan 2002-2012.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 67 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

TS03.31

COASTAL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN – GRANT APPLICATION (File Reference: FIN 0079)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To seek Council’s support to make a submission jointly with the Cambridge Coastcare group for a grant application to the Western Australian Planning Commission for a Coastwest Grant of up to $30,000 to develop a Coastal Vegetation Management Plan for the Town.

BACKGROUND:

Coastwest grants, which are co-ordinated through the Western Australian Planning Commission have again been made available in 2003 for joint applications from Councils and community groups. Applications close on 28 March 2003. Relevant pages of the applicant’s guidelines have been included as an attachment to this report.

DETAILS:

A grant application is planned to be submitted to Coastwest as a joint project between the Town and Cambridge Coastcare requesting a grant of $15,000 being 50% of the total project cost of $30,000, to produce a Coastal Vegetation Management Plan.

A Management Plan for the coastal dunes is seen as a high priority. Grant funding opportunities will be improved by the production of this plan. Other than the Coastal Planning Study which is a general document on improving the facilities at Floreat and City Beaches, the Town does not have a specific vegetation management plan for the coastal dune system. The production of this plan will allow the Administration to demonstrate in detail how dunes are to be managed and will assist the Town’s opportunities in obtaining future grants.

COMMENT:

The production of a Coastal Vegetation Management Plan will allow the Town to undertake a strategic and co-ordinated approach in rehabilitating the coastal dune system. It will assist in prioritising areas in terms of improvements and will allow better planning in terms of identifying projects, budgets and priorities for future financial years.

Once produced and adopted, this plan will become the focal point for undertaking any works within the coastal dune system and will assist both the Town and community groups, namely, Cambridge Coastcare to develop well planned and co-ordinated projects. Successful Coastwest grants will be announced by mid May 2003.

This Plan, once completed should form the basis and be part of an overall Environmental Management Plan for the Town’s Coastal areas and associated facilities. This Environmental Management Plan should be similar to Environmental Management Plan for Perry Lakes Reserve. The Town’s Coastal areas are currently identified as:-

• City Beach Park. • Floreat Beach Park. • Beaches and Dunes.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 68 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

This Project embraces the following goals of the Town’s Strategic Plan: -

• To improve the Town’s natural and built assets in consultation with the community, in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner.

• To effectively manage public open space to meet the needs of the community.

• To provide a safe, secure and clean, physical and natural environment for the Town, through environmentally oriented planning policies, development and operational practices.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

If approved Council would need to contribute 50% ($15,000) towards the development of the Vegetation Management Plan which is estimated to be around $30,000. This item will be listed in the 2003/2004 Draft Budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

A thorough public consultation will be undertaken in the development of the management plan, similar to the development of the Perry Lakes Reserve Management Plan. This consultation will involve not only the Coastcare group but the local and regional community as well.

CONCLUSION:

An application for a Coastwest grant is proposed to be submitted jointly by the Town of Cambridge and Cambridge Coastcare for up to $30,000 for the development of a Coastal Vegetation Management Plan. The plan will assist the Administration, Council and the local community including Cambridge Coastcare to identify priorities, funding opportunities and works programs to assist in maintaining and improving the Town’s coastal dune system. Applications close on 28 March 2003 and successful Coastwest grants will be announced by mid May 2003.

This Vegetation Management Plan should become a part of an Environmental Management Plan which is proposed for the Coastal area.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

That:-

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

(i) the application for a Coastwest grant of $15,000 by the Town of Cambridge and Cambridge Coastcare to develop and produce a Coastal Vegetation Management Plan be supported for submission;

(ii) an amount of $30,000 be considered for inclusion in the 2003/2004 Draft Budget which is to be made up of a 50% contribution by Coastwest of $15,000 and a 50% contribution by the Town of $15,000.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 69 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

8. REPORTS FROM DELEGATES: COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS

8.1 Lake Monger Working Group.

Nothing further to report

8.2 Perry Lakes Working Group.

Nothing further to report

8.3 Mindarie Regional Council.

The Chief Executive Officer advised that land is proposed to be purchased at Neerabup for the proposed secondary waste treatment plant. This decision was reached at the Mindarie Regional Council meeting held in February 2003 following extensive public comment and investigation.

8.4 Wembley Golf Complex Advisory Committee.

Nothing further to report

9. GENERAL BUSINESS

9.1 Challenger Parade Footpath

Cr Anderton requested information on the progress of the footpath works along Challenger Parade as the footpath is currently unlit.

The Administration agreed to investigate the matter.

9.2 Irrigation Improvement Program

Cr Burkett queried the amounts listed in the Irrigation Improvement Program schedule and requested that they be checked prior to the next meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 25 March 2003.

10. CLOSURE

There being no further business, the Presiding Member thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting of the Technical Services Committee closed at 7.50pm.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\B TS.doc 70 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

The report of the Policy and Administration Committee Meeting held on 11 March 2003 was submitted as under:

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Policy and Administration Committee open at 7. 53 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present: Time of Time of Entering Leaving

Members:

Cr Kerry Smith (Presiding Member) 7.53 pm 8.10 pm

Cr Graham Burkett JP 7.53 pm 8.10 pm Cr Corinne MacRae (Deputy) 7.53 pm 8.10 pm Cr Pauline O’Connor JP 7.53 pm 8.10 pm

Observers:

Cr Hilary Pinerua 7.53 pm 8.10 pm

Officers:

Graham Partridge, Chief Executive Officer Neil Costello, Manager Policy and Administration Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)

Adjournments: Nil

Time meeting closed: 8.10 pm

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Alan Langer

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Nil

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 71 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Burkett, seconded by Cr MacRae

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Policy and Administration Committee held on 11 February 2003 as contained in the February 2003 Council Notice Paper, be confirmed.

Carried

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS

Nil

7. REPORTS

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 72 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

REFERRED BACK

PA03.02

AREAS “F” AND “G”, MOUNT CLAREMONT, AND FORMER NURSERY SITE, SALVADO ROAD, JOLIMONT: APPROACHES BY HON MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE (File Reference: PRO1349 and PRO0390)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To advise Council regarding correspondence received from the Hon Minister for Planning and Infrastructure seeking to resolve issues outstanding in relation to land known as areas ”F” and “G” in Mount Claremont, and the former Nursery Site, Salvado Road, Jolimont.

BACKGROUND:

Correspondence addressed to His Worship the Mayor has been received from the Hon Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. The text reads as follows:-

“It is important we move to resolve the issues outstanding in relation to the above (Areas ‘F’ and ‘G’) land. In particular I am asking the Council to initiate an amendment to rezone Area ‘G’ to Residential R30.

It is apparent from previous correspondence there is considerable ongoing confusion with regard to the background on Areas ‘F & G’. A review of the available information reveals the following:

A deed dated 5 May 1995 was entered into between the Town of Cambridge (Commissioners of), the State of Western Australia and the Minister for Lands to provide for the establishment of ‘Bold Park’. Amongst other terms the Deed provided for the land referred to as Areas ‘F, G & H’ to be ceded by the Town to the State and developed into residential housing lots with “the Nett proceeds of the sale of the residential housing lots …(to be made available) .. to the Kings Park Board to be used exclusively by the Kings Park Board for the future development and management of Bold Regional Park”. [‘Nett proceeds’ were defined as – the final proceeds of sale after all normal development costs, including, without limitation, project management fees, marketing fees and financing costs have been deducted].

I am advised that the Deed was never executed and a dispute arose between the former Government and the then elected Council for the Town of Cambridge, whereby the Town refused to hand over the title deeds to Areas ‘F, G & H’ in accordance with the provisions of the Deed.

To advance the settlement of this issue a compromise arrangement was approved by Cabinet (dated 15 September 1997) whereby payment of $6.5 million was made to the Town “simultaneous with the Council effecting transfer of title deeds for blocks ‘F’ (Fortview Road) and ‘G’ (Whitney Crescent)”. Thus the Town received $6.5 million which was not envisaged by the Deed.

Cabinet endorsed that Treasury’s advance (to the Town) was to be recouped against the sale of “F & G” and if the proceeds exceeded $6.5 million, the next $5 million was to be paid to the Kings Park Board with any surplus above $11.5 million to be equally split between the Town and the Board. Unlike the Deed the Cabinet Submission makes no reference to the “Nett proceeds of the sale of residential housing lots” but refers to the sale of “F & G” by DOLA and

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 73 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

specifically states “it is not intended that DOLA subdivide “F” but that it be sold en globo”. There were a number of issues to be resolved with “G” which did not allow it to be sold immediately, however it was noted that this land would be worth “at least $7 million as the earlier valuation assumed a worst case (minimum available land for sale) scenario”. The sum of $7 million relates to various valuation advice obtained on the en globo land about that time, and if “Net proceeds” were intended, the sum quoted is likely to have been much greater, even under the worst case scenario.

As you would be aware Lot 87 (the southern portion of Area “G”) is subject to a Declaration of Trust which has been determined as a Charitable Trust for the purpose of “recreation for the use of the people for all time” and this will have to be lifted to enable development of the land. With community opposition to the proposal and a requirement for legislative approval to lift the Trust, a compromise on the area to be developed was offered to achieve support through the parliamentary process. In this case the land available for development would be less than envisaged in the earlier worst case scenarios.

It should be noted the Crown Solicitor’s Office has reviewed the acquisition by Landcorp of Area “F” from the DOLA (at the Valuer General’s Office valuation) and found that this was consistent with the Cabinet Decision.

I believe the provisions proposed in the Deed (but never implemented) are being confused with the terms of the Cabinet Submission/Decision – which have since been implemented by payment of $6.5 million to the Town.

I am satisfied from the available information and advice provided that the Cabinet Decision clearly intended for the proceeds of sale of Area “F” to be the sale of the en globo land and not the “Net proceeds” of sale.

As such I do not propose to reverse the transaction between DOLA and LandCorp on Area “F”.

I would hope agreement on the development of Area “G” can be achieved in the short term so that the sale of this land can be finalised and a distribution of proceeds made in accordance with the Cabinet Decision. In particular, confirmation of the earlier advice from your Council that it will support a rezoning of area “G” to R30 will be appreciated.”

DETAILS:

The subject land is one of two land parcels (known as Areas ‘F’ and ‘G’) transferred to Government ownership for residential development as part of the Bold Park Deed of Agreement.

When the Council and the State Government reached agreement on Bold Park, the following terms were agreed upon:-

(a) a payment of $ 6.5 million to the Town by way of compensation; (b) an amount of $ 5 million to the Kings Park Board, for the benefit of Bold Park; (c) the sale of land in areas ‘F’ and ‘G’ to fund the $11.5 million total in (a) and (b); (d) any surplus above the $11.5 million raised from the sale of the land to be split equally between the Town and the former Kings Park Board (now the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority).

Prior to the land in Area ‘F’ being made available for sale by public auction, it was “sold” by the Department of Land Administration to Landcorp at an en globo price, effectively

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 74 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

circumventing the intended process and realising a far lower price that what would have been attained at auction.

Area ‘G’ has also been the subject of some controversy, with the proposed sale becoming a political matter between the State Government and the Friends of Banksia Farm over the amount of land comprising Area ’G’ that can be developed and subsequently sold.

Area ‘F’ comprises 17 lots and is located on the southern side of Fortview Road, Mt Claremont. Area ‘G’ is located on the eastern side of Rochdale Road and Stephenson Avenue between Montgomery Avenue and Whitney Crescent. Landcorp has prepared a concept subdivision plan in accordance with the proposed R30 zoning showing that the area can accommodate approximately 62 lots. This is less than originally anticipated due to the compromise negotiated by the State Government in relation to “Banksia Farm”.

The Council, at its meeting held on 26 October 1999 decided that:-

“Landcorp be advised that the Council has no objection in principle to their request to rezone their vacant landholding in Mount Claremont (Area G), however, before making a formal determination of such a proposal, the Council requires further details relating to the following:-

(i) subdivision concept/development standards; (ii) number of lots proposed; (iii) variation in lot sizes proposed.”

This request was made to the Chief Executive Officer of Landcorp in a letter dated 3 November 1999. A subsequent meeting was held with representatives of Landcorp and the community group “Friends of Banksia Farm” at which a number of issues were discussed.

One area of concern to the Administration included no mention at any time during negotiations of “en globo” land values. It also appeared that discussions were undertaken and agreements reached between State Treasury and the Department of Land Administration with no involvement by the Council. The discussions were not consistent with matters discussed when the Council met with the Hon Colin Barnett, the Hon Peter Foss and the Hon Paul Omodei.

The Council stated in correspondence to the Hon Colin Barnett, Member for Cottesloe and in Government at the time:-

“I am aware of the recent publicity concerning the lands commonly referred to as areas “F” and “G” in the Agreement that the Town and the State Government would share equally in any funds derived from the sale of the land exceeding $11.5m.

The Town of Cambridge, in reaching its Agreement with the State Government, supports the selling of areas “F” and “G” and any arrangements made to accommodate community concerns would be a matter between the State Government and the local community. The Town would however be disappointed, if the State Government were to compromise the Agreement by taking action that would reduce the monies to be derived from the sale and the Town not receiving its share of the funds exceeding $11.5m.

The areas known as “F” and “G” have been transferred to the State Government in good faith to enable Bold Park to be improved for the benefit of all Western Australians. You will recall that the Town of Cambridge has gifted well over 400 ha of freehold land to the State Government for the purposes of creating a regional park. The sale of areas “F” and “G” caters

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 75 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

for the improvement of the Park and also compensates, in a small way, the ratepayers of the Town for the gifting of the land.

Once again, I trust that the State Government will do all in its power to ensure that an amount in excess of $11.5m is realised from the sale so that the Agreement between the State Government and the Town of Cambridge for a share of funds can be met.”

The Council also agreed in principle, at its meeting held on 26 October 1999, to rezone that part of Area ‘G’ zoned residential from R 12.5 to R 30 subject to further information being provided in relation to lot numbers and sizes. Increasing the density would assist the State Government in obtaining its revenue target of $11.5million, although this target has been made less achievable by virtue of the en globo transaction undertaken between the two Government authorities at an amount well below market value.

Former Nursery Site, Salvado Road, Jolimont

Although not directly related to the correspondence received from the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure regarding area “G” referred to above, the Council is also negotiating with the Department of Land Administration (DOLA) and indirectly with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, in regard to the lifting of the municipal endowment trust currently in force on the Town’s freehold title for the former Nursery Site situated in Salvado Road, Jolimont.

Mayor and Councillors will also be aware that Council authorized the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate with DOLA and the relevant Ministers to remove the municipal endowment trust over the former Nursery Site. Negotiations have been under way for some time with DOLA, however, while agreement has been reached for the trust to be removed from the title, DOLA has advised that the Government will only lift the municipal endowment trust subject to a suitable revenue sharing arrangement being agreed between the State Government and the Town in return for the removal of the trust. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has advised that she supports the removal of the trust subject to revenue sharing arrangements being agreed upon between the parties. The Chief Executive Officer has pursued the Minister and DOLA in regard to the unfairness of the Government’s demand for a revenue sharing arrangement, however, the matter has not been able to be resolved.

Some of the facts surrounding the former Nursery Site land in Salvado Road, Jolimont, are as follows:-

The Town of Cambridge owns freehold land commonly known as the Former Nursery Site situated in Salvado Road, Jolimont. The site has been held by Local Government since 1905. The title of the land has been held by three local government authorities, namely Leederville Road Board (no longer in existence), the City of Perth and the Town of Cambridge. Following the restructure of the City of Perth, the site is no longer required as a plant nursery.

While the Town holds the freehold title, it is subject to a municipal endowment, which is in the form of a trust. The Town of Cambridge is desirous to remove the trust, so that it will have unrestricted use of the land.

The former Minister for Lands, Doug Shave, and the former Minister for Local Government, Paul Omodei, supported in principle the removal of the trust on behalf of the Town. Copies of relevant correspondence have been circulated for Members information.

The Chief Executive Officer has now been advised by the Department of Land Administration (DOLA), that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is prepared to remove the trust subject to a revenue sharing arrangement being entered into with the Government. This

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 76 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

condition for a revenue sharing arrangement is not considered acceptable and since the land has been held by Local Government since 1905, it seems unreasonable and an opportunistic action by the Government.

Should the Town of Cambridge develop the land, it would be for the benefit of the residents of the Town. The Council could continue to utilise the land for municipal purposes without the State Government receiving the benefit of any revenue sharing arrangements, however, this would significantly lessen the uses the land could be developed for and its overall financial value to the Town.

Under recent amendments to the Land Administration Regulations, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure together with the Treasurer can override any requirement for a revenue sharing arrangement and approve the lifting of the trust.

Since the Town has been established, the Metropolitan Region Scheme Reservation for the former Nursery land has been amended from “Parks and Recreation” to “Urban”. No objections to the amendment were received and it was obvious to all involved that the Town of Cambridge should be given unencumbered use of the land. The electors of the Town of Cambridge also voted at a Special Meeting of Council to support this provision.

The following is a brief summary of the position as it now stands:-

• The Nursery Site situated at Salvado Road, Wembley, is owned freehold by the Town of Cambridge, however, is subject to a Municipal Trust.

• The Nursery Site has been used for municipal purposes for more than 95 years.

• The Nursery Site was identified in the Carr-Fardon Report as an asset, which potentially could be sold to fund the development of the Town.

• It is understood from the intention of the City of Perth Restructuring Act 1993 and the then Minister for Local Government that the Nursery Site would be an asset with which the Town could deal freely.

• On 27 June 1996, the electors of the Town of Cambridge voted in favour of removing the Trust on which the Nursery Site is held.

• The former Minister for Local Government and Minister for Lands in the previous Government have agreed in principle that the Municipal Trust should be lifted.

• The Trust over the land states that it is to be used and held upon trust solely for the purposes of municipal endowment.

• The Council can clearly develop the land, however, it would be restricted in on-selling the land by issuing titles.

• The Council may, however, be able to lease or license the land as it is held freehold.

• Any revenue raised from the site would clearly be used for municipal purposes, as that is all the Town of Cambridge can utilise the funds for. Therefore, the Trust seems no longer to have any relevance.

• The land is zoned “Urban” pursuant to the Metropolitan Region Scheme (recent amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme).

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 77 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

• The Town is desirous of making the best use of the land and is therefore requesting the Municipal Endowment Trust to be removed.

• The State Government through the Department of Land Administration (DOLA), is continuing in its attempts to obtain some financial gain from the lifting of the Trust, even though the land is held freehold by the Town of Cambridge and any revenue derived would be used for municipal purposes.

• This matter has been under consideration since 1996 and it is the Town of Cambridge’s opinion that the matter should now be finalised and the Trust lifted.

• It is State Government policy to seek revenue from lands endowed or gifted to organisations.

Relevance of the Minister’s Request to Rezone Area “G” to R30 and the Former Nursery Site, Salvado Road, Jolimont

The Town of Cambridge gifted over 400 ha of freehold land to the State Government to create Bold Park and as a result, received $ 6.5 million as an upfront payment and was to receive a share of any funds over $ 11.5 million following the sale of areas “F” and “G”. Due to inter- government transfers on the sale of area “F”, the possibility of any funds exceeding $ 11.5 million will be highly unlikely. The land at area “F” sold at auction for approximately $ 8.9 million, whereas the valuation and the inter-government transfer was for $ 3.75 million. Also, area “G” will not obtain its full value due to the area being significantly reduced by the creation of the land known as ‘Banksia Farm’. To increase potential proceeds from the sale, the Government has requested that the remaining land in area “G” be rezoned to R30. The Council has agreed, in principle, subject to conditions to rezone the land as requested.

In regard to the former Nursery Site in Salvado Road, Jolimont, it would appear that when the Council requires the lifting of the long standing municipal endowment trust, the Government is requesting in return, a revenue sharing arrangement for the lifting of the trust. This would appear to be a double standard in the Government’s dealings over land. It should be noted that recent amendments to the Land Administration Act 1997 empower the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure together with the Treasurer, to exclude any revenue sharing arrangement to lift the trust over the former Nursery site.

It is therefore suggested that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure be advised that the Council will proceed to rezone area “G” to R30 as requested and previously agreed in principle, subject to the trust on the certificate of title for the former Nursery site being lifted without the requirement for any revenue sharing arrangement being negotiated between the State Government and the Town. This arrangement would allow for both matters to be finalised as it would appear that the Cabinet Minute for area “F” and “G” does not reflect the Council’s understanding of the financial arrangements between the parties. Also, the land comprising area “F” was subdivided and sold by Landcorp some time ago and the funds dispersed.

In respect to the former Nursery site, the Metropolitan Region Scheme Reservation has been changed from “Parks and Recreation” to “Urban” and accordingly, the Council must now proceed to subdivide the land and bring its Town Planning Scheme in line with the Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment. A report on this matter is being held in abeyance until such time as the municipal endowment trust issue has been resolved and the current situation affords an opportunity to bring to an end these long standing issues.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 78 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The resolution of both issues will result in the Council being able to deal freely with its land assets which will generate significant revenue in the future. In regard to area “G”, once developed, the Town will receive rates income and, should the total sale of areas “F” and “G” exceed $ 11.5 million, the Town will gain a share of the revenue.

SUMMARY:

The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has written to the Council, seeking to proceed with the rezoning of area “G”, situated on the eastern side of Stephenson Avenue and Rochdale Road, between Montgomery Avenue and Whitney Crescent, to R 30. The sale of this land together with area “F” has been subject to previous negotiations in regard to a financial return to the Town, should the land sell for more than $ 11.5 million. The Council has already received a payment of $ 6.5 million. Due to inter-government land transfers and the Government’s decision in regard to “Banksia Farm”, it is possible now that the revenue raised from the sale of areas “F” and “G” will not exceed $ 11.5 million.

The Council has requested the lifting of the municipal endowment trust placed on the certificate of title of the former Nursery site, Salvado Road, Jolimont, and the Government has advised it will lift the trust providing a revenue sharing arrangement is agreed upon. Informal discussions with DOLA representatives would indicate that the Government is envisaging a 50 : 50 revenue sharing arrangement. Any revenue sharing arrangement is seen to be unreasonable as local government has held freehold title over the land for 98 years and it has been used exclusively during that time for municipal purposes.

The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure together with the Treasurer has authority pursuant to the Land Administration Act to waive any revenue sharing arrangements. Both areas “F” and “G” and the former Nursery site land issues have been outstanding virtually since 1995, when the first Council of the Town of Cambridge was elected. It is now considered an appropriate time to finalise these matters.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That the Hon Minister for Planning and Infrastructure be advised that the Council is disappointed with her decisions concerning the financial return for the land known as area “F” and requiring a revenue sharing agreement for the former Nursery site in Salvado Road, Jolimont. However, in a spirit of co-operation and to finalise the long standing disputes, the Council will agree to rezone the land known as area “G” situated on the eastern side of Rochdale Road and Stephenson Avenue, between Montgomery Avenue and Whitney Crescent, from Residential 12.5 to Residential 30 subject to the following conditions:-

(i) the municipal endowment trust on the Certificate of Title for the former Nursery site in Salvado Road, Jolimont, be removed without the requirement for any revenue sharing agreement;

(ii) submission to the Council of further details relating to the development of the land known as area “G” bounded by Rochdale Avenue, Stephenson Avenue, Montgomery Avenue and Whitney Crescent as follows:-

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 79 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

(a) subdivision concept / development standards; (b) number of lots proposed; (c) variation in lot sizes proposed;

(iii) the responsible Government Department to reimburse the Town for all costs associated with the rezoning of the land known as area “G”.

Committee Meeting 11 February 2003

During discussion, Members expressed concern that the content of the Minister’s letter is contrary to the spirit of the agreement in relation to Areas “F” and “G” as understood by Council. Also, Members were not prepared to support a revenue sharing agreement for the former Nursery Site in Salvado Road, Jolimont and considered that these issues should be dealt with separately.

The Administration’s recommendation was then put and lost.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) the Administration be thanked for its report on Areas “F” and “G”, Mount Claremont and the former Nursery Site in Salvado Road, Jolimont;

(iii) legal opinion be sought from the Council’s Solicitors in relation to the Minister’s proposal and in relation to issues concerning Areas “F”, “G” and the former Nursery Site;

(iv) further reports be submitted to Council on these matters.

During discussion, Members also noted the contents of the letter in relation to these matters submitted by the Chairman of the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association.

Amendment

Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Burkett

That the motion be amended to read as follows:-

(i) the Administration be thanked for its report on Areas “F” and “G”, Mount Claremont and the former Nursery Site in Salvado Road, Jolimont;

(ii) it be noted that the Hon Minister for Planning and Infrastructure’s response dated 4 December 2002 regarding Areas “F” and “G”, Mount Claremont is contrary to the spirit of the agreement reached with the previous State Government in 1999 such that the land in Area “F” was sold en globo and not as separate lots and that the Council never intended that the community be misled by this land transfer mechanism;

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 80 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

(iii) as the Council is now faced with a similar situation with regard to Area “G”, it is not prepared to consider the final rezoning of Area “G” unless:-

(a) the State Government agrees that the land in Area “G” be sold on a lot by lot basis so that the Town of Cambridge and the Western Australian community can realise the true value of the land for reinvestment in community projects and in the rehabilitation of Bold Regional Park;

(b) the municipal endowment trust of the Certificate of Title for the former Nursery Site in Salvado Road, Jolimont be removed without the requirement for any revenue sharing agreement;

(iv) legal opinion be sought from the Council’s Solicitors in relation to the Minister’s proposal and in relation to issues concerning Areas “F”, “G” and the former Nursery Site.

Cr Burkett left the meeting at 7.20 pm and returned at 7.22 pm.

During discussion, Members suggested that the item be referred back to the Policy and Administration Committee to enable further clarification to be obtained from the Council’s legal advisors on issues relating to Areas F and G, including the validity of previous agreements with the State Government, previous Cabinet decisions and the land transaction transferring Area F from one government organisation to another, the possibility of the Town being compensated for the loss of income as a result of the sale of Area F by the Department of Land Administration and the potential for Area G to also be sold “en globo” to Landcorp.

Motion to Refer Back

That the item relating to Areas “F” and “G”, Mount Claremont and Former Nursery Site be referred back to the Policy and Administration Committee for further consideration.

Carried

Members requested that the vote of all those present be recorded:-

For: Mayor Willcock, Crs Anderton, Pinerua and O’Connor Against: Crs Burkett, MacRae, McAullay and Smith

As the votes of the Members present were equally divided, His Worship the Mayor cast a second vote in favour of the motion to refer back.

FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 25 February 2003)

The Chief Executive Officer has met with the Town’s solicitors to discuss the range of issues associated with this matter. At the present time, the legal advice arising from that meeting is being prepared and will be circulated to Elected Members as soon as it is available.

Committee Meeting 11 March 2003

During discussion, Members agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination as the requested legal advice had not yet been received.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 81 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Council Meeting 25 March 2003

As the requested legal advice was received late this afternoon, Members suggested that the item be referred back to the Policy and Administration Committee for further consideration.

Motion to Refer Back

Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Burkett

That the item relating to Areas “F” and “G”, Mount Claremont and Former Nursery Site be referred back to the Policy and Administration Committee for further consideration.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 82 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

PA03.07

COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT – 2002 PROGRAM (File Reference: ORG0009)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To adopt the Local Government Compliance Audit Return for the period 1 January to 31 December 2002.

BACKGROUND:

The Department of Local Government and Regional Development has provided a copy of the Statutory Compliance Audit Return required for the period 1 January to 31 December 2002, and has requested that the completed Return be submitted to the Department of Local Government and Regional Development by the end of March 2003.

DETAILS:

Changes have been made to the format of the 2002 Compliance Audit Return.

The Compliance Audit Return is one of the tools available to assist Council with its monitoring role and this year’s Return places greater emphasis on the need to bring to Council’s attention cases of non-compliance or where full compliance was not achieved.

In addition to explaining or qualifying cases of non-compliance, the Return also requires details of any remedial action taken or proposed to be taken in regard to instances of non-compliance. Council should also endorse this action when it adopts the Return.

Over the next two years, the Return will include all the statutory requirements listed in the Local Government (Audit) Regulations. This will allow local governments to enhance or develop their internal control processes to ensure they include the statutory requirements of the legislation.

Each local government is required to carry out a compliance audit for the period 1 January to 31 December 2002 against the requirements contained in the 2002 Compliance Audit Return. On completion of the compliance audit, the local government is to complete a Compliance Audit Return.

The Council’s audit return shows that the Town complied with its statutory requirements.

A copy of the completed Return is attached to and forms part of the Notice Paper.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 83 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Burkett

That the completed 2002 Compliance Audit Return for the period 1 January to 31 December 2002, as attached to and forming part of the Notice Paper, be adopted, certified by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer, and submitted to the Department of Local Government and Regional Development.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 84 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

PA03.08

CITY OF GOSNELLS: LOTS 1767 AND 1768, FURLEY ROAD, SOUTHERN RIVER (File Reference: ORG0066)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To advise Council in relation to a request from the City of Gosnells seeking a financial contribution from the Town to assist with remediation works on a liquid waste site in Southern River owned and operated by the former City of Perth.

BACKGROUND:

Correspondence has been received from the City of Gosnells relating to remediation works required to be undertaken on a site at Lots 1767 and 1768 Furley Road, Southern River.

The letter, signed by the Director of Regulatory Services at the City of Gosnells, reads as follows:-

“After ten years of investigation and groundwater monitoring, the City of Gosnells has finally obtained clearance from the Environmental Protection Authority to remediate the former Liquid Waste Disposal Facility situated at Lot 1768 Furley Road, Southern River. The clearance, obtained in mid-November, is valid for a period of five years.

As you would be aware, the adjoining Lot 1867, which is in the ownership of the City of Perth, falls within the area to be remediated, with an estimated 3,250 m3 (5,525 tonnes) of contaminated soil to be removed from that site. This equates to 28.5 % of the total soil. An accurate assessment of that volume will not be known until remediation and testing is under way.

Preliminary costing for the clean up of the site is in the vicinity of $1.6 million of which, at this stage, the City only has a portion.

Historically, at the behest of the then Commissioner of Public Health, the Shire of Gosnells leased a portion of Lot 1768 Furley Road, Southern River to the then City of Perth for the purpose of disposal of liquid waste originating from within that local government district. From records available it would appear the City of Perth met the total infrastructure cost for the site, establishing road access, fencing and the excavation of a number of pits for the receipt of various types of liquid waste. The initial projection for the site was 5,000 gallons of liquid waste per week.

The facility was leased by the City of Perth for approximately four years commencing mid 1969. The lease was eventually terminated as a result of extreme complaint from residents in the area relating to odour nuisance.

As waste was directed to the facility from areas other than within the City of Gosnells, and in the latter stages, from all parts of the metropolitan area south of the river, the City of Gosnells has written to the Ministers for the Environment and Health seeking financial assistance towards the remediation.

To date no response has been received, however, in the interim the City advises that it would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the Chief Executive Officer or a relevant member of the Town’s staff in order to canvass the probability of financial assistance from the Town, as its district formed part of the City of Perth throughout the period of operation of this site.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 85 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Precedent would dictate that should the City of Perth be deemed responsible for portion of the remediation costs then those local governments that formerly fell within its district boundaries may also have some liability.”

DETAILS:

The same request has been received by the Towns of Vincent and Victoria Park, also component parts of the former City of Perth. Whilst the above three Towns at one time may have formed part of a larger City of Perth, they are individual legal entities in their own right and have no connection or legal ties to the City of Perth.

The City of Perth Restructuring Act 1993 set out how the Towns’ and the City’s assets and liabilities would be split at Division Day and the Act made no reference to Lots 1767 and 1768, Furley Road, Southern River or any ongoing commitments or liabilities.

The ownership of Lots 1767 and 1768 remained with the City of Perth when the split occurred and accordingly the Towns did not obtain a share of the asset and therefore do not have a share of the liabilities. Any changes to the way assets and liabilities between the City and the Towns were split after Division Day has been by agreement or legislation.

The fact that the three Towns’ local government areas once formally fell within the district boundary of the City of Perth is a matter of history and does not impart any responsibility for the Towns to contribute to the remediation.

The Chief Executive Officers of the Towns of Victoria Park, Vincent and Cambridge have discussed this matter and are in agreement that they should not accept any liability towards the remediation of the land and accordingly the Towns should not make any contribution towards the proposed works.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Burkett

That the City of Gosnells be advised that the Town of Cambridge, together with the Towns of Vincent and Victoria Park, is not prepared to accept any liability for or make any financial contribution towards site remediation of the land at Lots 1767 and 1768 Furley Road, Southern River.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 86 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

PA03.09

STRATEGIC PLAN 2003 TO 2008: APPOINTMENT OF FACILITATOR (File Reference: ADM0052)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To seek the Council’s agreement to the appointment of a facilitator to conduct workshops, involving Elected Members, staff and the community to formulate a Strategic Plan for the Council for the next five years.

BACKGROUND:

The Council’s current Strategic Plan has been in place since it was adopted in March 1997. It was implemented following development at a number of workshop sessions participated in by staff and Elected Members.

At its meeting held in December 2002, the Council decided, inter alia, that:-

(i) the Council proceeds with the development of its second Strategic Plan in a workshop environment involving Elected Members, staff and the Town of Cambridge community and scheduled to be held from April to June 2003;

(ii) a suitably qualified facilitator be appointed to assist with the development and production of the Strategic Plan;

(iii) a shortlist of up to three suitably qualified facilitators be presented to Council for consideration.

DETAILS:

The Council has agreed that the services of a professional facilitator be engaged to conduct a workshop exercise with Elected Members, officers and the community. It is anticipated that this exercise can commence in March/April 2003 and continue through May and June, thereby taking advantage of the knowledge, expertise and experience of two full Councils both before and after the forthcoming local government elections.

Six organisations known to have facilitation and strategic planning experience in the local government environment were invited to submit quotations to undertake the development of a strategic plan for the Town. One organisation, Murray Jorgensen and Associates, declined to participate due to the current level of their work commitments. Mr Jorgensen has had a long association with local government and was most recently appointed as one of the Commissioners overseeing the administration of the City of Cockburn whilst various Council matters were being resolved.

The five organisations who accepted the invitation to submit a quotation were:-

(i) Right Marketing Australia Pty. Ltd (ii) Bessen Consulting Services (iii) Liz Pattison Pty. Ltd (iv) Australian Institute of Management (v) Estill and Associates

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 87 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Each organisation was requested to make a submission in accordance with a set of pre- determined criteria, detailing their skills, experience and expertise in facilitating the development of a strategic plan in the local government environment consistent with community desires and with the flexibility to meet corporate needs.

Submissions were assessed against the following criteria:-

Professional expertise and relevant experience in strategic planning o Demonstrated knowledge and experience in Strategic Planning o Capacity to address the range of technical aspects involved in the project

Relevant experience of key personnel o Credentials of key personnel o Role(s) of key personnel in the project

Methodology o Proposed methodology for this project o Previous methodology in relevant projects and demonstrated evidence of successful results o Demonstrated experience in relevant projects of a similar nature

Key Issues o Understanding of the required service o Means by which issues will be addressed

References o Contact details of referees for similar projects

Fee Proposal

Organisations were also provided with a copy of the Town’s most recent Strategic Plan, together with a copy of the 2001/2002 Annual Report for their information.

COMMENT:

All submissions received were of a standard to be expected from professional organisations specialising in strategic planning and development. Whilst some firms had undertaken more work than others in regard to local government specifically, all proposed a methodology incorporating input from the general community, albeit at differing levels of intensity and at various stages in the proposed process.

An overview of each of the submissions is as follows:-

(i) Right Marketing Australia Pty. Ltd

This company has just completed a comprehensive strategic planning exercise for the Shire of Collie, with outcomes supported by positive comment from the Shire’s Chief Executive Officer. They have also undertaken some work for the Towns of Claremont and Victoria Park and the City of Fremantle although the details are not specified. This firm has had extensive experience in the provision of strategic planning services for private and public organisations, including Bunnings, AlintaGas, United Credit Union, TAFE and others.

This submission provides for an optional Resident’s survey to be conducted by telephone. The sample size is unspecified. It also suggests an optional Employee interview stage to

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 88 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

solicit input to the strategic planning process. The main consultative mechanism proposed is a two day off-site workshop for Elected Members, Senior Management and selected staff. A report would then be prepared, providing a summary of all key inputs and the methodology used and details of objectives, tasks, timetables, budgets and responsibility allocations for each key objective in tabular format. A follow up visit to monitor progress is also proposed. Prices quoted are:-

Residents survey (Optional) ~$12,250 Employee Interviews (Optional) ~$4,500 Planning Workshop and write up $12,600 Follow up No charge

(ii) Bessen Consulting Services

This firm is currently in the process of finalising a strategic planning exercise for the Town of Vincent. The Principal has had extensive experience in facilitation in a variety of forums. The methodology appears quite thorough, proposing separate meetings with Elected Members / key staff and community stakeholders to develop a plan. A joint meeting of all parties is then suggested to seek comment on all strategies, initiatives and actions proposed prior to preparation of a draft strategic plan for consideration by the Council.

Price quoted is $6,325.

(iii) Liz Pattison Pty. Ltd

This firm has had a great deal of experience in local government matters, assisting many local governments (11 metro 12 rural) and a number of State Government departments in strategic planning. The Principal is currently involved in projects with the Shire of Mundaring and the Cities of Stirling and Armadale.

The methodology proposed provides for community consultation through workshop sessions covering the general community, business community and youth, followed by staff workshops and a full day (optional 2 sessions) Elected Member/Senior management workshop to produce a draft strategic plan document incorporating action plans, timeframes and resource implications.

Price quoted is $17,666.

(iv) Australian Institute of Management

This is a joint proposal submitted by the AIM / UWA Senior Management Centre. This organisation has experience in facilitating strategic and business plans in both the public and private sectors, including State Government authorities and corporations, RAC, and small and large companies ranging from Griffin Coal to S&S Powdercoaters. The Principal is a Professor at the UWA Graduate School of management and teaches facilitation in the MBA program there. The proposed methodology comprises a one day workshop for Elected Members Executive Management and staff resulting in the production of a draft strategic plan which is then considered at a half day community consultation workshop. Any worthy input from this process is incorporated into the document for consideration by a final half day consolidation workshop involving Senior Management.

Price quoted is $12,650.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 89 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

(vi) Estill and Associates

This firm has had extensive experience with State Government departments and instrumentalities including the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Main Roads and the Office of Energy. Specific local government work has also been undertaken with Subiaco, Claremont, South Perth and Cambridge, involving asset management, parks and recreation, development and traffic planning, waste management and organisational reviews.

The suggested methodology proposes an initial meeting with Executive staff, a 3 hour Elected Member workshop, followed by two 3 hour stakeholder workshops to identify issues and propose solutions. The draft report will then be prepared for the consideration of Council.

Price quoted is $6,677.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The Council’s policies are formulated on the basis of the adopted Strategic Plan. The impact of any major shift in direction arising from a review will have to be assessed against current policies.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The strategic direction of the Town for the next five years will be set as a result of this exercise.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Provision has been made on the 2002/03 Budget for the development and production of the Strategic Plan.

SUMMARY:

The period of the Council’s original Strategic Plan has now expired and accordingly, it is proposed that a new Strategic Plan be produced, with the assistance of a facilitator, in a workshop environment involving Elected Members, nominated staff and the Town of Cambridge community.

Five submissions have been received from recognised facilitators seeking to assist the Council in the development of its strategic plan. All submissions offer the services of key personnel with the skills, knowledge and experience to successfully develop a meaningful and relevant strategic plan. All propose a similar methodology of consultation through workshops convened with Elected Members, staff and interest groups, to derive consensus in direction, focus and objective setting for the Town over the next five years. Variation in the quotations arises from the degree of community consultation and number of workshops considered necessary to achieve the desired result, a strategic plan developed from meaningful contributions by all participating groups

Following examination of the claims of each of the submissions against the selection criteria, it is considered that Estill and Associates would be the preferred organisation to assist the Council in the development of its second strategic plan. The methodology, as suggested by Estill and Associates, proposes a satisfactory balance between community consultation and corporate need.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 90 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Burkett

That:-

(i) Estill and Associates be appointed to facilitate the development of the Town’s second Strategic Plan in a workshop environment involving Elected Members, staff and the community and scheduled to be held from April to June 2003 at a cost of $6,677;

(ii) the expenditure in (i) above be charged to Budget Item – Strategic Plan.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 91 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

PA03.10

INAUGURAL INTERNATIONAL UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONGRESS (File Ref: ENS0076)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To advise Council of the details and content of the forthcoming Inaugural International Union of Local Authorities Congress.

BACKGROUND:

The Council has received an invitation to attend the Inaugural International Union of Local Authorities hosted by the Australian Local Government Association to be held in Sydney between 9 and 11 April 2003.

DETAILS:

The Congress will be a landmark event not only in Australia but in the entire Asia-Pacific region. It’s theme is “Local Government Leading Sustainable Communities”. There will be four plenary sessions, two of each on 9 and 10 April. The final day, 11 April, will be devoted to a range of study tours which will illustrate the themes discussed on the previous days.

The Congress will be an excellent opportunity to be brought up to date on environmental issues in the wake of the World Summit on Sustainable Development; to consider sustainable economic development and what this means for our communities; to discuss the importance of capacity building, not only for Councils in our region but also for our own local authorities; and to debate social policy issues.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Policy 1.1.5 - Conference Attendance – Representation and Related Issues

Policy 1.1.8 - Travel and Accommodation Expenses at Conferences.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:

Full Registration $ 750.00 Accommodation $ 200.00 per night Airfare $ 2,493.81

Committee Meeting 11 March 2003

During discussion, Members agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 92 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Burkett

That:-

(i) consideration be given to the nomination of any interested Elected Member to attend the Inaugural International Union of Local Authorities Congress to be held in Sydney from 9 to 11 April 2003, at an approximate cost of $3,850.00;

(ii) the cost in (i) above be funded from Budget Item “Members – Course/Conference Expenses”.

Amendment

Moved by Cr Anderton, seconded by Cr Burkett

That the motion be amended to read as follows:-

That the request for the nomination of any interested Elected Member to attend the Inaugural International Union of Local Authorities Congress to be held in Sydney from 9 to 11 April 2003 at an approximate cost of $3,850.00 be received.

Amendment carried

The amended motion was then put and carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 93 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

8. REPORTS FROM DELEGATES: COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS

8.1 Local Government Association Central Metropolitan Zone

Cr O’Connor reported that the next meeting will be held on Thursday 27 March 2003 at the Town of Mosman Park.

8.2 Ocean Gardens (Inc)

Cr Pinerua reported that a new Board member, Ms Connolly, has been appointed following the resignation of Mr Brian Prince. Also, the Internal Audit Sub Committee has had its first meeting.

9. GENERAL BUSINESS

9.1 Ocean Gardens (Inc)

Cr Burkett requested further information on the selection process for the new Board member.

9.2 Cost Shifting

Cr Smith advised that a letter had been received from Hon Wilson Tuckey MP, Federal Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government urging Local Government to have its say about cost shifting.

The Chief Executive Officer advised that the Town had made a submission to WALGA and that they will be responding on local government’s behalf.

10. CLOSURE

There being no further business, the Presiding Member thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting of the Policy and Administration Committee closed at 8.10 pm.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\C PA.doc 94 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CORPORATE AND CUSTOMER SERVICES COMMITTEE

The report of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee Meeting held on 17 March 2003 was submitted as under:-

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee open at 6. 05 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving

Members:

Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6. 05 pm 7.15 pm

Cr Ken McAullay 6. 05 pm 7.15 pm Cr Hilary Pinerua 6. 05 pm 7.15 pm Cr Kerry Smith 6. 10 pm 7.15 pm

Observers:

Mayor Willcock JP 6. 05 pm 7.15 pm

Officers:

Jason Buckley, Executive Manager Corporate and Customer Services Roy Ruitenga, Manager Financial and Business Services David MacPherson, Property and Business Development Officer Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)

Adjournments: Nil

Time meeting closed: 7. 15 pm

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil.

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Nil

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 95 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay

That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee held on 17 February, 2003 as contained in the February Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

Carried

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

Nil

7. REPORTS

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 96 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

REFERRED BACK

CCS03.07

QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE – NOISE RESTRICTIONS (File Reference: CMS00028)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To inform Council on issues relating to noise restrictions at the Quarry Amphitheatre.

BACKGROUND:

A report was presented to Council at its December 2002 Council meeting, outlining the bookings at the Quarry Amphitheatre for the 2002/2003 summer season. This report was received and accepted, however, a further report was requested by Council addressing issues relating to the various noise restrictions evident at the Quarry Amphitheatre.

It should be mentioned that the problem of noise emanating from the Quarry Amphitheatre has previously been examined and addressed by Council at its 24 October 2000 meeting (see Attachment). One of the recommendations of this meeting was the purchase and installation of personal monitors and a multi speaker array at the Quarry Amphitheatre, which has proven successful with few complaints relating to noise being received.

The focus of this report is to outline the noise restrictions that apply to the Quarry Amphitheatre and the processes required when approving performances, activities and functions in view of these restrictions.

DETAILS:

The Quarry Amphitheatre is the Town’s major cultural facility and its vision, mission and objectives (as outlined in the 2001-2006 Business Plan and Marketing Plan) all express the important links with the local, national and international arts and entertainment industry. Starlight Theatre Lighting (STL) manages the Quarry Amphitheatre on behalf of the Town, including aspects relating to noise emissions.

As alluded to in the December 2002 Council report, one of the major hirers of the Quarry Amphitheatre, the Perth International Arts Festival (PIAF), have not hired the facility for the forthcoming 2002/2003 series of performance. The lack of appearance by the PIAF has left a significant gap in performances being provided at the Quarry Amphitheatre and will hamper the ability to meet the forecasted budgeted income for the 2002/2003 financial year. Due to this predicament, STL have been examining alternative hirers of the Quarry Amphitheatre, however, some of these hirers have requested the use of the facility outside the noise restrictions guidelines.

Legislation

The control of noise emanating from the Amphitheatre is governed by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. These regulations operate under the Environmental Protection Act 1986. They outline specific assigned noise levels that can be received at noise sensitive premises (eg residential premises) at various times throughout the day, with levels being lower at night when residents are more sensitive to noise. These levels have been carefully designed to ensure that noise, specifically noise emanating from entertainment venues, is kept to acceptable and reasonable levels. The specific levels that are applicable to

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 97 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR………………………………………………………… noise-sensitive premises (residences) in the vicinity of the Quarry Amphitheatre are outlined below:

Assigned Noise Level Table as outlined in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997

TIME OF DAY ASSIGNED LEVELS (dB) LA 10 LA 1 LA Max

7.00am to 7.00pm 45 +(IF of 2) = 47 55 + (IF of 2) = 57 65 + (IF of 2) = 67 Monday to Saturday 9.00am to 7.00pm 40 +(IF of 2) = 42 50 +(IF of 2) = 52 65+ (IF of 2) = 67 Sunday and Public Holidays 7.00pm to 10.00pm 40 +(IF of 2) = 42 50 + (IF of 2) = 52 55 + (IF of 2) = 57 All days 10.00pm to 7.00am 35 +(IF of 2) = 37 45 + (IF of 2) = 47 55 + (IF of 2) = 57 Monday to Saturday 10.00pm to 9.00am 35 +(IF of 2) = 37 45 + (IF of 2) = 37 55 + (IF of 2) = 57 Sunday and Public Holidays

Note: IF = Influencing Factor.

As outlined above and in accordance with Regulation 8 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, assigned noise levels are categorised into three areas:

1. LA 10 – assigned level means the noise level which is not to be exceeded for more than 10% of the time; 2. LA1 – assigned level means the noise level which is not to be exceeded for more than 1% of the time; and 3. LA Max – assigned level means the noise level which is not to be exceeded any time.

Influencing Factor. The Regulations take into account that not all localities are the same due to the impact of noise from commercial and industrial areas, or from traffic noise from major and secondary roads in the vicinity of noise sensitive premises (ie residential areas). In the case of the Quarry Amphitheatre, the Influence Factor is the impact of traffic noise from Oceanic Drive (a secondary road). Accordingly, an Influencing Factor of 2dB is added to the assigned level for homes within 450 metres of Oceanic Drive.

Adjustment of Intrusive Noise. In interpreting any noise measurements obtained from a complainants residence at any time, it needs to be borne in mind that the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and specifically Regulation 9, requires the addition of penalty factors of between 5 and 15dB(A) to the measured sound levels, so as to allow for the annoying characteristics of the noise, such as tonality, impulsiveness or modulation as these factors form the intrusive or nuisance values of annoying sounds. In the case of amplified music, a penalty of between 10 and 15dB is added to the measured levels.

To check compliance, noise levels are taken outside the premises of affected residents. The readings are checked against the assigned noise levels outlined in the regulations, as shown above, to determine whether or not the noise levels comply.

The Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use for the Quarry Amphitheatre, along with the accompanying Information Package states, in several places, the impact of noise and the Hirer’s obligations under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 98 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

While hirers of the Quarry Amphitheatre are aware of noise restrictions being placed on them through these different mediums, STL also have a sound meter on site at all times and regularly monitor noise levels during a function or performance.

Approvals outside these Restrictions

In accordance with Regulation 18 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, a Local Government Chief Executive Officer has the authority to approve a non-complying event which would permit noise levels in excess of those ordinarily assigned by the Regulations. Non-complying events should only be considered where the event would lose its character or usefulness if it had to meet the assigned levels. An example is the Relay for Life Event held at Perry Lakes, a fundraising event for Cancer which requires noise levels in excess of those assigned by the Regulations.

However, the Regulations limit the number of non-complying events to 2 at a particular venue in any period of 12 consecutive months, unless the Local Government Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that the majority of occupiers or residents on whom the noise emissions will impact have no objection to the holding of the additional events. The Chief Executive Officer also needs to take into consideration the type of hirer/event, the expected level of noise and the extension of time requested, i.e. 2.00 am, 3.00 am etc.

It is proposed that the Chief Executive Officer would be able to approve two non-complying events at the request of the Venue Manager. In addition, it is recommended that nearby residents, likely to be affected, be consulted with a proposal to permit up to ten non-complying events per annum. If the majority of residents do not object, the Chief Executive Officer on the recommendation of the Venue Manager, would be authorised to permit additional non- complying events up to the approved number.

The promoters of these events would follow the process outlined in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 to obtain the Town’s approval for those non-complying events.

Since the purchase of personal monitors and a multi speaker array at the Quarry Amphitheatre, the Town has not received many complaints from residents in relation to noise emanating from Amphitheatre. This coupled with a number of management processes in place supports the proposal that Council should consider approving additional non-complying events.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The Town of Cambridge’s vision is ‘to be a local government of significance in metropolitan Perth, providing a quality living environment’.

The Town’s mission emphasises the importance of richness in heritage, culture and environment’.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 99 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Forging closer links with the community and encouraging an active and positive part in the affairs of the Town are seen as critical elements in achieving vision and mission. The Quarry Amphitheatre is therefore seen as an important component in achieving the Town’s Vision and Mission in partnership with the community. The Quarry Amphitheatre is currently the primary cultural centre within the Town. Its close proximity to the Town’s Administration and Civic Centre will assist in establishing a Town identity and provides an avenue of promotion for the Council.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr McAullay , seconded by Cr Smith

That:-

(i) the number of non-complying events held at the Quarry Amphitheatre be restricted to two per annum as permitted by Regulation 18 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

(ii) nearby residents likely to be affected by noise emanating from the Quarry Amphitheatre, be consulted in relation to permitting up to ten non-complying events per annum at the venue. If the majority of residents do not object, the Chief Executive Officer, on the recommendation of the Venue Manager, be authorised to approve non-complying events up to ten per annum.

Committee Meeting 17 February 2003

During discussion, Members considered that nearby residents of the Quarry Amphitheatre should be consulted and provided with as much information as possible regarding future non- complying events that may be held at the Quarry Amphitheatre. It was therefore agreed that the item be deferred to enable a draft circular to be prepared providing information on the nature and times of such events and the extent of the consultation to be undertaken.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith

That the item relating to Quarry Amphitheatre Noise Restrictions be deferred to enable further information to be obtained.

Carried

FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 25 February 2003):

In addition to the development of a draft Questionnaire, a concern was raised at the 25 February 2003 Council meeting in relation to the strategic direction in which the management of the Quarry Amphitheatre was heading. Particular reference was made to events such as weddings and birthdays being programmed at the Quarry Amphitheatre.

History

A number of strategic plans relating to the management of The Quarry Amphitheatre have been presented and endorsed at Council since the Town took over the management of this facility in April 1997.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 100 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The first strategic plan was developed by the Council’s Quarry Amphitheatre Advisory Committee and was formally endorsed by Council at the 22 April 1997 meeting. Council regarded the endorsement of the plan as a fundamental step in developing a management agreement for the Quarry Amphitheatre.

The management agreement (contract) was subsequently awarded to Starlight Theatre Lighting (STL) in September 1997 for a period of three years. STL were also awarded a further term of five years and seven months in October 2000.

Management Agreement

In accordance with the terms of the management contract for the Quarry Amphitheatre, STL is required to submit a Strategic Business Plan for Council consideration. During the first term of their contract (1998 - 2001), STL submitted a Strategic Business Plan to Council at 18 May 1998 meeting. A second Strategic Business Plan (2001 - 2006) was submitted and endorsed by Council at 27 February 2001 meeting with various aspects of the plan being progressed.

From Council’s Quarry Amphitheatre Advisory Committee first Strategic Plan to Council’s endorsement of STL’s current Strategic Business Plan (2001-2006), significant evolvement has occurred with business and strategic planning opportunities initiated to maximise the venue’s usage.

Within these documents, the opportunity to increase the use of the venue by promoting it for private and corporate events such as weddings, conferences, seminars and other events was raised. Such events were seen as opportunities to supplement the venue’s income and to reduce the operational deficit. Averages of ten weddings/corporate events per annum have been held at the Quarry Amphitheatre since November 1999.

Promotion

The Quarry Amphitheatre is promoted as a potential venue for a wedding, corporate or social event via its web site, newsletters, subscriptions to journals and information packages. Although not the primary income source for the venue, such events are seen as potential additional income raising opportunities that fill voids during the peak performing season (November to April) when the Quarry Amphitheatre is not being utilised. Other events that have also been promoted since STL was awarded the management contract include outdoor cinema, book launches and family festivals.

As mentioned previously, the need to promote more weddings and social events has been necessary due to the non –appearance of the Perth International Arts Festival (PIAF) during the recently held 2002/2003 performance season. The PIAF has previously used the Quarry Amphitheatre during their annual performance season with past performances being shown at this venue including Fire, Fire Burning Bright (2002) and Crying Baby (2001).

On a positive note, the PIAF has pencil booked the use of the Quarry Amphitheatre for the next four performance seasons (2004 – 2007).

As aspects pertaining to the strategic direction of the Quarry Amphitheatre have now been clarified, the focus on this section of the report is the development of a Draft community consultation circular(questionnaire) that will be distributed to nearby occupiers and residents likely to be affected from noise emanating from the Quarry Amphitheatre.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 101 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Questionnaire

The aim of the questionnaire is to seek input from nearby occupiers and residents to the Quarry Amphitheatre in relation to the number of non-complying events per annum that should be allowed. It is suggested that the Town restricts the questionnaire to occupiers and residents within a 1 kilometre radius of the Quarry Amphitheatre. A similar distance was used by the Town of Claremont in ascertaining resident’s views in relation to a number of events being programmed at the Claremont Showgrounds.

It is difficult to outline the times, dates and the specific nature of the non-complying events in the questionnaire as this will not be known until a later date and more than likely, will change each year.

However what can be included in the questionnaire is a generic statement outlining that non- complying events should only be considered where the event would lose its character or impetus if it had to meet the assigned levels. An example is the Relay for Life Event held at Perry Lakes and the final of the 2003 Battle of the Bands.

Given the general public’s bombardment with literature, telephone calls, etc seeking their involvement or views on matters and being aware of family commitments careful consideration of pre questionnaire promotion prior to distribution is essential. This will assist in maximising the target group’s awareness, gain their attention and involvement to maximise the value of responses in order to achieve accurate results/opinions. Therefore it is suggested that a reasonably long lead time is necessary to maximise effectiveness.

A brief overview of the rationale for the questionnaire will be outlined and the processes undertaken by the Town to control noise emissions from the Quarry Amphitheatre will also be included. A draft questionnaire has been included and is submitted for approval, therefore the Administration recommendation submitted to the February meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee should be amended as follows:-

That:-

(i) the number of non-complying events held at the Quarry Amphitheatre be restricted to two per annum as permitted by Regulation 18 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

(iii) the attached Draft Questionnaire in relation to the number of non-complying events being programmed at the Quarry Amphitheatre be received and forwarded to residents within a one kilometre radius. In regard to the questionnaire, Elected Members to forward any comments to the Administration prior to it being circulated to residents.

A final report will be presented to Council providing an analysis of the completed questionnaires.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 102 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay

That:-

(i) the number of non-complying events held at the Quarry Amphitheatre be restricted to two per annum as permitted by Regulation 18 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

Committee Meeting 17 March 2003

During discussion, Members made a number of amendments to the Draft Questionnaire and requested that a revised questionnaire be circulated prior to the next meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 25 March 2003.

Amendment

Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-

Carried

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) the number of non-complying events held at the Quarry Amphitheatre be restricted to two per annum as permitted by Regulation 18 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 103 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 104 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.16

ACCOUNTS FOR PAYMENT (File Reference: FIN0049)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To confirm the payment of accounts to pay for expenses incurred by the Town to fund its operation.

DETAILS:

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques raised for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and Trust Account where applicable).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Payments in accordance with Policy 2.3.4 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

There are no specific details in the Strategic Plan and Plan of Principal Activities providing for the payment of accounts.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae , seconded by Cr Pinerua

That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts as detailed below be confirmed and the list of payments, as laid on the table, be included in the Minutes of the Council:-

Cheque No. Municipal Date Details Amount

401255 12 Feb 03 Advance Recoup Wages Transfer (7/2/03) $171,219.94 401256 12 Feb 03 Advance Recoup Taxation Dept (7/02/03) $57,600.33 401257 14 Feb 03 Advance Recoup V40051 – V40148 $254,681.02 401258 21 Feb 03 Advance Recoup V40149 – V40218 $98,116.07 401259 27 Feb 03 Advance Recoup Wages Transfer (21/02/03) $173,330.15 401260 27 Feb 03 Advance Recoup Taxation Dept (21/02/03) $57,906.63 401261 27 Feb 03 Advance Recoup V40219 – V40333 $325,428.76 401262 7 Mar 03 Advance Recoup V40334 – V40415 $255,803.73 401263 11 Mar 03 Advance Recoup V40416 – 40490 $171,336.83 $1,565,423.46

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 105 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.17

INVESTMENT SCHEDULE (File Reference: FIN0038)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To advise the Council of the amount of surplus funds invested, the distribution of those funds and the financial performance of each investment (ie interest earned) year to date for the period ended 28 February 2003.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Council Policy identifies an approved list of investment bodies. Not more than 25% of available funds is to be placed with any one institution. The current investment portfolio complies with this policy.

In addition, the policy requires an investment report to be submitted to the Council each month.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely.

Interest is accrued in the financial statements for the month and upon the maturity of each investment is then compounded unless the funds are required for Council purposes.

The Investment Schedule as circulated provides details of the performance of each individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below:-

Budget Actual as at % 2002/2003 28/2/03 (ytd) $ $

General $260,000 $168,604 64.8% Reserves $162,000 $110,271 68.1% Endowment Lands $145,000 $129,709 89.5% TOTAL $567,000 $408,584 72.1%

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

There are no specific details in the Strategic Plan or Plan of Principal Activities outlining the requirements for the investment of Council funds. However, the management of these surplus funds is consistent with the Town’s Mission for the “efficient, accountable and quality management of public assets and infrastructure.”

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That the Investment Schedule as at 28 February 2003, as attached to and forming part of the Notice Paper, be received.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 106 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.18

MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (File Reference: FIN0026)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To receive the Financial Statements for the period ended 28 February 2003.

BACKGROUND:

The Financial Statements for the period ended 28 February 2003, have been prepared and have been circulated with the Notice Paper.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That the Financial Statements for the period ended 28 February 2003 be received.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 107 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.19

DOCUMENTS SEALED (File Reference: ADM0039)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of the Municipality to be placed on documents. It is considered desirable, however, to provide the Council with relevant information relating to documents sealed.

DETAILS:

The following documents have been sealed with the Common Seal of the Town:-

Date Document Details No. 10 Feb 2003 Title: Jersey Street/Salvado Road Subdivision – Deed of 3 Restrictive Covenant.

Purpose: In accordance with the conditions of subdivision of the lots, the Town was required to place a restricted covenant on each property to prevent the purchasers from building a driveway at the front of their properties and entering the properties from Jersey Street.

24 Feb 2003 Title: Transfer of Rights of Way – Estate of Cragen. 1 Transferor - Perpetual Trustees Victoria Lid as executor of the Will of Bernard Francis Cragen. Transferee - Town of Cambridge.

Purpose: To acquire a right of way from the Estate of Bernard Francis Cragen.

6 March 2003 Title: Lease between Town of Cambridge (Lessor) and 3 The Young Mens Christian Association (YMCA) of Perth (Incorporated) – 183 Jersey Street Wembley (Lessee) for Joan Watters Childrens’ Centre.

Purpose: To formalise the leasing of premises to the YMCA of Perth for the provision of programs, services and management of the Joan Watters Children’s Centre.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 108 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

There are no specific details in the Strategic Plan and the Plan of Principal Activities in relation to the sealing of Council documents.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to the documents as set out in the schedule attached to and forming part of the Notice Paper.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 109 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.20

INVESTMENT STRATEGY (File Reference:FIN0038 )

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider and approve an investment strategy for the surplus funds held by the Town.

BACKGROUND:

The Council was previously advised in February 1998 – (Item CCS98.05), of the new Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.14 “Power to Invest” provisions which allow local authorities to invest in accordance with Part III of the Trustees Act. These provisions replace the highly prescriptive definitions of the types of investments that Councils were previously authorised to invest in.

The new provisions gives Council the power with authority to invest in a wide range of investments, the only proviso being that Council must exercise a considerable duty of care, wisdom and caution in assessing potential returns with potential risks for each type of investment. The underlying intention of the provisions is that Council will exercise due diligence and invest funds in products that will achieve reasonable returns and not to take unnecessary risks for the sake of maximising returns.

The Trustees Act, Section 20 prescribes a list of the fifteen matters that Council must take into consideration when investing in any particular investment product. These include such criteria as the risk of loss of income or principal, diversification, duration of the investment and cost of any fees and charges.

A further report was then submitted to Council in March 2000, (Item CCS00.37), outlining the case for using investment advisors in assisting Council as to which type of investment products to invest its surplus funds in. A number of investment strategies were suggested along with two recommended investment advisors. The decision of Council was to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the authorisation to select an investment advisor and advise Council on developing an investment strategy and policy for further consideration.

DETAILS:

Global Investment Markets

Over the past two years, since the March 2000 report on Investment Strategy was put forward to Council, global investment markets have been in a volatile state. A monthly Commonwealth Bank Investment report for June 2001 stated that “the US economy is still quite weak..” and that “…share markets became worried by the continued weakness of the US economy” but that there was confidence it would recover later that year. This recovery as we know, did not eventuate with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York sending shockwaves throughout the investment world. Investor confidence was shattered with share prices plummeting. This lack of confidence continued throughout the 2002 financial year when some months later, the giant American multinational corporation, Enron collapsed with unorthodox accounting practices coming to light. This was followed by a number of other multinational corporations in the United States also coming under a cloud of suspicion with respect to their financial reporting practices. The disastrous impact of all these events on an already fragile global investment market became all too clear with the vast majority of superannuation funds recording negative results for their growth funds for the financial year ended 30 June 2002.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 110 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The global investment markets continue to be volatile during the 2003 financial year with a potential war with Iraq now looming.

The continued volatility of the global investment markets and uncertainty of achieving positive returns have been the primary reason for the Administration not having pursued a change in its investment strategy as put forward in the March 2000 Council report. Surplus monies have continued to be invested in cash products such as term deposits, ensuring that positive earnings on Council’s investments have continued to be achieved to date.

Proposed Investment Strategy

Given the current outlook of investment markets, it is proposed that Council continues to invest in cash products such as Bank Bills and Bank Term Deposits until such time as global investment markets strengthen with a return to positive earnings and growth. When such an improvement in investment markets occurs and which can be seen to be sustainable on a long term basis, employing the services of an investment advisor will be reconsidered and investment strategies be developed which incorporate a more diverse range of investment products to achieve a greater overall return of earnings on investments.

In the interim, it is proposed that the current investment policy be amended to:

1) Allow for cash funds to be utilised as an investment product with the objective to lift investment earnings potential without exposing Council to unnecessary risk. Cash fund earnings, after administration fees and charges, have in the past generally outperformed other cash products such as term deposits and bank bills. A report for January 2003 from the Commonwealth Bank shows annual earnings of 4.92% from the Premium Cash Enhanced Fund against a market cash rate on term deposits of 4.82%. An amount not exceeding a third of Council’s total investments is to be invested in such a fund.

Cash funds that had the following criteria would be considered:

• Funds to be placed with investment institutions approved by Council for bank bills and term deposits; • Funds must be reasonably liquid for easy access in meeting Council’s day to day requirements without incurring penalties; • Funds to have a credit rating of A1 or better, short term and AA- or better, long term, in accordance with Standard and Poor’s Australian Credit Ratings ensuring safety of capital; • Funds must contain adequate diversification to minimise risk; • Funds must have the potential to achieve investment returns equal to the WDR Bank Bill Index rate or better;

Cash funds are normally comprised off such cash products as:

Cash; Bank Bills – a bill of exchange; Promissory Notes – a formal document containing an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum of money from a specified payer to the order of a specified payee; Floating Rate Notes- the interest rate on the security moves or floats with the market interest rates. Sometimes it is linked to short term benchmark rate such as the 90 day bank bill rate. NCDs – Negotiable Certificates of Deposit;

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 111 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

2) The list of approved investment institutions to be amended by adding the following investment institutions:

Citibank Limited. Citibank has very competitive term deposit rates, currently 4.84% for a thirty day term. The bank has a credit rating of A1 + which is an extremely strong degree of safety regarding timely payment. It is the highest credit rating a financial institution can achieve for short term investments. Citibank has branches in all major Australian capital cities. This will amendment will allow Council to spread its investments across a more diverse number of banking institutions.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

In adopting the proposed Investment Strategy, it is not expected that Council’s interest earnings will not be less than what is currently being earned and therefore no adverse impact on the Budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Council policy currently identifies an approved list of investment bodies, of which no more than 25% of available funds is to be invested with any of those institutions listed. Council’s current investment portfolio complies with this and an investment report is submitted monthly. The Council’s approach to date has been to maximise investment returns with minimal risk, and this approach is intended to be maintained with increasing the number of approved investment institutions and the incorporation of cash management funds into the policy. It is intended to replace the existing investment policy which is sparton in nature with a more sophisticated up to date version addressing such criteria as credit ratings of investment institutions and which is more in keeping with the objectives of the Trustees Act. This policy is attached for Council’s review and adoption.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Although investment strategies are not specifically mentioned in the Council’s Strategic Plan, it is in keeping with the strategic goal of ensuring that the Town’s assets perform for the benefit of the community.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr McAullay, seconded by Cr Smith

That:-

(i) Councils funds continue to be invested in cash products with approximately one third of its investment portfolio to be invested in cash management funds;

(ii) Policy No. 2.3.6 – Investments be deleted and replaced by the attached Investment Policy;

(iii) the Chief Executive Officer and/or his nominee be given delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to administer Investment Policy 2.3.6.

Committee Meeting 17 March 2003

During discussion, Members amended the proposed new investment policy to include a comment that the financial standing of the financial institutions approved for the purpose of investing Council funds has been investigated.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 112 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Amendment

Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That the motion be amended to read as follows:_

That:-

(i) Council’s funds continue to be invested in cash products with up to one third of its investment portfolio to be invested in cash management funds;

(ii) Policy No. 2.3.6 – Investments (last reviewed 28 October 1997) be withdrawn and replaced by revised Investment Policy 2.3.6 dated 25 March 2003;

(iii) the Chief Executive Officer and/or his nominee be given delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to administer Investment Policy 2.3.6 dated 25 March 2003.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) Councils funds continue to be invested in cash products with up to one third of its investment portfolio to be invested in cash management funds;

(ii) Policy No. 2.3.6 – Investments (last reviewed 28 October 1997) be withdrawn and replaced by a revised Investment Policy dated 25 March 2003;

(iii) the Chief Executive Officer and/or his nominee be given delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to administer Investment Policy 2.3.6 dated 25 March 2003.

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 113 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.21

POLICY – PROVISION AND ACCESSIBILITY OF COUNCIL SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, THEIR FAMILIES AND CARERS (File Reference: CMS0056)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review Council’s Policy No. 2.1.3 Provision and Accessibility of Council Services for People with Disabilities their Families and Carers, particularly to develop guidelines in relation to accessing the Town’s facilities including the Town’s beaches.

BACKGROUND:

The Administration has received correspondence from the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club dated 12 September 2002 requesting guidance and assistance on a matter of concern to them. They had advised that over the past year they have received several requests from people with disabilities for assistance with getting on and off the beach, in and out of the water and in and out of their cars. Although the Club would like to assist everyone in enjoying the beach, there are concerns in relation to public liability, particularly in terms of:

• Injuring the person with a disability during the transfer.

• Occupational Health and Safety issues such as back injuries in relation to the Beach Inspector and Surf Club members offering assistance.

• Duty of Care to the person with a disability once they are in the water - the beaches are known for being amongst the most dangerous for potential spinal injuries.

• Duty of Care to the other patrons of the beach - When assisting the person with a disability, the patrol is being diverted from their duty of patrolling the beach.

These issues are also being raised as an area of concern at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre. Following advice from the Disability Services Commission, the Municipal Liability Scheme and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club has been advised that they are not required by the Town to undertake the carer’s role in providing assistance to individuals who request it and that if they do so, then it is at their own discretion and responsibility.

Various comments provided by a number of different agencies were discussed at the November 2002 Disability Services Advisory Committee when it was requested to develop a Policy addressing access issues relating to all facilities within the Town. The Town presently has a policy addressing their commitment to access, however, it does not adequately cover to what extent the Town would reasonably be expected to do to ensure access, particularly to facilities in the natural environment.

DETAILS:

As a result of the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club’s correspondence, advice was sought from a number of different agencies including, the Disability Services Commission, the Municipal Liability Scheme and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Comments received from each agency are outlined in the following section of the report:

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 114 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

6 November 2002: The Municipal Liability Scheme

The correspondence from the Municipal Liability Scheme stated:

• “It would be reasonable to state that both Council and the Surf Life Saving Club have a Common Law Duty of Care should they assist persons onto beaches and ultimately into the water. This Duty requires that ‘reasonable care’ is exercised. The operative word is reasonable.”

• “From an OHS (Occupational Health and Safety) perspective a Statute Duty is in place requiring employers to provide a safe working environment for employees. This is likely to apply to both employees of the Council and members of the Surf Club. This is relevant in view of your (Administration) comments regarding lifting of people and equipment notably wheelchairs.”

12 November 2002: Disability Services Commission

• It was felt that people who require assistance from the Surf Life Saving Patrol and Beach Inspection Service to get in to the water are going beyond what is considered “reasonable”.

• Not sure that it would be considered “reasonable” under the Disability Discrimination Act (Federal) for people with disabilities to expect assistance.

• The Floreat Surf Life Saving Club and the Town were going beyond what is considered “reasonable measures”.

• If the person with a disability needs a personal carer, the facility or service is not required to offer that service.

• Several Councils have had problems in relation to lifting issues. Lifting in which staff put their backs at risk was not acceptable.

• The issue was an urgent one in case of a workers compensation claim or if someone gets dumped in a wave at the beach.

13 November 2002: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)

• Would take the disability discrimination perspective.

• An organisation (i.e. Town of Cambridge) that is responsible for accessing the beach is responsible for creating an accessible path of travel.

• Assistance from the car to the kiosk or Floreat Surf Life Saving Club is not necessary if there is an accessible path of travel. Therefore liability for Council if they refuse to provide physical assistance is met.

• There possibly may be grounds for complaint if there is not at least one accessible path of travel from the kiosk to the beach. Not installing this travel path is only justified if there is “unjustifiable hardship” such as it being technically or financially unviable for the Town.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 115 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

• Therefore the question comes to whether there is an alternative way of accessing the beach i.e. assistance but then we may be able to show unjustifiable hardship again i.e. lifting issues in relation to Occupational Health and Safety and reduced patrols on the beach.

• The question of whether a Disability Discrimination Act complaint is successful would depend on the above issues.

• The summary – Failure to provide an independent path of travel to the facility could result in a complaint. The success of the complaint will depend on factors of unjustifiable hardship. In their view, if an accessible path of travel is provided, there would be no grounds for a successful complaint from a person with a disability if the Town does not provide assistance.

From the gathered information, the Bold Park Aquatic Centre appears to comply as it has an independent path of travel in accordance with the Australian Standards and provides a pool hoist. Therefore, it should be considered reasonable that staff at the facility do not have to provide physical assistance to people with disabilities. The Town’s beaches have an independent path of travel from the carparks to the edge of the sand, therefore beach patrols are not required to offer assistance. Paths do access the sand but not the water due to the natural environment. The Town can claim unjustifiable hardship in relation to not installing a path from the sand edge to the water due to technical problems. Also, unjustifiable hardship is pertinent in relation to providing physical assistance to the waters edge due to factors including Occupational Health and Safety and the Surf Life Saving Patrol being diverted from their main duty being patrolling the Town’s coastline.

All parties that provided advice emphasised that their comments would only be tested if someone complained against the Town of Cambridge under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).

Although this is an issue that seems to have affected other Western Australian and Australian local governments, no one (including the Western Australian Disability Services Commission) appears to have addressed the issue at state or federal level. It therefore, appears to be up to the Town itself to address aspects relating to access to their beaches and facilities.

Rather than developing an entirely new policy on accessing the Town’s beaches and facilities, the Administration has examined the existing Policy No 2.1.3 Provision and Accessibility of Council Services for People with Disabilities, their Families and Carers. Following advice received from a number of different agencies, several amendments and additions have been made to this policy. A draft amended policy was presented to the Disability Services Advisory Committee meeting held on Friday 28 February 2003 for comment. An updated Policy is attached with the major changes recognising that there are limitations to the Town’s ability to provide complete access within reasonable measures without causing the Town unjustifiable hardship. The recommended changes are underlined.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Access to the Town’s facilities and services is to be administered through the changed Policy 2.1.3 Provision and Accessibility of Council Services and Facilities for People with Disabilities, their Families and Carers.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 116 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The Mission of the Town of Cambridge is to facilitate a delivery of services, which fosters a quality lifestyle, and promotes:

• friendliness, cleanliness, safety and good health • a prosperous and dynamic community • a richness in heritage, culture and environment • efficient, accountable and quality management of public assets and infrastructure.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:

(i) the attached amended Policy Number 2.1.3 Provision and Accessibility of Council Services and Facilities for People with Disabilities, their Families and Carers be adopted;

(ii) correspondence be forwarded to all of the Town’s Community Organisations outlining the amended Policy Number 2.1.3 Provision and Accessibility of Council Services and Facilities for People with Disabilities, their Families and Carers.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 117 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.22

DISABILITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE – MINUTES (File Reference: CMS0102)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To present the Minutes of the Disability Services Advisory Committee meeting held on Friday 28 February 2003 and to seek Council’s endorsement of recommendations made by the Advisory Committee.

BACKGROUND:

The Terms of Reference for the Disability Services Advisory Committee state that the minutes of meetings are to be presented to Council so as to form part of the public record of Council business. The Advisory Committee is constituted as a Council Committee with an Elected Member as Chairman.

DETAILS:

The Minutes of the Disability Services Advisory Committee meeting held Friday, 28 February 2003 are attached. One of the items discussed by the Advisory Committee are outlined briefly below with recommendations for Council:

Disability Services Advisory Committee Terms of Reference

In line with the statutory Council elections held in May every two years, the positions for the Community Representatives on the Disability Services Advisory Committee will also be open for nomination. It was suggested by the Administration at the meeting held on 28 February 2003 that the Community Member positions be held for four years before renomination on a two year rotation basis so that two positions will become available during one Council election and the third position becomes available two years later at the next Council election, similar to the Council election process. The reasoning of this proposal is that staggering the nomination of the Community Member positions may help with the continuity of issues and experience. The current Community Member positions will still all be open for renomination this May.

To assist with the implementation of this proposal, if existing Community Members are reselected then they will be given a two year term and new Community Members will be given a four year term. If all new Community Members (or all three of the existing members) are selected, then one Member will be given a two year term and two Members will be given a four year term.

The Advisory Committee members agreed that this was a good proposal and that a two year term was not onerous and a four year term would be beneficial for the continuity of issues and experience. It is suggested that a similar process be initiated with the Town’s other Advisory Committees. The current Policy Number 2.1.6 Disability Services Advisory Committee - Terms of Reference stipulates when the Community Members positions are available for renomination, and how long the Community Members can serve.

Policy Number 2.1.6 Disability Services Advisory Committee Terms of Reference is attached with the recommended changes highlighted including various other minor amendments whilst the opportunity has arisen.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 118 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The Disability Services Advisory Committee be guided by an amended Policy No. 2.1.6 – Disability Services Advisory Committee – Terms of Reference.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The Mission of the Town of Cambridge is to facilitate a delivery of services, which fosters a quality lifestyle, and promotes richness in heritage, culture and environment.

In addition to fulfilling legislative requirements, the role of the Disability Services Advisory Committee supports the Mission statement by:

(i) Auditing community services and facilities. (ii) Engaging in appropriate consultative mechanisms in regard to changes and developments within the Town. (iii) Developing a comprehensive access policy for maximum use of council facilities. (iv) Providing support to community groups

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) Minutes of the Disability Services Advisory Committee held on Friday, 28 February 2003 be received;

(ii) the attached amended Policy 2.1.6 Disability Services Advisory Committee Terms of Reference be adopted.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 119 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.23

GRAFFITI PROGRAM (File Reference: CMS0139)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To inform Council of the escalating costs incurred in relation to removal of graffiti in the Town and to seek endorsement of additional monies as ‘unbudgeted expenditure’ to fund the program for the remainder of the 2002/2003 financial year.

BACKGROUND:

In September 2001, a report on the reassessment and restructuring of the Town’s graffiti removal program was endorsed by Council. Consequently, the Town ceased to participate in the Central Metropolitan Graffiti Campaign and implemented a restructured graffiti removal program. The Central Metropolitan Graffiti Campaign (a State Government program) is no longer in existence and responsibility for graffiti removal now lies with Local Government.

The aim of the Town’s restructured program was to provide an effective, consistent, simple program, which is monitored and maintained by the Administration. On 28 August 2002, following a tender process, Council approved the engagement of a contractor (Oztop Coatings) to remove graffiti under the specifications contained in Town Contract Number C15-01.

The current program, when compared with the Town’s previous involvement in and problems associated with the Central Metropolitan Graffiti Campaign, is considered to be working effectively with the timely response to and removal of graffiti, however, the costs of removal in the 2002/2003 financial year have exceeded the allocated ‘Community Safety’ graffiti budget of $14,000.

DETAILS:

As at 28 February 2003, the Town has expended, from the ‘Community Safety’ budget, a total of $23,541 on the removal of graffiti from general areas in the Town which does not include parks, reserves and other Council facilities. An additional amount of $12,361 has been expended by Buildings/Parks and Landscape sections of the Administration for graffiti removal at parks, reserves and other Council facilities. These costs are directly debited to the respective park, reserve or Council facility.

At the end of February 2003, graffiti removal from general areas of the Town has resulted in expenditure of $9,541 over the allocated annual “Community Safety’ graffiti budget of $14,000.

The expenditure equates to an average monthly expenditure of $2,943 per month.

If that trend continues, and there is no evidence to suggest it will not, based upon the monthly average expenditure to date, the remaining four months of the 2002/2003 financial year will require a further $11,772 to meet graffiti removal costs.

Based on the averages to date, the program costs for 2002 – 2003 are estimated to require $35,313 for the financial year. However, given the uncertainty of the final figure it is considered prudent to allow a contingency of 15% (= $5,297) for any upward variations to the costs, making a total figure of $40,610, an upward variance of $26,610 on the allocated budget of $14,000.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 120 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Policy No. 3.1.4 Graffiti Removal – Assistance to Ratepayers complements the objectives of the graffiti campaign by detailing the Council’s role in the provision of advice and assistance to community groups and ratepayers in dealing with graffiti control.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

An amount of $14,000 was included in the 2002/2003 “Community Safety’ budget for the removal of graffiti within the Town. The actual expenditure to the end of February 2003 has been $23,541. It is anticipated that the expenditure trend will continue for the remainder of the financial year and accordingly an amount of $26,610, in addition to the $14,000 included in the 2002/2003 Budget, would be required for the Graffiti Removal Program.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The Graffiti initiative is encompassed within the Town’s strategic goal to provide a safe, secure and natural environment for the Town through environmentally oriented planning policies, development and operational practices.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That an allocation of $26,000 be authorised as over budget expenditure to facilitate further costs associated with graffiti removal in the Town.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 121 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.24

BEACH USERS WORKING GROUP – MINUTES (File Reference: PRO 1239)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To present the Minutes of the Meetings held on Wednesday 19 February 2003.

BACKGROUND:

The Minutes of the meetings are to be presented to Council so as to form part of the public record of Council business.

DETAILS:

The Minutes are attached.

POLICY:

Nil

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The mission of the Town is to facilitate a delivery of services which fosters a quality lifestyle and promotes friendliness, cleanliness, safety and good health.

A Goal of Community Development is to achieve a quality lifestyle and amenity. The Beach Users Group supports the goals and strategies of the Strategic Plan by:-

• Balancing the interests for the benefit of the community.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That the Minutes of the Beach Users Working Group meetings held on 19 February 2003 be received.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 122 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.25

DEDICATION OF MITCHELL FREEWAY (File Reference: TES0115)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To approve the dedication of land set aside for the Mitchell Freeway in accordance with section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997.

DETAILS:

For some time now Main Roads has been rationalising land holdings on which the Mitchell Freeway has been constructed for the section between Mounts Bay Road and Melrose Street in Leederville. All the land has been transferred to the Commissioner for Main Roads and amalgamated into “super lots” to assist with the dedication process.

The affected land is as follows:-

• Portion of lot 5 on plan 18136 as contained within Town of Cambridge boundary (Loftus Street and centre of Freeway). • Portion of lot 6 on plan 18137 as contained within Town of Cambridge boundary (centre of Freeway). • Portion of lot 7 on plan 18138 as contained within Town of Cambridge boundary (centre of Freeway).

Attached is a full set of plans and certificates of title for the whole of the section to be dedicated.

The above mentioned portion of freeway falls within the Town of Cambridge and to comply with the Land Administration Act 1997 Regulations the Main Roads has requested that the Local Authority grant approval to the dedication of the land as road.

The dedication of the road will allow the land to be removed from the Transfer of Land Act and reserved for road purposes.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

There is nothing in the Strategic Plan that directly relates to dedication of roads.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 123 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That in accordance with section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997, Council agrees to the dedication of the following land:-

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 124 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.26

DEMOLITION OF SHOP AT NO. 90 CAMBRIDGE STREET (Pt LOT 91) LEEDERVILLE (File Reference: PRO1086)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To seek approval for the demolition of the shop at No. 90 Cambridge Street, West Leederville.

BACKGROUND:

In 1986, the owner of 90 Cambridge Street made an approach to the former City of Perth with the view to selling the property. The land was classified in the City Planning Scheme as a City of Perth Scheme Reserve for Public Purposes, with a specific designation as ”Civic Purposes” (adjoining land to the east and west was similarly classified. That to the north was reserved for Parks and Recreation.)

At that time, the City of Perth’s Administration recommended that they purchase the subject land so that it could be developed in accordance with the reservation at an appropriate time. The development could take the form of renovations to the existing shop and its subsequent lease to a community group or alternatively the building could be demolished and the land incorporated with the adjoining public park.

The existing shop on the site constituted a non-conforming use and was permitted to continue operating in its present form, subject to certain provisions of the City of Perth Planning Scheme Text at the time. Any redevelopment of the site would have been contrary to the intent of the provisions. As a result of the above zoning, the former City of Perth negotiated the purchase of the land and shop for $87,000, with the final transfer being affected on 30 June 1987.

The Gilbert and Sullivan Society were leasing the Leederville Lesser Hall and utilising the main hall at the time and expressed interest in leasing the shop to house the group’s costumes. The lease of the shop was approved and commenced on 1 September 1987 for a period of five years. At the expiration of that period, a new five year lease was granted. The second lease term expired in 1997 and the Society remained in the premises under holding over provisions, pending the development of a leasing policy.

In January 2003, the Society gave notice that they wished to vacate the premises. During their occupancy at 90 Cambridge Street, the Society was responsible for carrying out all internal and external maintenance at the premises. From the appearance of the premises, very little maintenance has been carried out. Most of the external damage and vandalism to the shop has occurred since Council approved and placed a basketball pad in the adjacent recreational lot. Advice received from the Society is that it became impossible to keep up with the constant damage occurring from vandalism.

DETAILS:

After the lessee vacated the premises, the Administration arranged for a structural engineer to inspect the premises and provide a report detailing the condition of the building with recommendations for repairs.

The following advice was received;

The building generally consists of a brick façade and return walls to the front elevation, timber framed walls to the remainder, metal roof sheeting and timber framed floors on timber stumps.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 125 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The exterior of the building is clad with timber weatherboards with the interior walls generally lined with plasterboard. Ceilings are a combination of pressed metal, plasterboard and timber. All of the timber structural framing visible at the time of the inspection appeared to be jarrah.

The brick façade and return walls to the front elevation are in reasonable condition, with no signs of any major cracking. The cantilevered street canopy structural framing appears to be in reasonable condition, however the condition of the connections, particularly to the building, are unknown. As such, we are unable to comment on the overall structural stability of the canopy. Recently, a number of these structures have collapsed without warning. Also, the cladding on the ends of the canopy may be unstable. Typically, with the exception of the rear wall, the timber framed walls, roof and ceiling the do not appear to have any obvious signs of deflection or failure. The external rear wall is in poor condition and generally in need of significant repair or rebuilding.

The condition of the flooring is unknown due to floor coverings of carpet and vinyl. However, floors generally are out of level and uneven, most likely due to failure and subsidence of the floor stumps. A visual inspection of the sub floor space indicated the majority of the floor stumps to be in need of repair and or replacement.

In summary, the building structure generally appears to be in a serviceable condition, with extensive re-stumping throughout and remedial works to the rear wall being the obvious major structural defects. Other lesser structural defects may become apparent if remedial works to wall, ceiling and roof finishes are undertaken.

Given the overall structural condition of the building, further investigation and establishment of budget estimates for repair work may be the next logical step to determine the viability of the building.

Cost estimates to carry out the necessary repairs are as follows;

Details Est Cost Re-roofing including replacement of gutters, jack up building and re stump, $50,000 relining of walls and ceilings and complete internal and external painting.

Install new meter, circuit breakers distribution and switch board and complete $ 5,000 rewire. • Front canopy to shop needs to be removed and made safe $18,000 • Repairs to front brick wall where cracking has occurred Total $73,000

The building needs to have the above repairs undertaken prior to it being suitable to lease or hire out to any community group. The actual building size, design and internal layout make its uses restrictive and prohibitive. Any prospective commercial tenant would be up for considerable costs to fit out the internal of the building.

If it is decided to repair the building, the ongoing costs to maintain its appeal will be costly due to its age and construction. The front portion of the building is made of brick with the rear being timber framed. Usually, this type of building will continually move as the structure further ages and materials breakdown.

The building is not contained within the Town of Cambridge Municipal Heritage Inventory.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 126 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CONCLUSION:

The shop at 90 Cambridge Street, West Leederville was acquired by the former City of Perth in June 1987 for the amount of $87,000. The land was classified in the City of Perth Planning Scheme as a City of Perth Scheme Reserve for Public Purposes, with a specific designation as ”Civic Purposes” (adjoining land to the east and west was similarly classified. That to the north was reserved for Parks and Recreation.)

The City of Perth’s Administration recommended that they purchase the subject land so that it could be developed in accordance with the reservation at an appropriate time. It was the intention of the City of Perth to demolish the building and incorporate the land with the adjoining public park. The shop on the site constituted a non-conforming use.

Subsequent to the acquisition of the shop, the Gilbert and Sullivan Society has leased the premises and paid a rental of $2,600 per annum. The Society has recently vacated the premise and relocated their shop and performances to another venue. The building is in poor condition and needs approximately $73,000 spent on it to bring it up to a standard, which would be habitable.

The building is not contained within the Town of Cambridge Municipal Heritage Inventory.

It is therefore recommended that the building be demolished and the land be included in the public park and utilised for the purpose for which it was originally acquired.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There was $5,000 in the 2002/03 budget to undertake the structural report on the premises and remedial works as required. The structural report cost $600 and there remains $4,400.

The Administration has arranged two quotes for the demolition of the building. The quotes have come in at $8,064 and $5,650.

It is recommended that the above mentioned $4,400 remaining from the shop structural report budget and an additional amount of $1,250 be reallocated from surpluses remaining from the Leederville Town Hall Repair/Replace Bitumen Surfaces project be used to carryout the demolition this financial year.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

There is nothing in the Strategic Plan that directly relates to this issue.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr McAullay, seconded by Cr Smith

That:-

(i) the demolition of the Council owned building at 90 Cambridge Street, West Leederville and the inclusion of the vacant land into the adjacent public park be approved;

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 127 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

(ii) the funds needed to complete the demolition be reallocated from the following projects:-

(a) $4,400 from 90 Cambridge Street Structural Assessment

(b) $1,250 from Leederville Town Hall Repair/Replace Bitumen Surfaces

Committee Meeting 17 March 2003

During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the demolition of the Council owned building at 90 Cambridge Street at this stage and agreed that advice be obtained from an Heritage Architect on the viability of retaining the building and a report be submitted to Council as soon as possible.

The Administration’s recommendation was then voted upon and lost.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That advice be obtained from a Heritage Architect on the viability of retaining the Council owned building at 90 Cambridge Street, West Leederville and a report be submitted to Council as soon as possible.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 128 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.27

WEMBLEY GOLF COMPLEX – PROPOSED LEASE OF TELECOMMUNICATION SITE (File Reference: RES0075)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To seek Council’s approval to lease to Hutchinson Australia Pty Ltd (Hutchinson Telecoms) a telecommunication site at the Wembley Golf Complex.

BACKGROUND:

Council, at its meeting held on 17 December 2002, considered two reports relating to requests from Hutchinson Australia Pty Ltd (Hutchinson Telecoms) for the installation of a telecommunication tower on the Wembley Golf Complex. The applicants were seeking Council support for their planning application and approval to enter into a lease for the site.

With regard to the planning application (Item CCS02.185), Council decided as follows:-

“That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge, Town Planning Scheme No.1 and matters required to be considered under this scheme generally and, in particular, as the proposal would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality, Council refers the application for the telecommunications facility at Lot 2, The Boulevard, Wembley submitted by Planning Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd as shown on plans dated 25 October 2002 to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a RECOMMENDATION FOR REFUSAL for the following reasons:-

(i) concerns for possible adverse health effects to those within the proximity of the facility;

(ii) the adverse visual impacts of the tower on the surrounding area due to its height exceeding the maximum of 20 metres as contained within Policy 5.3 Telecommunications Infrastructure.”

With regard to the request to enter into a lease agreement (Item CCS02.154), the following recommendation was considered:-

“That, subject to Council supporting the planning application and the WA Planning Commission’s approval:-

(i) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate a lease with Hutchison Telecoms for use of a portion of land on the Wembley Golf Complex for the purpose of a telecommunication tower;

(ii) the legislative requirements under section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 be complied with;

(iii) a valuation be arranged to determine a fair market rental for the lease of the land;

(iv) the Town’s Solicitors be requested to review the draft lease terms and conditions.”

During discussion, the majority of members expressed concern with the proposal, in particular with regard to possible health issues and the recommendation was lost.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 129 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DETAILS:

As advised in previous reports, the approving planning authority for the application, is the WA Planning Commission. Although Council at its meeting held on 17 December 2002 decided not to support the planning application, the final determination would be made by the Commission.

Under the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the applicant’s application was referred for determination by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The application for approval to commence development was granted by the WAPC on 19 February 2003 subject to the following conditions:-

(1) This approval does not imply approval to the erection of any advertisements on the site.

(2) No reflective material shall be used on the external finish of the development.

(3) If the development of the subject of this approval is not substantially commenced within a period of two years from 19 February 2003, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. Where an approval has so lapsed, no development shall be carried out without the further approval of the responsible authority having first been sought and obtained.

On obtaining WAPC’s approval to their application, Hutchison Telecoms has written to the Town once again requesting that Council considers entering into a lease to erect a telecommunication tower at the Wembley Golf Complex.

Attached are plans providing details of the location of the proposed lease site in relation to the course and surrounds. Also, a site plan and sketch of the building and tower with heights is also attached.

The leased area required is 57 m2 and rectangle in shape. It is well hidden on the course amongst trees and is surrounded by bush. The tower will be located approximately 30 metres from the edge of a fairway and will not interfere with the public or play.

The commercial terms of the lease offered are as follows;

LOCATION Wembley Golf Course LAND DESCRIPTION Lot 2 the subject of Diagram 54860 and being the whole of the land contained in Certificate of Title Volume 1522 Folio 898 TENANT Hutchison Telecoms RENTAL $12,000 per annum RENTAL REVIEWS Annual with fixed 4% increases TERMS 10 years with the right for the Tenant at the end of each 5-year interval to terminate by giving 6 months notice USE Landlord to allow the land to be used for the purpose of installing, testing, maintenance, repair, erection, construction, renewal, replacement, operation and removal of the equipment as part of the network. ACCESS Landlord to allow the Tenant 24 hour unrestricted access to the land.

The Administration proposes to seek advice from the Town’s solicitors and valuers in respect to the rental price and the lease terms and conditions offered to ensure that the Town is negotiating a profitable commercial deal.

To allow this matter to progress, it is recommended that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate the terms and conditions of the lease, including compliance under Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act and to advertise that Council intends entering into a lease with Hutchison Telecoms and calling for submissions.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 130 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Hutchinson Telecoms has also advised that Telstra has confirmed that it wishes to co locate and use the same tower. Telstra has also indicated verbally that construction of a separate hut (building), outside the proposed leased area, would be required to house its equipment.

This would involve Telstra lodging a separate planning and lease application to the Town for consideration. At this time, Telstra has not lodged the applications.

Statutory Requirements:

In accordance with section 3.58(3) of the Local Government Act, it is necessary that Council carries out the following legislative procedure:-

(i) gives statewide notification that it wishes to enter into a lease agreement with Hutchison Telecoms;

(ii) state the terms of the lease;

(iii) subsequently considers any submissions from the public that may have been received during the statutory period.

Legal Advice:

In the past, when considering a request from another provider, Council received legal advice that stated the following:-

(1) The provider could enter the Wembley Golf Course and install the proposed tower without authority from the Town as owner of the golf course, but if, and only if, it has first obtained a facility installation permit from the Australian Communications Authority (ACA).

(2) Obtaining a facility installation permit is not automatic and is not necessarily a straight forward exercise. The ACA must conduct a public inquiry before the permit can be issued, and the carrier is required to satisfy the ACA on a range of specified matters.

(3) The Telecommunications Act 1997 does not specifically contemplate that the owner of land has a right to make submissions to the ACA in opposition to a request by a carrier for a facility installation permit, but it is difficult to conceive that the right would be denied, especially as a public enquiry must be held before a permit can be issued.

It should be noted that the applicant has not indicated that, if unsuccessful, it would apply for a facility installation permit from the ACA, however, it is important that Council is aware that there is a further option available to the Hutchinson Telecoms should the Town choose not to lease the site.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Town would receive additional revenue, of at least $12,000 per annum from the lease of the site to Hutchison Telecoms. With the interest expressed from Telstra, there also exists an opportunity for additional income to be generated from leasing another area.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 131 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The Strategic Plan includes a goal “to defray some of the Town’s expenditure on facilities, particularly regional, by assessing opportunities for cost recovery to reduce costs to ratepayers.” Within this goal is the strategy to identify areas for which there are potential sources of revenue.

The possible lease of a site to Hutchison Telecoms at the Wembley Golf Complex is a potential source of revenue for the Town.

CONCLUSION:

The regulatory planning body, in this instance being the WAPC, has considered Hutchinson Telecoms’ application and decided to approve it. This is confirmed in WAPC’s letter dated 19 February 2003. The WAPC is satisfied that this site is a suitable location for the construction of a telecommunication tower.

Hutchinson Telecoms has again written to Council requesting approval to lease the site under the terms and conditions outlined above. There is a commercial opportunity for the Town to negotiate and generate revenue from the lease of the site to Hutchinson Telecoms, with further opportunities if Telstra proceeds to co-locate and use the tower. It is recommended that Council leases the site to Hutchinson Telecoms.

Committee Meeting 17 March 2003

During discussion, divergent views were expressed with regard to the proposal.

As the votes of the Members present were equally divided, the Presiding Member cast a second vote in favour of the motion.

Members requested that the vote of all those present be recorded. For: Crs MacRae and Smith Against: Crs McAullay and Pinerua

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate a lease with Hutchison Telecoms for use of a portion of land on the Wembley Golf Complex for the purpose of a telecommunication tower;

(ii) the legislative requirements under section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 be complied with;

(iii) a valuation be arranged to determine a fair market rental for the lease of the land;

(iv) the Town’s Solicitors be requested to review the draft lease terms and conditions.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 132 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

During discussion, concerns were expressed with regard to leasing a portion of land on the Wembley Golf Complex for the purpose of a telecommunication tower. Members also noted that Council has yet to consider the Bollig report which outlines development proposals for the Wembley Golf Complex.

The motion was then put and lost

Members requested that the vote of all those present be recorded:-

For: Nil Against: Mayor Willcock, Crs Anderton, Burkett, Langer, MacRae, McAullay, O’Connor, Pinerua and Smith

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 133 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CCS03.28

WEMBLEY GOLF COMPLEX – PRO SHOP LEASE EXTENSION (File Reference: )

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

• To seek Council’s endorsement for additional space to be leased to the tenant of the Pro Shop, Tee to Green Pty Ltd.

• To seek Council’s endorsement for the re-allocation of funds to allow additional pathways to be constructed in conjunction with the proposed works associated in the additional leased area.

BACKGROUND:

The Town, in August 2002, awarded the tender for the Pro Shop and Management Agreement for the Course Controller and operation of the Driving Range at the Wembley Golf Complex to Tee to Green Pty Ltd. In the tender submitted by Tee to Green Holdings Pty Ltd, the refurbishment of the Pro Shop was to be completed within six months of the commencement of the lease, October 2002 It has been identified that to effectively complete this refurbishment, additional space will be required within the Pro Shop for the storage of hire clubs. A letter outlining the works to be undertaken by Tee to Green Pty Ltd is included as an attachment (Attachment 1)

It is proposed that whilst this work is in progress, the Town could construct a path from the 9th green on the Tuart Course to the 10th tee and from the entrance of the lower car park to the 10th tee to complement the work being proposed by Tee to Green Pty Ltd.

DETAILS:

Plans have been submitted by the architect of Tee to Green Pty Ltd proposing a two-stage programme to enlarge the golf buggy storage area and re-furbish the Pro Shop. The works are detailed on Plans which will be tabled at the 17 March 2003 Corporate and Customer Services Committee meeting.

The development of extra golf buggy storage will be undertaken in two stages, with stage one enclosing the current under croft area and stage two the construction of a purpose built golf buggy shed. The buggy shed is not proposed to be constructed until a later date.

Extra storage space will be created for hire clubs, allowing the re-location of the serving counter to the back left hand corner of the Pro Shop. This serves two purposes, firstly it means that patrons walk past merchandise on the way to the counter and secondly, the counter design will allow several people to be served at the same time. The current design of the counter allows only one person to be served, which directly causes a bottleneck of patrons on busy days.

As part of the works, the Town is proposing to install paths from the 9th green to the 10th tee on the Tuart Course, and from the lower car park to join with the pathway running down the 10th tee. The current access from the 9th green to the 10th tee on the Tuart Course and clubhouse is done via a woodchip path that is in poor condition and presents a possible public liability issue.

In consultation with Tee to Green Pty Ltd, the current practice of delivery vehicles using the sandy track from the lower car park to the rear of the Pro Shop will cease, with all vehicles stopping at a loading zone, adjacent to Wembley Golf Complex Manager’s office.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 134 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Bollards will be introduced at the entrance from the lower car park as a mechanism to control the traffic flow of vehicles whilst still allowing motorised golf buggies and pedestrians easy access. The works are detailed on plan E425 03 02 which will be tabled at the 17 March 2003 Corporate and Customer Services Committee meeting.

The current horseshoe shaped limestone retaining wall located near the practice putting green will have to be removed and a new wall built, with these costs being met by Tee to Green Pty Ltd (approximately $4,800). It will also allow greater access with the additional pathway width being increased. The current wall is in poor condition and would need to be replaced within the next two years. Tee to Green Pty Ltd will also contribute $4,600 towards paving costs.

The cost for the project has been estimated at $43,205 with the following allocation of costs.

Item Number Cost Total Bollards 3 $350.00 each $1,050 Paving 454m2 $54 per m2 $24,516 Edging 450 metres $22.00 per $9,900 metre Rubber Insert 124m2 $63 per m2 $7,812 Grass Removal $600 Total

Less Tee to Green Contribution ($4,600)

Sub Total $39,278 Contingency 10% $3,927 Total Cost $43,205

Note: The cost of the limestone wall has not been included in these figures.

COMMENT:

The current undercroft area at the rear of the Pro Shop is not heavily utilised. The proposed plans submitted by Tee to Green Pty Ltd, allow an extension of the floor space of the Pro Shop and increased buggy storage area with minimal disruption to the existing buildings and patrons. An integral part of this proposal is the addition of a new pathway on the outside of the existing structure. Works cannot commence on the Pro Shop until the pathways are completed and operational

The standard of the pathways around the 10th tee are of poor quality and in need of work. With work commencing for pathways between the 9th green and 10th tee on the Old Course and 18th green to the car park on the Old Course, the proposed additional work will ensure that all paths around the clubhouse are paved, presentable and of a high quality.

The extra-leased area will provide patrons with more electric golf buggies and a Pro Shop that is better designed for the needs of the tenants and patrons. The extra electric golf buggies will provide more opportunities to attract corporate golf, which in most cases requires them as part of the package. This in turn would result in additional revenue to the Town.

The Town receives from Tee to Green Pty Ltd 5% of turnover above $1.8 million, and the introduction of more electric golf buggies could assist in meeting this target.

A requirement of increased cart use will be the provision of better accessible pathways, especially in high wear areas. Golf courses such as Burswood, Joondalup, and The Vines have invested in paved pathways to prevent wear and erosion in high traffic areas. A pathway programme is intended to be established and provisions made for these works to be included in the draft 2003/2004 Budget.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 135 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Any work for the modification of the existing Pro Shop will require a building licence. Tee to Green Pty Ltd have submitted plans to Council for approval.

Policy No 2.3.8 “Allocation of funds from Reserve Accounts and the Endowment Lands Account” list criteria for suitability, all of which are met by this request.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The paths to be completed by the Town have not been allocated in the 2002/3 budget. However, funds can be re-allocated from the savings from other Golf Complex operational areas, without detriment to the Golf Course itself or surrounding environment, with a further $18,500 required from the Wembley Golf Complex Reserve.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Within the Town’s Strategic Plan, the maintenance and development of existing and new facilities is listed as one of the strategies for economic development. The additional pathways and improved Pro Shop will follow this strategy by providing patrons of the Wembley Golf Complex safe access from the green to tee, and a more attractive and functional Pro Shop.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS:

Nil PUBLIC CONSULTATION:

Nil

SUMMARY:

For the Wembley Golf Complex to be competitive in the public golf market, it is imperative that patrons are provided with facilities that are equal to other golf courses.

The extension of the leased area for the Pro Shop will utilise an under croft area that is not heavily used and will allow the tenant, Tee to Green Pty Ltd, to increase the buggy storage area and re-furbish the Pro Shop with minimum disruption to patrons.

The work on the pathways, at the same time as the extension to the Pro Shop lease area, will co-ordinate the extensions and the surrounding pathways.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) an extension to the leased area be granted to Tee to Green Pty Ltd for buggy storage and a future golf buggy shed on the proviso that Tee to Green Pty Ltd meet all costs associated with the re-development of the Pro Shop at the Wembley Golf Complex and preparation of the lease documentation;

(ii) an amount of $24,767 be re-allocated from identified savings within the Wembley Golf Complex operational budget to assist in the installation of pathways;

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 136 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

(iii) an allocation of up to $18,500 be approved by AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, to be funded from the Wembley Golf Complex Reserve to assist in costs associated with the installation of pathways at the Wembley golf Complex.

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 137 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

8. REPORTS FROM DELEGATES: COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS

8.1 Safer WA Western Suburbs Committee

Nothing further to report

9. GENERAL BUSINESS

9.1 Town’s Beach Inspector

Members were advised that the Town’s Beach Inspector Mr Stephen Hopkins had recently been awarded the NUSKIN Lifeguard of the Year Award for Western Australia. The Administration was requested to confirm whether he had received the National Award prior to the next meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 25 March 2003.

10. CLOSURE

There being no further business, the Presiding Member thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee closed at 7.15 pm.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\D CCS.doc 138 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

The report of the Development and Environmental Services Committee Meeting held on 18 March 2003 was submitted as under:-

1. ELECTION OF PRESIDING MEMBER

Resolved that Cr MacRae be elected Presiding Member for the March meeting of the Development and Environmental Services Committee.

2. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development and Environmental Services Committee open at 6. 05 pm.

3. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving

Members:

Cr MacRae (Presiding Member) 6 05 pm 8.25 pm

Cr Burkett JP 6 05 pm 8.25 pm Cr Alan Langer (Deputy) 6 05 pm 8.25 pm Cr Hilary Pinerua (Deputy) 6 05 pm 8.25 pm

Observers:

Mayor Ross Willcock JP 6 05 pm 7.20 pm Cr Kerry Smith 6 05 pm 7.20 pm

Officers:

Ian Birch, Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services Pas Bracone, Manager Planning Services Michael Trewin, Environmental Health Officer Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)

Adjournments: Nil

Time meeting closed: 8.25 pm

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Apologies – Crs Anderton and McAullay

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 139 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Deputations:

Mike Hollett, Bruce Franklin and Mark Herbert, Water Corporation addressed Committee in relation to the status of the sustainability park.

Item DES03.27 – Mr Barton, neighbour

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Burkett, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development and Environmental Services Committee held on 18 February 2003 as contained in the February Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

Carried

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS

Nil

7. REPORTS

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 140 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

REFERRED BACK

DES03.19

SOUTHPORT STREET PLANNING STUDY (File Reference: PLA 0084)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To adopt the Southport Street Planning Study and determine the next steps toward the implementation of the plan.

BACKGROUND:

The Council at its meeting held in December 2001, resolved to initiate a report into the future development options in the Southport Street Commercial Precinct. A brief was drawn and expressions of interest from suitably qualified persons were called for, following which Mr Chris Antill of Chris Antill Planning and Urban Design Consultant was appointed to undertake the task.

The primary objective of the study was to:-

“Enhance the Southport Street Commercial precinct through appropriate town planning measures, streetscape and traffic management improvements, which will encourage and enhance development that will serve to raise the profile of the precinct, facilitate greater development options and capitalise on the precincts locational advantages.”

PROGRESS TO DATE:

• The consultant commenced the study with a literature review and collection of relevant data. This has been supplemented by site inspections and interviews with commercial property agents familiar with the area.

• A survey “feedback” form was then distributed to each landowner in the area asking questions regarding parking, land use, streetscape amenity, pedestrian safety and the like.

• An analysis was then reproduced in a series of illustrated plans and opportunities for addressing the identified problems were explored.

• A suggested range of options and a draft concept plan was then put to representative group of landowners, who met with consultants and staff members from the Town, held at the Council offices one evening. These invited representatives were from those who had taken the opportunity to respond to the survey mail out. Preliminary concepts were well supported and additional matters were raised for consideration by landowners and their representatives.

• The collective responses from landowners at that meeting were then assessed and a draft “preferred option” selected for general community comment. Feedback received from the second round of general consultation was then taken into account and the consultants have produced their recommended preferred plan that is now put to the Council for their consideration.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 141 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

It is important to recognise that certain aspects of the recommendations contained within the report at this time are at the “concept stage” and the proposals contained with the report have not been fully costed. Additionally, fine detail feature surveys are required in respect to road treatments and proposed streetscape enhancements and undoubtedly these will have some implications as to the extent that some of the recommendations can be implemented. Also, further consideration will be given to any proposed amendments to development standards prior to their implementation.

At this time, the Council is requested to consider the outcomes of the study and determine if they are agreeable to the proposals contained within it. If the Council is supportive of the general recommendations then further investigations will be undertaken to cost the various proposals so that Council will have a clear understanding of the financial commitment and an indicative time line required to implement the plan.

OVERVIEW OF REPORT:

The report incorporates a site analysis of the study area, having regard for the following:-

• Land use and activities; • Access (Movement, parking and circulation); • Streetscape and environment; and • Urban design and built form.

A series of opportunities pertaining to these various issues have been identified and development options explored, culminating in a series of recommendations detailed in the final plan.

Summary of findings

The report recommends that the Town encourages and promotes the Southport Street Commercial Precinct as a more urban, mixed use, but predominately commercial area, offering an attractive alternative to other nearby commercial precincts such as Leederville, east of the freeway, east Subiaco, West Perth and Subi Centro.

It is recommended the Town should initially promote the precinct through the introduction of peripheral “entry statements”, by adopting a suitable brand name and by introducing appropriate new town planning controls and design guidelines. In the medium to long term, the Town should support the precincts future development by the introduction of appropriate physical improvements to the public domain.

Specific findings have been made in respect to the following:-

Land use, Activity, Planning Controls and Incentives

The report recommends the area should be promoted as a mixed use, but predominately commercial/service retail precinct where residential use may be accommodated as a supplementary use.

Property owners in Oxford Close in particular, should be encouraged to develop appropriately designed buildings with mixed uses. Cafes, small restaurants and local service retail uses could be encouraged at ground level, with office and residential uses at the first floor and above. Incentives should be provided within the Town Planning Scheme to encourage residential development as part of new development.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 142 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Residential areas

The existing extent and R Coding of the residential area within the study are considered appropriate. The eventual undergrounding of power lines will increase opportunities to improve street tree planting and enhance the residential amenity.

Design and development guidelines

A revised set of development guidelines are suggested for the study area.

The objective is to develop a more urban precinct with a strong recognisable identity and encourage small to medium scale developments of a type and character appropriate to the precinct and specifically appropriate to the desirable character of each street.

The proposed guidelines promote a higher quality of development that over a period of time will serve to enhance the aesthetic quality and function of the area. This will be achieved by introducing new standards for development covering issues such as plot ratio controls, building form and height and the like.

Oxford Close

Oxford close has been identified as a street of special significance in the precinct. Its physical dimension, low traffic volumes lends itself to appropriate streetscape enhancement which will increase the priority of pedestrians over vehicle and the greening of its expansive hard surfaces. The street has potential to be promoted as the “café” strip of the precinct and residential uses at first floor and above will be encouraged.

Southport Street

Southport Street is a major traffic carrier and will continue to perform this function for the foreseeable future.

As such, new development should be encouraged that reduces the number and width of crossovers to the street and rear laneways should be used for access wherever possible.

Loftus Street, Cambridge Street and Railway Parade.

These streets especially Loftus Street are high traffic volume streets which form three of the margins of the precinct. It is important for the improvement of the precincts image that new development presents well to passing motorists and pedestrians.

Particular attention is to be given to any development located on these streets to the following elements:-

• Vehicle access • Façade, scale, form and design • Advertising signage • Colours and details

Plot ratio

Buildings to have a maximum plot ratio of 1:1, except where a mixed-use development comprising commercial and residential uses is proposed. In this instance, the maximum plot ratio may be increased to 1.5:1 provided that in any development not more than 25 per cent of the excess relevant floorspace will be used for non-residential purposes.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 143 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Building height

All new buildings to be preferably at least two storeys in height above natural ground level in order to promote a strong urban form. Corner buildings should preferably be three storeys in height above the natural ground level.

Major Intersection Treatments

Southport Street/Railway Parade

Whilst both a roundabout and traffic lights for this intersection have been ruled out due to space constraints, there is however, sufficient room on Railway Parade for two lanes to pass at this point. It is recommended that formal channelisation and road marking be investigated. (A small number of kerbside car parking bays on railway Parade would be need to be removed to facilitate this)

Southport Street/Cambridge Street

Whilst traffic congestion is experienced at this intersection during the morning and afternoon peak periods, the intersection copes well with traffic during the rest of the day. The intersection is physically constrained by existing properties and there is little scope for layout improvements. Signal timing and phasing could possibly be improved, but these are also constrained by being part of the SCAT system (i.e.; the signals are linked together with other intersections by Main Roads).

Loftus Street/Cambridge Street

The short left turn lane in Loftus Street travelling north which turns in to Cambridge Street is easily blocked by traffic queuing in Loftus Street. There appears to be an opportunity to provide some additional length to this lane which would be of benefit to the movement. Any improvements to this movement would also be of benefit to Railway Parade, as it would attract traffic which is currently using Railway Parade and Southport Street to reach the freeway.

This matter was considered by Council in December 2002 when it was decided that:-

“(i) Council does not support the Transperth proposal to provide “No Stopping” restrictions on Southport Street as it would have a significant effect on parking in Southport Street;

(ii) Transperth be requested to lobby Main Roads WA to complete Loftus Street modifications at the intersection of Cambridge Street as a potential resolution to the bus timetable issues.”

Public / Civic works

Undergrounding of power lines

It is recommended that all powerlines within the precinct be placed underground as a matter of priority. This will provide opportunities to introduce street trees which are presently few in number. This will in turn reduce the harshness of the streetscape, improve the quality of the street environment and lift the overall image of the precinct.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 144 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Street lighting should also be addressed at this time throughout the precinct, as some areas have none at present. The undergrounding of powerlines can be carried out in stages if necessary and if funds are limited. The priority streets or sections identified are:-

1. Oxford Close 2. Southport Street (southern end) 3. Cambridge Street 4. Southport Street (northern end)

Enhancement of the Oxford Close streetscape

Oxford Close should be upgraded in a manner which reflects the potential to function as a low traffic volume, café/service retail strip.

The measures proposed include:-

• undergrounding of powerlines • 30 degree angle parking on both sides • removal of redundant crossovers • planting of street trees within the road space • new paving, lighting and rubbish bins

Enhancement of the Southport Street streetscape

Southport Street should be upgraded in a manner which reflects its existing and continuing function as an important traffic route, but at the same time allows the streets amenity deficiencies and traffic safety problems to be addressed.

The measures proposed include:-

• undergrounding of powerlines • The introduction of nibs to protect cars parked in parallel on both sides of the street • removal of redundant crossovers • planting of street trees within the road space • new paving, lighting and rubbish bins

Street tree planting

In addition to Southport Street and Oxford Close, all streets within the study area should be reassessed in terms of their capacity to accept a higher level of street tree plantings. Railway Parade and Cambridge Street in particular are important “public faces” for the precinct and require closer attention and the allocation of additional resources to improve their amenity and appearance.

Provision of an off-street public carpark

The Town should investigate the feasibility of acquiring a portion of land near the northern end of Southport Street, adjacent to the freeway. It is estimated that approximately 50-60 car parking bays could be provided as a consequence. Consideration would need to be given to charging motorists a fee for its use and/or introducing some specific means of ensuring that workers and visitors to the Southport Street commercial precinct receive priority access to the parking area.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 145 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

At the same time, the town should also consider the role of the existing public carpark adjacent to the Town Hall, to ensure there is a desirable balance in satisfying the reasonable parking needs of workers in the area and central city commuters.

Note: Consideration as to how this acquisition is funded, including contributions by property owners will need to be given.

Cyclist and Pedestrian Needs

Recommendations are made to enhance linkages to and through the precinct that include:-

• A formal footpath be provided to link the shared path on the north side of Cambridge Street with Loftus Street; • Upgrading the appearance and security of the existing underpass beneath Loftus Street, together with its approaches by - - Upgrading lighting at both ends of the tunnel; - Weatherproofing the skylight and increasing ventilation; - Shifting the existing stairs on the western side northwards and widening the western tunnel entrance as much as possible; - Introduction of appropriate plantings - Ensuring new development of the vacant sites at each end of the tunnel provides windows or other openings which have a clear view of the tunnel to increase casual surveillance.

Existing Council owned vacant site bordered by Oxford Close, Railway Parade and Loftus Street.

It is recommended that this site be upgraded into a small park by the following actions:-

• Removal of all but one or two of the palms that presently dominate the space • Retention of healthy young trees and introduction of one or two more on the northern edge of the space • Introduction of grass and simple paving with some benches and lighting; • Construction of a small entry statement on the south eastern corner

Upgrading of Rear Lane way System

The rear laneways lying within the street block bounded by Southport Street, Harrogate Street, Oxford Close and Railway Parade are an important asset to the area in terms of parking, access and servicing. They should be upgraded by improving drainage, paving, traffic calming and lighting and perhaps by extending the laneway northwards through to Harrogate Street should the opportunity arise some time in the future.

Precinct Image

In the short term while the Town is putting together a programme of civic works for the precinct, it is recommended that the Town, in conjunction with the landowners and traders arrive at a distinctive name for the precinct.

The name should become part of the common usage both in Council operations and gradually throughout the business and real estate communities.

It also should be promoted through the introduction of simple low scale entry statements located on the precinct’s periphery, such as the corners of Loftus Street and Cambridge Street and Loftus Street and Railway Parade.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 146 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are a number of recommendations contained that if carried out, will commit the Town to significant capital expenditure. Significant expenditure will be required to implement streetscape improvements such as undergrounding of power lines, modifications to road and pedestrian networks and the acquisition of land for the public carpark.

Should the Council agree in principle to the recommendations outlined in the report, then further investigation will be needed to identify the costs involved with these works.

Other aspects such as the implementation of the recommended Planning Controls can be implemented by way of amendments to Town Planning Scheme No.1, without significant cost and can be accommodated within the planning operating budget.

Having regard to the above, there will be an immediate cost for the preparation of a report to investigate costing estimates for the implementation of the plan. A budget allocation of $1500.00 is visualised for the preparation of this report.

This report is to be provided by the end of March 2003 to enable consideration of the costing estimates in April 2003 so that it can be considered in the 2003/2004 financial budget.

The report can be funded from the Planning Operating Budget, Item 410/75 Special Projects Consultancies.

CONCLUSION:

The consultant has now completed the project in terms of the requirements of the brief. The study has involved quite extensive public consultation and the recommendations within the report have been enthusiastically accepted by the group of landowners and business operators within the precinct.

One of the intentions of the brief was for the consultant to provide a report that would enable the Town to identify the possible future opportunities for the precinct that will help the Council identify the way forward.

Implementation of the plan, if accepted, can take place over time, some as special projects, some as part of comprehensive redevelopments of private land, but most improvements relating to the public domain can be achieved as part of Council’s normal annual maintenance and upgrading programmes. The proposed Design and development guidelines can be adopted relatively quickly, if supported by the relevant landowners.

It is recommended that the study can be adopted by the Council.

Committee Meeting 18 February 2003

During discussion, Members suggested that the item be deferred for one month to allow more time to consider the study.

Council Meeting 25 February 2003

Members agreed that the item relating to Southport Street Planning Study be deferred for one month.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 147 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Committee Meeting 18 March 2003

During discussion, the Administration was requested, as part of the progression of the Study, to consider the use of metered parking to provide greater opportunity for visitor kerbside parking in the area, the connection of Cambridge Street with the underpass with a dual use path and the installation of a “silent cop” at the intersection of Southport Street and Railway Parade.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That:-

(i) the Southport Street Commercial Precinct, Planning and Land Use Study, dated December 2002, prepared by Chris Antill and Associates be adopted;

(ii) Chris Antill Planning and Urban Design Consultant be appointed to prepare a report outlining a programme for the implementation of the recommendations of the study and that such programme contains costing estimates for all aspects of the proposal, at a cost of $1500.00;

(iii) the cost of preparing the above report be charged to Budget Item, 410/75 - Special Projects Consultancies;

(iv) those persons who have made submissions on the study and attended the workshop held at Council offices on 21 October 2002, be advised of Council’s decision.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 148 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.22

PT LOTS 91 AND 92 (NO. 154) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED CHANGE OF NON-CONFORMING USE (OFFICE TO CONSULTING ROOM) – CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL MEDIATION (File Reference: PRO 0385)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider the outcome of mediation conducted by the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal in relation to an appeal lodged by the owner of Pt Lots 91 and 92 (No. 154) Cambridge Street, West Leederville, against the decision made by Council.

BACKGROUND:

The application to change a non-conforming use from office to consulting room at Pt Lots 91 and 92 (No. 154) Cambridge Street, West Leederville was considered by Council at its meeting held on 19 November 2002. The Council decided to refuse the application for the following reasons:-

• the adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area as a result of the increased traffic and parking generated by the proposal and, in particular, having regard to the congested parking which already exists as a result of the extensive medical uses in the area.

• the Council has already nominated a medical zone around St John of God Hospital in recognition of the requirement for consulting rooms to be in close proximity to this facility and to stem the pressure for such uses to extend into surrounding residential areas;

• approval of this proposal would set an undesirable precedent for similar conversions of other non-conforming uses in the vicinity.

DETAILS:

On 22 November 2002, planning consultant Planning Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of the owner of No. 154 Cambridge Street, lodged an appeal to the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal against Council’s decision to refuse the application. As a normal course of considering appeals, the Tribunal first seeks to resolve the matter through mediation, rather than proceeding straight to a formal hearing.

A mediation hearing conducted by two members of the Tribunal was undertaken on 18 February 2003. The mediation was attended by the Manager of Planning Services on behalf of the Town and the planning consultant on behalf of the appellant.

Outcome of Mediation

Discussion during the mediation covered various matters relevant to the appeal, such as non-conforming uses and parking congestion in the locality and possible restrictions that could be imposed to limit the size and scale of the consulting room use in order to control its impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. These included restrictions on the number of staff and hours of operation and limiting the use to one practitioner only. These restrictions formed the basis of the outcome of the mediation.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 149 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Further to the mediation session, the applicant has provided the following request for reconsideration to the Town and confirmed the following:-

Further to the recent mediation in regard to the above, we seek to clarify and respond to points raised during those discussions. We also request the Town of Cambridge positively respond to our proposition for support to avoid the need for a costly and unnecessary formal hearing of the matter by the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal.

1. The premises shall be used by a specialist orthopaedic surgeon who shall operate from the site 2.5 days per week. In addition one secretarial position (fulltime equivalent) is filled by two part time secretarial assistants who job share the position. 2. Patients will not be seen by the specialist orthopaedic surgeon whilst they are not present on the premises, resulting in considerably different approach to the function of the activities on the site from other medical types of activities. 3. In response to the Council’s debate on the matter our client has worked to improve the facilities on site, removing where appropriate out buildings on the Subject Site, to improve the appearance and usability of the premises for both car parking and general appearance. 4. The manner in which patients attend the specialist orthopaedic surgeon’s consulting rooms is unique. The manner by which the specialist practitioner operates is substantially different from that by which a “GP” typically operates. 5. The proposed activities will ensure the provision of an additional residential dwelling in the locality, whilst also reducing the amount of land taken up by the non-conforming activities which currently exist on the land. The proposal is more in keeping with the spirit and intent of the residential zoning under the provisions of the Council Town Planning Scheme on the basis of:- 1. The reduction in total area of non conforming activities 2. The lowering of the intensity of the activities conducted from the premises given the removal of the existing “office – commercial” activities presently conducted and their replacement with low level activities associated with a specialist orthopaedic consultant.

Given the above and the Officer’s previous consideration and recommendations of support for the proposal and the discussions at the mediation, the Council of the Town of Cambridge is earnestly requested to support the proposal presented.

COMMENT:

Council has the opportunity to now consider the outcome of the mediation and determine its support or otherwise of the application.

Should the Council support the mediation, the matter can be concluded. Should mediation be unsuccessful, however, the matter will proceed to a contested hearing at the Tribunal. The above mentioned outcome from the mediation will be expressly excluded from these proceedings and further, those members of the Tribunal who presided over the mediation will not be eligible to hear the appeal.

It is difficult to predict the outcome of the appeal should it go to a contested hearing, however, a preliminary view of the chairman of the mediation session indicated that the appeal is likely to be successful at a contested hearing. It could well be the case that the appeal outcome results in an approval without conditions attached that restrict the number of staff, hours of operation etc.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 150 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The applicant has confirmed that the consulting room will be restricted to one practitioner and a maximum of two staff on the premises at any one time. Conditions of approval can be included in this regard. Further, the plans submitted with the application showed that seven car bays could be constructed at the rear of the site – a condition of approval can also be included in this regard.

The applicant has advised that the practitioner will operate from the site 2.5 days per week, but has not specified hours of operation. It is considered reasonable to restrict hours of operation to between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm, Monday to Saturday only, excluding Sundays and Public Holidays.

The applicant has also advised that a small sign would be placed on the building to identify the medical practice. The size of this sign could be restricted to a size of 0.2 square metres.

STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS:

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Should the matter proceed to a contested hearing and the Town engages legal representation, there will be costs. There is a budget item for legal fees.

CONCLUSION:

Mediation has resulted in a proposal that will restrict the consulting room use to one practitioner and two staff and limited hours of operation. Seven car parking bays can be provided on site for the businesses at No. 152 and 154 Cambridge Street.

It is considered that restrictions on the number of staff, hours of operation and size of signage will result in a use that should have a similar or less detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding area than the existing non-conforming office use and therefore it is recommended that Council supports the outcome of the mediation, subject to the conditions outlined below.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Burkett, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) Council supports the outcome of the mediation in relation to the appeal for the change of non-conforming use (office to consulting room) at Pt Lots 91 and 92 (No. 154) Cambridge Street, West Leederville, in accordance with the amended floor plan dated 11 September 2002, the amended car parking layout plan dated 5 November 2002 and correspondence dated 12 March 2003, subject to the following conditions:-

(a) not more than one practitioner shall be practising on site at any one time;

(b) not more than two staff in addition to the practitioner shall be on site at any one time;

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 151 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

(d) the size of the sign identifying the practice shall be restricted to 0.2 square metres;

(e) hours of operation shall be restricted to between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm, Monday to Saturday, excluding Sundays and Public Holidays;

(f) prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted, the car parking area and access way shall be sealed, kerbed, line marked to the Council’s specifications, and the car parking area and access way, including the surface and line marking, shall be maintained at all times to the Council’s satisfaction;

(ii) the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal be advised of Council’s decision.

Committee Meeting 18 March 2003

During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the outcome of the mediation in relation to the appeal for the change of non-conforming use (office to consulting room) at No. 154 Cambridge Street, West Leederville for the reasons as previously given by the Council in refusing the application.

The Administration’s recommendation was then voted upon and lost.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That:-

(i) the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal be advised that the Council does not accept the mediated solution as proposed. Notwithstanding the conditions of use proposed by the applicant, the Council remains firmly opposed to the application for the reasons outlined as follows:-

• approval of this proposal would set an undesirable precedent for similar conversions of other non-conforming uses in the vicinity;

(ii) McLeod and Co. Solicitors be engaged to represent the Town in the defence of its appeal.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 152 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.23

LOT 3 (NO. 5) STATION STREET, WEMBLEY - RADIOLOGY CENTRE (File Reference: PRO 0285)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To determine an application for planning approval.

BACKGROUND:

BA/DA REFERENCE: 1DA2003 LANDOWNER: Grandifer Pty Ltd APPLICANT: Windsor Knight Pty Ltd ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential/Commercial

The Development and Environmental Services Committee at its meeting held on 18 February 2003 considered the application (Item DES03.05 refers) for the radiology centre and decided:-

"That:-

(i) in accordance with the provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme and the Metropolitan Region Scheme and having regard to the matters it is required to consider by the Schemes generally and in particular as the proposal would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality by virtue of:-

• non compliance with Clause 7.5 of Planning Policy P5 West Leederville namely, plot ratio of any building or part thereof used for non-residential purposes cannot exceed 33% of the maximum allowable plot ratio of 0.5; • non compliance with Part 6.0 of Planning Policy Transport, Access and Parking of Planning Policy namely, 4 car bays are required for every consulting room. The shortfall in parking is based on the number of consulting rooms, number of staff and number of expected patients;

the Council REFUSES, the application by Windsor Knight Pty Ltd at Lot 3 (No. 5) Station Street, Wembley as shown on plans dated 8 January 2003;

(ii) the applicant for the proposed Radiology Clinic on Lot 3 (No.5) Station Street, Wembley be advised that:-

• in relation to part 1(a) of the recommendation a 100% commercial development without a residential component is supported; • the use is supported; • the design, scale and bulk of the proposed building from a streetscape perspective is supported."

Prior to the matter being considered by the Council at its meeting on 25 February 2003, the applicant, for this proposal, Windsor Knight Properties, requested that the application be withdrawn from the Council Agenda. The withdrawal of the application was to allow for amended plans being submitted to address the matters raised in the report to the Development and Environmental Services Committee.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 153 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The applicant has now submitted amended plans for consideration.

1-3 Station Street, Corner Salvado Road, Wembley - Proposed Oncology Centre

During discussion at the Development and Environmental Services Committee meeting on 18 February 2003, the Administration was requested to provide further information on the proposed Oncology Centre redevelopment located next door, in particular plot ratio and parking compliance. As noted above, the application for 5 Station Street was withdrawn and the information was not provided for the February Council meeting. The information is therefore provided in this report.

Details of the approval granted for the property at 1-3 Station Street, Wembley are as follows:-

The Council considered applications for expansion of the existing oncology centre at its meetings held on 18 December 2001 (Item DES01.175 refers) and 22 October 2002 (Item DES02.142 refers) and in both cases granted planning approval.

In both cases, the parking requirement for each application complied with the Scheme provisions.

With respect to plot ratio, both applications sought a variation to the need to provide a residential component within the developments. In both cases, no residential was provided and as a result exceeded the proportion of non-residential development for the site. The plot ratio did, however, comply with the overall requirement of 0.5, being 0.45 and 0.42 respectively.

5 Station Street, Wembley – Radiology Centre

COMPLIANCE:

Land use permissibility Consulting rooms “AA”

POLICY:

Policy Requirements Required Proposed (Residential/Commercial area) Plot ratio 0.5 0.67 Plot ratio (non-residential 33% non-residential of 100% non- component) 0.5 plot ratio residential of 0.67 plot ratio Parking 24 car bays @ 4 bays 20 car bays for every consulting room plus bays for conference room

DETAILS:

Lot Area: 751 square metres

Approval is sought for the development of a radiology centre at Lot 3 (No.5) Station Street, Wembley.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 154 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The proposal is to demolish the existing residential dwelling and for the construction of a purpose built two storey commercial building with a semi-basement. The building will be constructed from tilt up concrete panels with a flat metal deck roof. On the ground floor there is a reception, two general consulting rooms, two ultra sound rooms, a Cat Scan (CT) room and a CT control room, a screening room, an office and typing area, dark room, 8 change rooms and toilets.

The upper floor has a staff lunch room, staff amenity and practice conference room, stationery room, archive room, toilets and a garden deck facing out onto Station Street. The semi-basement will contain 13 car parking bays and a storage area. Four of the carparking bays in the basement are in tandem arrangement. The applicant has advised that these bays would be set aside for staff use and signed and marked accordingly to avoid any confusion regarding their use. Seven car parking bays will be at the front of the building. A single crossover to Station Street will service the site for vehicular access and a ramp will provide pedestrian access from the street. A landscaping strip fronting the site along Station Street measures 1.3 metres wide, previously this was 0.6 metres.

As a result of the introduction of a semi-basement, the height of the building has increased by approximately 1.2 metres.

The internal layout of the ground and upper floors has changed slightly through swapping of the location of the stairwell from the southern to the northern side of the building.

There is no residential component incorporated in the development.

The proposed consulting rooms are defined as an “AA” use (i.e. a use not permitted unless the Council has granted planning approval.)

Applicant's Ground for Request

Additional information has been provided in support of the amended proposal:

Oldfield Knott Architects Pty Ltd

"We ask that these revised drawings be read in conjunction with letters forwarded from the intended tenants SKG Radiology, describing the nature of the proposed use of the building, the number of staff operating the premises, SKG’s proposal for onsite parking management, and the additional facilities required at this site to support their business.

Windsor Knight Properties has chosen this property location with SKG to be the tenant of a new building designed specifically for their nature of operation and due to the site’s close proximity to St John of God Hospital. The siting of the building to the rear of the lot reflects that proportion of the floor plan necessary to satisfactorily accommodate the radiology operation at lower floor level with operatives located to either side of a central support/processing node. This enables the facility to be serviced by minimal staff, whilst offering patients, many of who are physically impaired or disabled, the maximum amenity in gaining direct access to a highly visible single point of entry, from a disabled parking bay, or directly off the street.

Siting the building as proposed makes the most efficient use of the site area available, being a result of the balance between setbacks and the need to provide as many car parking spaces as possible on a small site, while minimising internal vehicular circulation. All vehicular ramps have been set with a 1 in 14 slope, incorporating handrails to facilitate access by the disabled across the entire site.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 155 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Carefully considered landscaping to the front of the site and the balcony of the now elevated building will soften the impact of the proposed car parking area to the street frontage, while continuing the diminished scale of development at street frontage already evident by the use of the adjoining site for car parking.

The limited floor space available at the lower accommodation floor level has caused us to locate all staff amenity/support and storage/archival facilities at first floor level, adopting a zero lot line approach to setbacks to the adjoining southern site used for car parking, while minimising the impact of the new building to the residential site on the northern boundary, by stepping the building away from that boundary."

COMMENT:

The report prepared for this proposal as previously submitted dealt with all of the relevant matters for consideration (Item DES03.05 Development and Environmental Services Committee 18 February 2003 refers). The amended proposal has sought to address the concerns previously raised through the increase in the number of car parking bays from 10 to 20. With respect to other matters raised as being of concern, the applicants were advised that Council supported:-

• a 100% commercial development without a residential component; • the use; and • the design, scale and bulk of the proposed building.

Car parking

The shortfall in car parking of the initial proposal was the most significant factor in the previous recommendation not to support the application. The previous report to Council stated in relation to car parking:-

"The Town Planning Scheme and Policy requires car parking for a consulting room on the basis of 4 bays for every consulting room. It is important to note that parking provision is dependent on the number of rooms as opposed to the number of medical consultants.

The plans submitted with the application show 6 rooms which could be potential “consulting rooms.” These are supported by a total of 8 change rooms. Based on 6 consulting rooms the parking requirement is 24 car bays. Ten car bays have been shown on the plans.

It should be noted that the conference room/staff amenities area have not been included in the parking calculation. The applicant has stated that the use of the up-stairs conference room/staff amenities area would be after hours and hence would not impact on the daily parking demand. Nevertheless, the conference room/staff amenities could generate parking demand and hence additional parking bays would normally be required. From discussions with the architects, the conference room could accommodate 10 to 20 people. Hence there is the potential parking demand in addition to the consulting room practice which could be as high as 20 car bays. This will mean the total requirement would be in the vicinity of 44 car bays.

The applicant has stated that the proposal is for a single practitioner only and due to the nature of the business the parking provided would be adequate for the use. There is no disagreement that the operation of the practice is for a single practitioner only. Council’s car parking policy, however, is not based on the number of consultants but on the number of consulting rooms. It is unlikely that of the 6 “consulting rooms” shown on the plan that only one will have a patient at a time. The fact that there are up to 5 technical staff and 8 change rooms suggests that there will be more than one patient attended to at any one time.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 156 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The issue here is not necessarily that there is only one consultant but that more than one patient can be attended to at anyone time. It is the number of patients that create the greater parking demand.

In the supporting information provided by SKG Radiology, it acknowledges that technical staff are able to perform minor procedures to patients either with or without the radiologist present. This highlights the appropriateness of Council’s parking requirements based on the number of consulting rooms and not based on the number of consultants.

The applicant has also stated that staff will be required to park off-site. Although this may eventuate in practice, it is not a matter that can be taken into consideration when assessing the planning merits of this application. The largest parking area in the vicinity is St. John of God Hospital. In general, parking provision for St. John of God Hospital would not allow for car bays to be taken up by other businesses and there is no evidence of a general oversupply of parking.

For the purposes of the planning assessment, all staff parking and patient parking must be provided on site. Based on the staff numbers provided by the applicant, there would be a parking demand of 6 car bays (1 consultant and 5 technical staff). There are only 10 bays on site.

The applicant has also stated that the expected number of patients per hour based on other practices, would be approximately 8. The parking demand generated from the expected number of patients per hour and the number of staff far exceeds the 10 parking bays provided on site.

Street parking along this section of Station Street is in high demand. It is not considered appropriate or feasible to allow the parking deficiency impact on street parking on Station Street."

The proposal now includes parking for 20 cars on site which should cater for all staff and the eight patients per hour who will use the facility. The 20 bays would not cater for the conference room/staff amenities area if it were to be used at the same time as the radiology clinic. The applicant has previously advised that the conference room would only be used after hours and hence not impact on the parking demands of the centre. On the basis that the conference room is used after hours, it is considered that the 20 car parking bays are adequate to cater for the demands of the radiology clinic. A condition restricting the use of the conference room to times other than when the radiology centre is operating could be attached to any planning approval to ensure that excessive demand on the parking bays is not generated.

With respect to the tandem carparking bays proposed in the basement, it is considered that these are acceptable as long as these are used by staff, so as to reduce the likelihood of congestion for patients and visitors.

Plot Ratio

The floor area of the building for the purposes of plot ratio is not effected by the addition of the semi-basement car park. Town Planning Scheme No. 1 allows the area of private car parks to be excluded from the calculation of plot ratio for non-residential buildings. On this basis, although the bulk of the building has increased somewhat in order to accommodate the basement, the plot ratio is not effected. The increase in the mass of the building caused by its elevation by approximately 1.2 metres is not considered to be detrimental to the streetscape or amenity of the area.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 157 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Landscaping

The area of landscaping has been increased to from 7.6 to 13.2 square metres. Whilst this is still not a significant amount of landscaping, it does allow for a more substantial area of planting to be put into place to assist in screening the car park at the front of the site from the street.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

CONCLUSION:

The amended proposal has addressed the most notable issue arising from the initial proposal. Whilst some discretion is still required to be exercised by the Council, in terms of the parking requirements, it is less significant than previously sought.

Although the plot ratio remains essentially unchanged, it does not result in a building which has a detrimental impact on the locality by virtue of its scale, height or bulk even now that it is slightly elevated. It was partially as a result of the excess plot ratio that the parking requirement was not met. The increase in car parking provision which has been achieved has not resulted in the facilities required by the development being compromised. Although the provision of additional parking has enhanced the functioning of the development and limited the potential to contribute to parking congestion in the locality, the provision of additional parking also assists in dealing with parking demand should the use of the site change to some other use in the future.

On the basis of the provision of the additional parking, it is considered that the application as shown on amended plans can be supported.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council APPROVES the application for a Radiology Clinic submitted by Windsor Knight Pty Ltd at Lot 3 (No. 5) Station Street, Wembley, noting variations to plot ratio and car parking as shown on amended plans dated 11 March 2003, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) the use of the conference room be limited to hours when the radiology clinic itself is not in use. The purpose of this is to ensure that parking demand for the premises does not exceed the number of car parking bays available on site;

(ii) details of the landscaped areas, including species and height at maturity and reticulation be submitted and approved by the Town prior to the issue of a building licence. The landscaped areas shall be completed within 28 days of the occupation of the building and maintained to a high standard to the satisfaction of the Town;

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 158 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

(iii) details of any proposed signage being submitted as a separate development application.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 159 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.24

LOT 61 (NO. 29) JOSEPH STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED GROUP DWELLING DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING TWO, TWO STOREY DWELLINGS (File Reference: PRO 0382)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To determine the application for planning approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1.

BACKGROUND:

BA/DA REFERENCE: 4DA-2003 LANDOWNER: M Paine APPLICANT: F Faugno - Architect ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R30

The initial assessment of plans dated 12 February 2003 identified a number of variations to side setbacks and the wall height of the dwellings. The plans were subsequently advertised to the adjoining owners for comment. The northern neighbour has given support to the variations, while the southern neighbour had objected to the setback and height variations. Subsequently, the applicant has amended the plan so that all setbacks in regard to the southern boundary are now in compliance with the R Codes. Given the northern neighbour has agreed to the variations, the outstanding matters requiring Council approval relates to the wall height at the rear of the dwelling (6.3 metres in lieu of 6.0 metres) and to two feature walls at the front of the dwelling.

POLICY: Residential Planning Codes of Western Australia Residential Design Guidelines

COMPLIANCE:

Permissible discretions Permitted as of right Proposed Side setback (R Codes)

Northern boundary ground floor 1.5 metres 1.2 metres (min) upper floor 1.5 metres to 1.5 metres to 2.4 metres 2.03 metres

Building Height (RDG’s)

Wall height 6.0 metres 6.3 metres (max) – side elevations 7.6 metres – front elevation

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 160 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Delegated Authority:

Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer (or his nominated officer). The variations to the northern boundary have been referred to the adjoining owner who has considered the plan and given support to the variations which are considered to be acceptable from a planning point of view. In the absence of any other non- compliances or objections, approval would be granted under the delegations policy. As such, the setback variations affecting the northern boundary are not discussed further under the comment section of this report on matters requiring specific Council approval.

The adjoining southern owners, after notification, has objected to the proposed variations on the basis that the development will cause an adverse impact on the amenity of their property.

DETAILS:

Lot Area: 688 square metres

Open Space: 59 per cent per lot

Approval is sought to undertake a grouped dwelling development, comprising two, two storey dwellings at Lot 61 (No. 29) Joseph Street, West Leederville. The new development will subdivide the existing 16.0 metre wide property into two new lots, each with an 8.0 metre frontage to Joseph Street. The plans show the intended buildings will be built with a nil setback to the internal boundary, however, subtle changes in the facade of the dwellings helps to distinguish and define the properties from each other. Garaging is to be accessed from the right of way at the rear of the property which allows the new development to better address the street.

The façade of the dwellings feature extensive use of full length glazing on both the upper and lower levels. Further detail is provided through the combination of roofing styles and building materials. The primary roof seen from the street is gabled and pitched at 40 degrees in accordance with the RDG’s and parapet walls have been included as minor features.

The internal configuration of the units are mirror images of each other, having all the major living and utility areas located on the ground floor, with three bedrooms, ensuite and bathroom and study on the upper level.

The applicant is seeking approval for a variation to the wall height restrictions of the Residential Design Guidelines and side setback requirements of the R Codes.

Neighbour Consultation

The application has been referred to both adjoining owners and a 14 day period for submissions was provided.

The adjoining northern property owner has viewed the plans and given support to the variation to side setbacks and building height in relation to her boundary.

In giving support to the variation, the neighbour has made general comments that the development is considered to be out of character with the rest of Joseph Street and would have preferred the development be further set back from the street.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 161 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The adjoining southern owner has objected to the development on the grounds; “The development will have an adverse affect on their property by way of:-

- more crowing, parking problems etc. – two homes where there was one; - reduced privacy – our property will be overlooked and it is double storey; - removal of light due to the above; - removal of our northern view to the Catholic Education Centre; and - the style of the new building is not in character with most of the existing buildings.”

Having regard to the above, the neighbour is strongly opposed to the variations.

Response to submission:

The following comments are provided in response to the submission from the adjoining southern neighbour:-

• the application fully complies with all privacy requirements of the R codes. Windows where required are either configured as highlight windows or are to have privacy screens attached. No balconies are proposed on the upper floor and as such, the neighbours privacy should not be compromised by overlooking from the upper level; • as detailed later in this report, the application fully complies with the overshadowing limits set out under the R Codes, and as such the property is not considered to be adversely affected by overshadowing; • it is recognised under the R Codes that while views are important, no one owns a view. In this case, if a loss of views occurs, this is not the result of variations to the wall height, but rather, is the result of a development that is well below the maximum height limit of 10.5 metres for the precinct.

COMMENT:

Building Height (RDG)

The Residential Design Guidelines specify a wall height of 6.0 metres for new development in West Leederville. The side elevations of the two dwellings reveal that the pitched roof does not extend the full length of the building. Rather, the pitched roof (with a maximum height to the ridge of 8.2 metres) extends 12.0 metres back and then changes into a flat roof behind a parapet wall, extending a further 10 metres. This has been designed to reduce the bulk and scale of the buildings as seen from the adjoining properties and it is this rear half of the dwelling that is proposed to be 6.3 metres high. A needed 4.0 metre wide and 0.8 metre deep separation in the wall allows for the rear half of the dwelling to be assessed independently from the front half of the dwelling. It is noted that the overheight section of wall toward the rear of the dwelling with maximum height of 6.3 metres is in compliance with the required side setback, while the section of wall at the front of the dwelling that conforms to the 6.0 metre wall height restriction with a pitched roof (maximum height 8.2 metres) does not conform to the required setback.

The non conforming section of wall is 10.0 metres in length and as described, does not present as one length of wall due to one section being stepped back further from the boundary.

A variation to wall height is also proposed in relation to the parapet walls incorporated into the facades of the dwellings. As discussed, the parapets have been included as a feature into the elevation of the dwelling and are positioned toward the centre of the property so that they are not adjacent to the neighbouring properties. Rather, the matter to be considered is one of streetscape and if the height is appropriate.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 162 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The Residential Design Guidelines performance criteria relating to building height and bulk allow for variations to be approved by the Council where:-

(a) buildings are respectful of the predominant character and style of existing development within the locality, (b) where the front of the building facing the street is broken up, presenting a varied and interesting facade to the street, rather than a continuous wall.

It is recognised that there is a predominance of single storey dwellings in the street, but with the trend towards two storey housing and with the prevailing zoning of the area, there is an emerging number of similar developments through out the precinct. As previously mentioned, the proposed development is considered to accord with the general requirements that developments present an interesting and varied façade to the street.

The sections of wall requiring approval on the front elevation, measure approximately 2.5 metres in width and 7.6 metre high. The walls do not extend higher than the pitch of the gable roof which is 8.2 metres high. The walls are considered to provide a balance between the two dwellings and are set back a further 1.0 metre than the 4.0 metre setback for the rest of the building. Being setback a further 1.0 metre, assists in reducing the scale of the two storey section upon the streetscape.

The setback and configuration of the walls facing the street means that there is a reduced affect on the amenity of the adjoining properties and on the established character of the area. As such, the variations to this aspect of the development are supported.

The other area requiring discretion to be exercised relates to the sections of wall that are overheight at the rear of the dwelling. Support for this variation is given on the basis that the subject walls would present a lesser bulk than if they were to be constructed with the pitched roof running the length of the building. These sections of wall are set back in accordance with the required setbacks of the R Codes and do not contain any openings which do not comply with the privacy requirements. As previously discussed, the elevation includes a 4.0 metre wide separation to further assist in breaking up the bulk of the wall and the development does not result in overshadowing of the adjoining southern property that exceeds what is permitted under the R Codes.

An overshadowing diagram submitted in support of the application identifies that the development affects approximately 30 per cent of the site area of the adjoining property. Element 9, Section A1, Acceptable Development standards permits shadowing of up to 35 per cent of an adjoining lots site area. The R Codes note that in this context, “site area” refers to the surface of the adjoining lot without regard for any building on it but taking into account its natural ground levels. No significant variation exists in ground levels between the two dwellings that impact on the assessment. The R Codes acknowledge that the sites most vulnerable to overshadowing are narrow east west orientated sites and that while a shadow may not exceed the limit, it may fall over the only available outdoor living area, or living room window of an adjoining house.

The shadow cast from the development extends 9.0 metres into the adjoining property. The neighbours property has been constructed with a parapet wall approximately 8.0 metres in length along the length of what is the applicants southern boundary. While this means that a greater proportion of the dwelling is likely to be affected by the overshadowing, it also must be recognised that the presence of the parapet already denies a significant portion of the dwelling on the ground level access to northern sunlight. Additionally, the adjoining property has an upper storey extension that would remain unaffected by the overshadowing. The

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 163 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

upper level of the home is set back approximately 2.0 metres from the boundary. The area at the rear of the dwelling will remain unaffected by shadow.

Given the walls are set back in accordance with the required setback, it is considered that the proposed wall height, which represents only a relatively minor variation, will allow for adequate levels of sun and ventilation to the adjoining lot and that the design of the elevation would not unduly compromise the amenity of the adjoining property either through excessive bulk. It is therefore recommended that the variations to the wall heights can be supported in this instance.

Further, it is noted that the variation of 0.3 metres is within the permitted 5 per cent margin of tolerance provided for under the Town Planning Delegation Policy.

Having regard to the above matters, it is considered the proposed overheight walls will not unduly compromise the amenity of the adjoining properties or the streetscape and sufficient grounds exist to support the variation.

Side setbacks (R Codes)

As previously noted, both adjoining owners were consulted in regard to the proposed setback variations. The northern neighbour is agreeable to the reduced setback and as such, no approval is required from the Council in regard to these setbacks. All setbacks to the southern boundary have been brought into compliance.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed variations to wall heights and setbacks are relatively minor variations and in isolation do not significantly impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. The designs of the dwellings are considered to be in keeping with requirements for new development, as required under the RDG’s. Having regard to the comments in this report, it is considered that Council may exercise its discretion and approve the variations.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the Council APPROVES the application submitted by F Faugno, for a two, two storey grouped dwelling development, noting variations to the permitted wall height and side setback requirements, at Lot 61 (No.29) Joseph Street, West Leederville, as shown on amended plans dated 13 March 2003 subject to the following condition:-

(i) the applicant is to provide detailed plans of the privacy screen proposed to be installed adjacent to the upper floor study windows that is to conform to the requirements of Element 8 – Privacy, section A1 (ii) of the R Codes, and such screens are to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwellings.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 164 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.25

LOT 101 (NO. 96) MARLOW STREET, CORNER HERDSMAN PARADE, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED GROUPED DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (TWO SINGLE-STOREY DWELLINGS) (File Reference: PRO 1069)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To determine an application for planning approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1.

BACKGROUND:

BA/DA REFERENCE: 7DA-2003 LANDOWNER: Mr and Mrs Parsons APPLICANT: Summit Projects ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R20

POLICY:

− Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) − Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Policy Manual – Precinct Planning Policy 7.4: Wembley

COMPLIANCE:

Non-Compliance Required Provided Orientation of One dwelling must front each Both dwellings front and take dwellings street vehicular access from (Precinct Policy P4) Marlow Street

Side Setback 1.0 metre side setback for Nil setback for Unit 2’s store (south) store from south side boundary (R Codes)

DETAILS:

Lot Area: 883 square metres Open Space: 45 percent

Approval is sought for the construction of a grouped dwelling development comprising of two single-storey detached dwellings at Lot 101 (No. 96) Marlow Street (corner Herdsman Parade), Wembley.

Each dwelling will contain four bedrooms, two bathrooms, an open plan living/dining area and outdoor courtyard facing north, and a double carport. Both dwellings front, and take vehicular access from Marlow Street. No fencing is proposed along the Marlow Street frontage. A 1.8 metre high solid brick wall is proposed along 16.5 metres of the Herdsman Parade frontage to provide privacy to Unit 1’s courtyard.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 165 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The subject site is located on the corner of Marlow Street and Herdsman Parade, Wembley. The Town’s Policy Manual allows two dwellings to be constructed on corner lots within the area coded Residential R20 in Wembley, in accordance with the Residential R30 dwelling density standards.

The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary the Town’s policy on corner lot development in Wembley, which requires one dwelling to front each street. The proposed development has both dwellings fronting and taking vehicular access from Marlow Street.

Neighbour’s Comment:

The original plans submitted proposed two parapet walls along the south side boundary – one for Unit 2’s store, located towards the rear of the property, and another for Unit 2’s main bedroom WIR/ensuite. The adjoining landowner to the south (right) was contacted and given 14 days to comment on the proposed parapet walls. No comments were received during the advertising period. Following the advertising period, the Town contacted the adjoining landowner to the south, who then submitted the following comments:-

1. The main concern to me is the lack of setback, which together with the closeness of our eaves could pose a future fire hazard.

2. The front side fence is noted on the plans as in poor condition which I would like to challenge.

To address the concerns raised about the setback variations, amended plans were submitted by the applicant deleting the parapet wall for Unit 2’s main bedroom WIR/ensuite.

In relation to potential fire hazard, the development will be assessed against the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia at the building application stage.

It is noted that the plan submitted indicates that the existing dividing fence separating the subject site from the adjoining property to the south, at the front, is in a poor condition, even though it appears that the fence in a good condition. Issues relating to the condition of dividing fences are dealt with under the Dividing Fences Act 1961 and are a civil matter rather than a Council concern. The applicant has advised that no change to this fence is proposed at this stage, however, an advice note can be included advising the applicant to liaise with the adjoining property owner in relation to any proposed alterations to the existing dividing fence.

COMMENT:

Precinct Policy P4 – Wembley - Corner Lot Policy

The Town’s Wembley Corner Lot Policy states:

Within the area coded Residential R20, with the exception of those lots fronting or siding onto Grantham Street, two dwellings may be constructed on corner lots in accordance with the Residential R30 dwelling density standards. One dwelling must front each street.

The following principles apply in respect of the development of corner lots in Wembley:-

(i) the configuration of the lot to be developed must coincide with the original subdivision pattern; (ii) the policy applies to constructed development only. Green title vacant/survey strata titled subdivisions are not permitted.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 166 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

As stated previously, the proposed development has both dwellings fronting and taking vehicular access from, Marlow Street. The policy does not offer any guidance for the assessment of applications where both dwellings front one street.

The existing dwelling on the subject site currently fronts, and takes vehicular access from, Marlow Street. Herdsman Parade is classed as a ‘District Distributor (A)’ Road and therefore it is preferable from a traffic flow and safety perspective that vehicular access is taken off Marlow Street. The proposed location of the driveways and crossovers off Marlow Street meet the relevant engineering standards and the relatively wide verge will allow safe manoeuvring for vehicles exiting the property.

Further, if vehicular access for Unit 1 were taken off Herdsman Parade then its driveway would be required under Clause 3.5.4 of the R Codes to be designed for vehicles to enter the street in a forward gear. This may result in a larger area of paving in the setback area and space set aside for vehicle manoeuvring instead of private outdoor living for the occupants of the dwelling.

Whilst orientating both dwellings towards Marlow Street will result in a solid wall along a portion of the Herdsman Parade boundary of the property, there are already a number of solid walls along Herdsman Parade and therefore the wall will be consistent with the existing streetscape character. In addition, the solid wall will reduce the level of traffic noise and ensure visual privacy to Unit 1’s indoor and outdoor living areas.

In view of the above comments, the variation to the Town’s corner lot policy in relation to orientation of dwellings is supported.

Side setback (store)

Unit 2’s store is required to be set back at least 1.5 metres from the southern side boundary, instead a nil setback (parapet wall) is proposed. The parapet wall is proposed to be 3.1 metres long and 2.415 metres high above the finished ground level of the subject site. As stated previously, the adjoining neighbour to the south has expressed concerns in relation to the proposed setback.

It should be noted that under Part 3.3.2 of the R Codes, this parapet wall would be considered acceptable development and not require comments from the adjoining neighbour, however, the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines require neighbours to be consulted on parapet walls.

The Town’s Guidelines also state that in considering an application proposing walls on boundaries, Council shall apply the performance criteria in Part 3.3.2 P2 of the R Codes which state:-

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

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 167 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Placing the store on the southern side of the subject site will make effective use of space and enhance the amenity of the development.

In assessing the impact on the amenity of the adjoining property, the difference in ground levels between the two properties has been taken into consideration. The adjoining property to the south has been built up and is at a higher level than the subject site. The retaining wall within the adjoining property to the south at the location of the proposed store is approximately 1.1 metres high. The existing dividing fence separating the two properties is 3.0 metres high above the ground level of the subject site, and therefore will be higher than the parapet wall, which is proposed to be 2.415 metres high.

Therefore, the parapet wall should be shielded from the view of the adjoining neighbour by the dividing fence. The neighbour will still, however, be able to see the top half of the roof of the store, as well as the roof of the dwelling.

Whilst the store is located on the southern side boundary, the overshadowing impact of the store on the adjoining property to the south will be not be significantly greater than the overshadowing caused by the existing dividing fence, due to the existing level differences between the two properties.

Overall, it is considered that the parapet wall for the store is acceptable in its current location, and will not have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property.

Street tree

A street tree is located in the proposed location of Unit 1’s crossover. The Town has inspected the tree and determined that the tree could be removed, at the cost of the applicant or owner.

STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

CONCLUSION:

The variation to the Town’s corner lot policy requirement for each dwelling to front each street is considered acceptable in this situation and will enhance the amenity of the development. Herdsman Parade is a district distributor road and therefore it is preferable that the dwellings front and take vehicular access from Marlow Street.

The parapet wall for the proposed store is considered to be minor and should not have any significant effect on the amenity of the adjoining property, given the difference in levels between the two properties and the height of the existing dividing fence.

In view of these comments, it is recommended that the application be supported.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 168 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by Summit Projects for a two grouped dwelling development (two single-storey dwellings) at Lot 101 (No. 96) Marlow Street, Wembley noting variations to:-

• Orientation of dwellings; and • side setback, as shown on the amended plans dated 11 March 2003.

Footnotes:

1. Any fencing in the front setback area shall comply with Clause 5.7 of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines.

2. The applicant be requested to liaise with the adjoining property owner(s) in relation to any alterations to the existing dividing fences, in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act 1961.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 169 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.26

LOT 247 (NO. 3) BARAMBA ROAD, CITY BEACH – PROPOSED SECOND STOREY ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT (File Reference: PRO 0593)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To determine the application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1.

BACKGROUND:

BA/DA REFERENCE: 36BA-2002 LANDOWNER: Mr I. Kidd and Mrs S. Kidd APPLICANT: Mr R. Nelson ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5

At its meeting held on 22 February 2000, Council granted preliminary approval for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at Lot 247 (No. 3) Baramba Road, City Beach. This application proposed a similar sized upper floor addition to what is proposed with the current application, and required a variation to the wall height requirement of the Residential Design Guidelines. This approval was not acted upon and has therefore lapsed.

POLICY:

− Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs)

COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed Wall Height 6.5 metres to the top of the Varies from 7.2 metres to (Clause 7.3.2 of eaves 7.7 metres RDGs)

Visual Privacy 7.5 metre setback from 7.0 metres from lower floor (Clause 3.8.1 of lower floor terrace to side terrace to south (left) side R Codes) boundary boundary

7.5 metre setback from 7.0 metres from upper floor upper floor balcony to side balcony to south (left) side boundary boundary

Delegated Authority

As identified above, the application involves variations to the privacy setback requirements of the R Codes. No objections have been received from the adjoining neighbour to the south (left) in relation to the privacy setback variation.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 170 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the adjoining neighbour has no objection to the variation.

In this particular case, the above provisions in respect to the adjoining property to the south are regarded as having been satisfied and therefore the privacy setback variations do not require the Council’s approval.

DETAILS:

Lot Area: 830 square metres Open Space: 71 per cent

Approval is sought for alterations and additions to an existing single level dwelling with undercroft at Lot 247 (No. 3) Baramba Road, City Beach. The scope of works includes the addition of a new family room and attached terrace on the lower floor, facing the rear of the property and a new upper level. The upper level addition will provide a new master bedroom, ensuite, walk-in-robe, study, and balcony facing the rear of the property.

The property is located on the western side of Baramba Road, one block from the corner of Oban Road. The subject property slopes away from Baramba Road to the west (rear of the site).

The existing dwelling is clad in brick and has a tiled roof. The upper level addition is proposed to be clad in hardi primeline weatherboards and have a tiled roof.

The proposal involves a variation to the permitted wall height. The wall has a maximum height of 7.7 metres to the top of the eaves, in lieu of the permitted 6.5 metres. The maximum overall height of the dwelling (9.5 metres) is within the permitted 11.0 metre height restriction for development of this type in City Beach.

Neighbour Comment:

Five adjoining landowners were contacted and given 14 days to comment on the variations. Only two of the five adjoining landowners viewed the plans at the Council offices. Both of these adjoining landowners offered no objection to the proposed development.

COMMENT:

Architectural Character – City Beach Precinct (P5)

The Precinct Statement for City Beach recognises that whilst there is a significant variety in housing character in City Beach, much of the area has a unity of streetscape which results from well-treed lots and verges and generous setbacks.

The Statement also identifies that the prime objective for the future of City Beach is the retention of its spaciousness and streetscapes which are dominated by trees rather than buildings. The desire is to contain both height and bulk of houses so that they do not simply overwhelm trees and other planting.

Section 8 of the Residential Design Guidelines also deals with architectural character in relation to the street and precinct.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 171 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The relevant standards are Clause 8.3.1 which states that extensions and alterations to dwellings shall be compatible in form with the existing residence and Clause 8.3.3 which states that extensions and alterations to existing dwellings shall continue the architectural style of the existing, except where the style is out of character with the predominant styles of the street or locality.

The proposed alterations and extensions are considered to satisfy the statement of intent for the precinct, in that the upper floor addition will be set back over 13 metres from the street boundary and will be modest in scale as viewed from the street, and therefore will not have a significant impact in terms of height and bulk on the streetscape which is well maintained and vegetated.

The proposed style of the extensions are considered to be sympathetic to the general housing stock in the immediate locality, with the roof pitch, tiled roofing and other architectural detail compatible with the design of the lower storey.

Wall Height

Clause 7.3.2 of the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines specifies a maximum wall height of 6.5 metres for new development in City Beach. Although building height refers to “new” development, it is also applied to additions and is a control for absolute building height to avoid excessive disruptions in building scale. The bulk of the upper level addition is contained between the centre and the rear of the dwelling and is set back a further 5.0 metres from the existing 8.0 metre front setback to Baramba Road.

The proposed wall height, which is measured vertically above the “natural level” immediately below the relevant point on the wall or roof, varies from 7.2 metres at the front of the dwelling to a maximum of 7.7 metres at the rear of the addition due to the slope of the land. The non- compliance with this height restriction is because the existing dwelling, which has an undercroft, already has a wall height ranging from 4.0 metres to 5.0 metres. As such, the proposed upper floor addition is not excessive in height, however, a variation to the 6.5 metre height restriction is requested.

Variations to building height are assessed against the performance criteria of the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines, which state:-

(a) buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of their height and bulk and remain subservient to the green streetscape; (b) buildings which are respectful of the predominant character and style of existing development within the locality; (c) where the front of the building facing the street is broken up, presenting a varied and interesting façade to the street rather than a continuous wall; and (d) where the performance criteria contained in Part 3.7.1 P1 of the R Codes are met.

Part 3.7.1 P1 of the R Codes states:-

Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including where appropriate:

• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 172 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Within the immediate locality, there is a mix of older style single storey dwellings and newer, substantially sized two storey dwellings. Baramba Road is sloped and each lot has a different level. In these circumstances, building height will vary along the streetscape.

With the trend towards two storey housing, retention of an existing dwelling by incorporating an upper storey extension is one means of retaining such dwellings if additions are sympathetic to the architectural style of the existing residence. As previously mentioned, the addition is considered to be in keeping with the style of the dwelling and the façade is well set back from the street which will assist in reducing the scale of the two storey section upon the streetscape. Further, the overall height of the development measured at the ridge line of the roof is 9.5 metres above the natural ground level, which is well within the permitted height of 11.0 metres for developments of this style in City Beach.

The setback and configuration of the upper floor extension should mean that there is minimal affect on the amenity of the adjoining properties. The upper storey addition has a minimum setback of 5.9 metres from the southern (left) side boundary, a minimum setback of 4.6 metres from the northern (right) boundary and a minimum setback of 15 metres from the west (rear) boundary, all in excess of the required setbacks.

Having regard to the comments in this report, it is considered that the application adequately meets with the relevant performance criteria to enable the variations to the wall height to be approved. It is difficult for upper floor additions that are built on top of existing dwellings to comply with wall heights, especially where the block and street slope. There is also the issue of conflicting objectives where the retention of the existing dwelling is encouraged, which can then impact on the streetscape. Given the above, the variation is supported.

CONCLUSION:

In assessing whether discretion should be exercised, a suitable balance must be found between contemporary housing design and consideration of the impact of the development on existing (and future) neighbours, and the area in general.

The variations proposed do not constitute an adverse impact on the surrounding neighbours and streetscape and are therefore supported.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by Mr R. Nelson for a second storey addition and alterations to an existing single storey dwelling with undercroft at Lot 247 (No. 3) Baramba Road, City Beach noting variations to:-

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 173 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

• wall height; and • visual privacy setback; as shown on the plans dated 23 January 2003.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 174 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.27

LOT 280 (NO. 50) TILTON TERRACE, CITY BEACH – PROPOSED SECOND STOREY ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT (File Reference: PRO 0909)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To determine the application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1.

BACKGROUND:

BA/DA REFERENCE: 686BA-2002 LANDOWNER: Mr J. Douglas and Mrs T. Douglas APPLICANT: As above ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5

POLICY:

− Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs)

COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed Visual Privacy 7.5 metres setback from 5.6 to 6.0 metres from (Clause 3.8.1 of R upper floor balcony to side upper floor balcony to the Codes) boundary west (left) side boundary

DETAILS:

Lot Area: 1090 square metres Open Space: 64 percent (unchanged)

Approval is sought for alterations and additions to an existing single level dwelling with undercroft at the above property. The scope of works includes minor, mostly internal, alterations on the lower floor, and a new upper level. The upper level addition will provide a new games room, bar, store and balcony.

The property is located on the northern side of Tilton Terrace, on the corner of Tilton Terrace and Dorking Road. The land slopes up from Tilton Terrace to the north (rear of the site). The upper level addition is proposed to be located towards the front left (west) side of the property, in order to maximise ocean views.

The existing dwelling is clad in brick and has a tiled roof. The upper level addition is proposed to be clad in harditex sheeting and have a slate grey colorbond roof with a 20 degree pitch.

The proposal involves a variation to the required privacy setback for balconies. The balcony is proposed to be set back between 5.6 metres and 6.0 metres from the western side boundary, in lieu of the required 7.5 metres.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 175 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Neighbour’s Comment

The adjoining landowner to the west (No. 52 Tilton Terrace) was contacted and given 14 days to comment on the proposed privacy setback variation.

The adjoining landowner to the west viewed the plans and expressed concern about the proposed variation to the privacy setback required for the upper floor balcony. Comments provided are summarised below:-

− We consider that the plans as submitted will significantly impact upon our privacy.

− The information supplied indicates that there would be a 20% reduction in the setback as recommended in the building codes in regard to privacy

− The proposed extension will affect the privacy to our outdoor living areas as well as to the main sleeping quarters upstairs.

− Overall we consider that the plans submitted will affect our right to privacy, including any noise emanating from the balcony area because our bedroom is on the east side of our property close to the proposed balcony.

− We presume that the regulations were designed to be fair to all parties so it would be simpler and easier if all buildings were designed and constructed according to the rules and regulations of the relevant Council.

− Under the privacy provisions we see no valid reason for the rules to be changed and request the Council not to approve the present plans and to apply the normal standards for buildings.

Applicant’s Grounds For Request

• The applicant has provided the following information in support of the balcony:

• The balcony has been placed forward on the house to maintain privacy to the back gardens of the surrounding properties while giving the maximum view and an attractive street elevation.

• There is no loss of privacy to the neighbours who have no windows facing No. 50 (Tilton Terrace) and have the buffer of the garage on the ground floor and at least a 7.0 metre setback from the boundary to the blank wall of the second storey.

• The property at No. 50 has been and continues to be significantly improved and the owners should be allowed to continue with as little delay as is possible.

COMMENT:

Visual Privacy

The requirements relating to visual privacy are contained in the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes). The acceptable development standards of the R Codes require a minimum distance of 7.5 metres from an unscreened balcony to a side boundary. The balcony on the upper level addition is proposed to be located between 5.6 metres and 6.0 metres from the west (left) side boundary and unscreened.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 176 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The R Codes allow Councils the discretion to consider new development that does not comply with the acceptable development standards against the following performance criteria:

Avoid direct overlooking between active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the development site and the habitable rooms and outdoor living areas within adjoining residential properties taking account of:-

− the positioning of windows to habitable rooms on the development site and the adjoining property; − the provision of effective screening; and − the lesser need to prevent overlooking of extensive back gardens, front gardens or areas visible from the street.

As stated previously, the proposed upper floor addition is located towards the front left (west) side of the property, in order to maximise ocean views. The neighbour to the west has raised concerns that the balcony will affect the privacy to their outdoor living areas and bedrooms on their upper floor.

The site plan submitted shows the outline of the neighbour’s property. From the site plan submitted, the western side of the balcony will directly face the neighbour’s garage on the ground floor and the blank wall of the neighbour’s upper floor. There will be views into the neighbour’s front garden which contains a table and chairs that are screened with landscaping. There will also be views into the neighbour’s rear yard which contains the main private outdoor living area of the property and a pool. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed balcony in its current configuration does not meets the performance criteria of the R Codes, given that there will be overlooking between the balcony and the neighbour’s rear outdoor living area.

The applicant has chosen the location and shape of the balcony in order to maximise ocean views and to provide balance to the street elevation of the dwelling and sufficient area for a table and chairs. The views to the ocean are to the south-west/west. To address the concerns raised by the adjoining neighbours, it is considered reasonable to require the rear of the balcony which faces north and a section of the western side of the balcony which faces north-west, to be screened in accordance with the R Codes.

The width of the rear of the balcony to be screened, measured from the edge of the balcony pillar facing north to the wall of the upper floor, is approximately 1.0 metre. It is considered that the screening required on the western side of the balcony should also be 1.0 metre from the balcony pillar facing north, to completely screen that north-western corner of the balcony. This should provide a reasonable level of privacy to the neighbour’s rear outdoor living area.

The adjoining neighbour has also expressed concern in relation to acoustic privacy. No acceptable development provisions on acoustic privacy have been included in the R Codes and therefore the provision of acoustic privacy cannot be considered in the assessment of this application.

CONCLUSION:

Given the above comments, it is considered that the shape and location of the balcony is acceptable, provided that the north-western corner of the balcony is screened in accordance with the following recommendation.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 177 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by Mr J Douglas and Mrs T. Douglas for a second storey addition and alterations to an existing single storey dwelling with undercroft at Lot 280 (No. 50) Tilton Terrace, City Beach noting a variation to:-

• Visual privacy setback; as shown on the amended floor plan and elevations dated 22 January 2003 and the amended site plan dated 11 March 2003 subject to the following conditions:-

(i) prior to the issue of a building licence, amended plans shall be submitted illustrating:-

− the rear of the balcony facing north to be screened in accordance with Clause 3.8.1 Visual Privacy of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, and

− the side of the balcony facing west to be screened for a length of 1.0 metre from the balcony pillar that faces north in accordance with Clause 3.8.1 Visual Privacy of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(ii) all visual screening required in clause (i) above shall be installed prior to the occupation of the balcony.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 178 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.28

LOT 41 (NO. 39) WINDARRA DRIVE, CITY BEACH – PROPOSED FENCING IN FRONT SETBACK AREA (File Reference: PRO 1166)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To determine the application for approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1.

BACKGROUND:

BA/DA REFERENCE: 569BA-2002 LANDOWNER: Mr M. Marnewick and Mrs. S. Marnewick APPLICANT: Beaumonde Homes ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5

Council, at its meeting held on 17 December 2002, granted approval for the construction of a two-storey dwelling on the subject property. On 9 January 2003, a building licence was issued. The dwelling is currently under construction.

The approved plans did not indicate any proposed fencing in the front setback area. On 6 February 2003, amended plans for the dwelling were submitted which proposed fencing in the front setback area, additional fill and retaining on the southern side boundary and alterations to the front configuration of the dwelling. The additional fill and retaining and the alterations to the front configuration of the dwelling comply with the relevant requirements and do not require further approval from Council. However, the proposed fencing in the front setback area requires further approval from Council.

POLICY:

• Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs)

COMPLIANCE:

Permissable Discretions Permitted as of Right Proposed Fencing in front setback Minimum of 80 percent 47 percent permeable area: permeable fencing above fencing above 750 mm (Clause 5.7.5 of RDGs) 750 mm (ie. 26.88 square (15.75 square metres) metres)

DETAILS:

Lot Area: 857 square metres

Approval is sought for the construction of fencing within the front setback area at Lot 41 (No. 39) Windarra Drive, City Beach. The proposed fencing in the front setback area consists of a low rendered brick wall with piers and open style infill and gates along the front boundary, and a 1.8 metre high rendered brick wall along the southern side boundary. There is an existing high rendered brick wall along the northern side boundary and within the adjoining neighbour’s property.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 179 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

The applicant seeks to vary Council requirements relating to the permeability of fencing in the front setback area.

COMMENT:

Clause 5.7.5 of the Residential Design Guidelines states that:-

"A minimum of 80% of the area of any wall or fence within the primary street setback area and more than 750 millimetres above natural ground level shall be visually permeable."

Given the above, the fencing in the front setback area should have 26.88 square metres of permeable fencing more than 750 millimetres above natural ground level, whereby only 15.75 square metres is proposed. The variation is a result of the proposed 1.8 metre high solid rendered brick wall projecting down the southern side boundary and located in the front setback area, and the existing high solid rendered brick wall projecting down the northern side boundary and located within the front setback area.

Variations to the compliance standards relating to fencing may be approved by the Council where, in the opinion of the Council, the following performance criteria are met:- a) Front fences and walls consistent with the existing streetscape character, and b) Front fences are necessary to ensure:- − Visual privacy for a sole or main living areas; or − Protection from traffic noise on district distributor roads or vehicle headlights emanating from a public street.

The solid fencing is not required to provide visual privacy for the living areas of the dwelling, nor to provide protection from vehicle headlights or traffic noise as Windarra Drive is classed as a local road under the Town’s hierarchy.

The majority of fencing along the front boundaries of properties in the surrounding area are ‘open’ in design, meet the Town’s guidelines and allow views to the dwelling from the street and vice versa. However, the fencing along the side boundaries is either all or partly solid.

Given the existing streetscape, with most fencing along the side boundaries being all or partly solid to the front boundary, it is considered that the proposed solid 1.8 metre high wall along the southern side boundary will not have a detrimental impact on the streetscape. Further, open fencing at the front will still maintain a view of the dwelling under construction.

It should be noted, however, that whilst the Town can issue an approval for the fencing along the front boundary and the side boundary within the front setback area, this approval does not obviate the applicant or owner’s responsibility to liaise with the adjoining property owner to the south in respect to the section of the fence to be constructed along the southern side boundary, in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act 1961.

Overall, it is recommended that the variation to the fencing permeability requirement is supported on the basis that the proposed fencing is consistent with existing fencing in the surrounding area and will not have a detrimental impact on the existing streetscape character.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 180 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

CONCLUSION:

The variation to the fencing permeability requirement is due an existing solid wall and proposed solid wall along the side boundaries, which are not considered to severely impact on the streetscape and therefore can be supported.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the plans dated 6 February 2003 and infill detail dated 13 March 2003 submitted by Beaumonde Homes for fencing in the front setback area at Lot 41 (No. 39) Windarra Drive, City Beach noting a variation to permeability of fencing in the front setback area (Clause 5.7.5 of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines).

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 181 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.29

LOT 8 (NO.15) COLDSTREAM STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - FRONT FENCE (File Reference: PRO0151)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To determine the application for preliminary building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1.

BACKGROUND:

BA/DA REFERENCE: 90GA-2003 LANDOWNER: L and S Sabatier APPLICANT: L and S Sabatier ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R40

POLICY:

− Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines

COMPLIANCE:

Permissible Discretions Permitted as of Right Proposed Fencing (RDG) 3.78 square metres 13.8 square metres − amount of solid fencing permitted

DETAILS:

Lot Area: 288 square metres

The application seeks approval for the installation of infill panels to an approved front boundary fence. The applicant has approval to construct a fence that complies with the relevant height provisions of the front fencing policy but now seeks approval to now install infill panels which are to consist of wooden pickets, spaced at intervals of 1:1 in lieu of the required 2:1 spacing. The proposed spacing of the pickets will mean that the fence does not comply with the requirement that it remain 80 per cent visually permeable over the height of 0.75 metres.

COMMENT:

Fencing

Compliance standards under the Residential Design Guidelines state that:-

5.7.4 No fence or wall (other than a carport or garage wall) within the primary street setback or abutting a secondary street area shall have an average height of greater than 1.8 metres above natural ground level, including the height of any retaining wall below it, excepting piers which may not exceed 2 metres. Only fencing above 1.5 metres in height shall be included in calculations of the average height.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 182 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

5.7.5 A minimum of 80% of the area of any wall or fence within the primary street setback area and more than 750 millimetres above natural ground level shall be visually permeable.

The maximum amount of solid fencing permitted within the front setback equates to 3.78 square metres. The amount proposed in this application is 13.8 square metres which includes the portion of fence proposed across the front of the property and along the two side boundaries. It is, however, relevant to note that this application seeks approval to construct only the portion of fence that extends across the front of the lot. At present, there are solid fences (containing 8.4 square metres of solid fencing) along either side boundary and these are to be retained as they currently exist.

When an application does not meet compliance standards under the Residential Guidelines, it is assessed under the performance criteria as follows:-

(a) Front fences consistent with the existing streetscape character and

(b) Front fences necessary to ensure:- − visual privacy for a sole or main living areas − Protection from traffic noise on district distributor roads or vehicle headlights emanating from a public street.

Sufficient grounds are considered to exist to support the variation in this instance. There a significant number of properties in the immediate location and in the streetscape in general that have been developed with similar style fencing. Whilst it is acknowledged that many of these existing solid fences have the appearance that they have been insitu for many years and are likely to predate the current front fencing policy, it must be appreciated that this current proposal would not introduce a fence that was incompatible with the streetscape. Indeed, the proposed fence is required to replace a previous brick wall that had failed and was required to be demolished for safety reasons.

The existing dwelling is a good example of a weatherboard cottage and the applicant seeks to construct a fence that is compatible with the design of the dwelling, which is why pickets have been chosen ahead of open barwork. Some regard is given to the applicants claim that if the fence is constructed with pickets spaced at a spacing of 2:1, then the fence would have an unbalanced appearance and detract from the aesthetic appeal of the property.

The design of the fence and use of pickets, albeit spaced at closer than standard intervals, is not likely to unduly impact on the amenity of the streetscape. Whilst not achieving the required ratio of spacings, it is considered that the spacing of 1:1 would still allow for view of the property beyond and the combination of limestone piers and wooden pickets would introduce some relief to the appearance of the structure. The home beyond would still be a visible element in the streetscape as the home is constructed at a higher level than the footpath at the front of the dwelling and as such, the dwelling will not be totally obscured behind the fence.

The Council has generally sought to ensure that applications for front fences comply with Residential Design Guidelines and where variations are proposed, support has been given only on the basis that fences are designed to provide features that help to break up the bulk of the impact of the structure. The design of the fence is considered to provide this.

Having regard to the comments outlined above, it is considered that the proposed fence will not unduly compromise the streetscape and sufficient grounds exist to support the variation.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 183 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CONCLUSION:

It is considered that the proposal partially meets the relevant performance criteria in the Residential Design Guidelines. There are a number of solid walls both within the immediate streetscape and locality in general and it is considered that the location and design of the fence would not be detrimental to the pattern of development in the street. The picket infills complement the style of the dwelling and whilst the spacing is closer than specified in the Residential Design Guidelines, they maintain the objective of an open style fence allowing views of the dwelling.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by L and S Sabatier at Lot 8 (No. 15) Coldstream Street, West Leederville for infill panels to be affixed to the front fence, noting variations to visual permeability, as shown on plans dated 11 February 2003.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 184 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.30

LOT 256 (NO.683) HAY STREET, JOLIMONT - FRONT FENCE (File Reference: PRO1288)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To determine the application for preliminary building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1.

BACKGROUND:

BA/DA REFERENCE: 92BA 2003 LANDOWNER: V. Olivo APPLICANT: V. Olivo ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R20

POLICY:

− Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs)

COMPLIANCE:

Permissible Discretions Permitted as of Right Proposed Fencing (RDGs) − amount of solid fencing 7.14 square metres 35.7 square metres permitted

DETAILS:

Lot Area: 677 square metres

The application seeks approval for the construction of a solid front boundary wall at the above mentioned property. The plans indicate that the proposed wall will be 1.8 metres in height and will be constructed in rendered brick and will incorporate two wooden feature gates.

The proposed design of the wall will not conform to the general requirements for front fencing contained within the Residential Design Guidelines which require that fencing be 80 per cent visually permeable over the height of 0.75 metres.

Applicants Ground For Request

The following is a summary of the issues given by the applicant in support of the proposal:-

• Visual privacy: Fence is necessary to provide visual privacy. A police multanova radar van is regularly parked at the front of the residence (1-2 times per week). Photo’s provided from within front bedrooms of the house provide some idea of the lack of privacy that arises while the van is parked in this location, which has a direct line of site into the house, unless all curtains are fully drawn;

• Adjoining residents regularly park outside the house with people coming and going to vehicles at different times;

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 185 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

• There are often people walking into our front garden and people have been found on the children’s trampoline on a number of occasions;

• Traffic noise: we live on an increasingly busy street. Many homes, which fall under Subiaco have high walls in place. I have also spoken to adjoining neighbours who are also wishing to erect fences. Our bedrooms and home office are located at the front of the house;

• Safety: Due to the presence of young children, we are unable to use the front of the property for recreation and relaxation without the fear of the children running onto a busy road. We are often working from home and are aware of the number of times during the day people are coming to the property for no legitimate reason. We would like to be able to control the access into our property for security reasons. We wish to be able to use this garden, grassed area and shaded courtyard, and for this reason we do not wish to have openings in the fence.

The fence is to be constructed to a high standard of finish and will feature two jarrah doors that are to be designed to compliment the surroundings.

COMMENT:

Fencing

Compliance standards under the Residential Design Guidelines state that:-

5.7.5 A minimum of 80% of the area of any wall or fence within the primary street setback area and more than 750 millimetres above natural ground level shall be visually permeable.

The maximum amount of solid fencing permitted within the front setback equates to 7.14 square metres. The amount proposed in this application is 35.7 square metres which includes the solid fence proposed across the front of the property and along the two side boundaries.

When an application does not meet compliance standards under the Residential Design Guidelines, it is assessed under the performance criteria as follows;

(a) Front fences consistent with the existing streetscape character and

(b) Front fences necessary to ensure:- − visual privacy for a sole or main living areas − protection from traffic noise on district distributor roads or vehicle headlights emanating from a public street.

Sufficient grounds are considered to exist to support the variation in this instance. The subject property is adjacent to Hay Street which is classified as a District Distributor A road under the Town’s Road Hierarchy and carries significant volumes of traffic. Recognition is given in the RDG’s to consider variations to the policy requirements when properties are

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 186 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

situated on such roads. There are a number of properties in this same street section which have solid walls across the front boundary. The Residential Design Guidelines are therefore partially satisfied in terms of the proposal being consistent with the streetscape and that the fence is required to enhance the residential amenity of the property.

The design of the fence which incorporates wooden gates is not likely to unduly impact on the amenity of the streetscape. The Council has supported proposals for variations in similar circumstances when fences are designed to provide features that help to break up the bulk of the impact of the structure. It is noted that the applicant will need to modify the design of the fence to incorporate 2.0 x 2.0 metre sight line truncations on either side of the driveway and this will give the opportunity to include some recesses to provide planting opportunities which will complement the feature wooden gates.

It is considered that an additional recessed section should be required to be provided on the western portion of the front fence which would also break up the bulk of the wall and provide planting opportunities to ‘soften’ the impact of the wall. It is envisaged that an appropriate size for a recess would be in the order of 2.0 metres long and 0.3 metres deep. On this basis, it is considered that the bulk of the fence would be sufficiently broken up to allow support to be given.

Having regard to the comments outlined above, it is considered that the proposed fence will not unduly compromise the streetscape and sufficient grounds exist to support the variation.

CONCLUSION:

It is considered that the proposal partially meets the relevant performance criteria in the Residential Design Guidelines, subject to providing the 2 metres x 2 metres sight line truncations and an additional recess for planting. There are a number of solid walls along Hay Street and there is a good argument that they are necessary to reduce noise from a busy district distributor road.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by VA Olivo at Lot 256 (No. 683) Hay Street, Jolimont for a front fence, noting variations to visual permeability, as shown on plans dated 4 March 2003; subject to the following condition:-

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 187 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

(i) amended plans are submitted that include two, 2 x 2 metres sight line truncations on either side of the driveway and a recess in the wall to provide opportunities for planting vegetation to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

During discussion, Members were advised that the applicant is working on a revised plan and has therefore requested that the application be referred back to the Development and Environmental Services Committee.

Motion to Refer Back

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Anderton

That the item relating to a front fence at Lot 256 (No. 683) Hay Street, Jolimont be referred back to the Development and Environmental Services Committee for further consideration.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 188 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.31

LOT 154 (NO.31) TILTON TERRACE, CITY BEACH - FRONT FENCE (File Reference: PRO1034)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To determine the application for preliminary building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1.

BACKGROUND:

BA/DA REFERENCE: 378BA 2003 LANDOWNER: C and L Richardson APPLICANT: C and L Richardson ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5

POLICY:

− Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs)

COMPLIANCE:

Permissible Discretions Permitted as of Right Proposed Fencing (RDGs) - Height – piers 2.0 metres Varies between 1.8 - panels 1.8 metres metres to 3.1 metres

- amount of solid 9.75 square metres 38.3 square metres fencing permitted

DETAILS:

Lot Area: 1083 square metres

The applicant has submitted an application seeking approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at the above address. The scope of works includes extensions to the existing ground floor living areas and the addition of an upper level that will comprise three bedrooms and an adjoining ensuite, bathroom and activity area. All aspects of the additions are in compliance with Town Planning Scheme No.1 and as such, no discretions are sought to this aspect of the development which has been dealt with under delegated authority

It is also proposed to modify and extend an existing fence that is located at the front of the dwelling. The fence is not constructed along the front boundary of the lot as per the norm, but is set back 2.0 metres at its closest point to the front boundary which increases to 7.0 metres as the fence curves back toward the dwelling. The existing fence is not a dominant feature in the streetscape as the front yard of the property is set approximately 2.0 metres below the level at the centre of the road and as discussed, is not constructed at the property boundary. A seven metre wide verge also serves to diminish the presence of the wall, as does the curve in the road outside the property.

The proposed modified fence will include four feature panels with a combination of split face blockwork and timber cladding with paint finish. The existing masonry wall is also proposed

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 189 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

to be painted. Council approval is sought to vary the amount of solid fencing in the front setback area.

COMMENT:

Fencing

Compliance standards under the Residential Design Guidelines state that:-

5.7.5 A minimum of 80% of the area of any wall or fence within the primary street setback area and more than 750 millimetres above natural ground level shall be visually permeable.

The maximum amount of solid fencing permitted within the front setback equates to 9.75 square metres. The amount proposed in this application is 38.3 square metres. The existing fence that is to be retained is 1.8 metres in height and the new fence with the four feature panels will have a maximum height of 3.11 metres.

When an application does not meet compliance standards under the Residential Guidelines, it is assessed under the performance criteria as follows:-

(a) Front fences consistent with the existing streetscape character and

(b) Front fences necessary to ensure:- − visual privacy for a sole or main living areas; or − protection from traffic noise on district distributor roads or vehicle headlights emanating from a public street.

Sufficient grounds are considered to exist to support the variation in this instance. The existing wall has been constructed in a semi circular manner, extending approximately 8.0 metres across the 22.5 metre wide dwelling while the lot has a frontage of approximately 30.0 metres. The wall while not fully solid (being constructed from “breeze bricks”) provides an element of screening to a courtyard beyond. It is proposed to line the existing wall and apply a painted finish which will give the wall a solid appearance. The fence will also be extended a further 10.0 metres across the front of the dwelling. The portion of the fence that is to be extended is set 2.0 metres in front of the dwelling and features four panels that have been designed to complement the design of the dwelling and provide detail to the building’s facade.

The home will continue to address the street by virtue of the upper floor which features windows and bi-fold doors that open onto a balcony. The upper level of the home will sit at a similar level to the road and therefore clear views to and from the property will be maintained. Some recognition is also given to the property’s location in relation to the intersection of Tilton Terrace and Erskine Place and the potential for vehicle headlights to shine into the property as vehicles turn right into Tilton Terrace from Erskine Place.

On the grounds outlined above, it is considered that the proposed fence will not unduly compromise the streetscape and sufficient grounds exist to support the variation.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 190 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CONCLUSION:

In view of the above comments, the application for modifications and extensions to the front fence can be supported in this instance.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by C and L Richardson at Lot 154 (No. 31) Tilton Terrace, City Beach for modifications and extensions to the front fence, noting variations to visual permeability, as shown on amended plans dated 7 March 2003.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 191 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.32

LOT 1722 (NO.68) HERDSMAN PARADE, WEMBLEY - FRONT FENCE (File Reference: PRO0405)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To determine the application for preliminary building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1.

BACKGROUND:

BA/DA REFERENCE: 97BA 2003 LANDOWNER: A Kelly APPLICANT: A Kelly ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R20

POLICY:

− Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs)

COMPLIANCE:

Permissible Discretions Permitted as of Right Proposed Fencing (RDGs) − amount of solid 5.73 square metres 14.7 square metres fencing permitted

DETAILS:

Lot Area: 643 square metres

The application seeks approval for the installation of infill panels to an approved front boundary fence. The applicant has approval to construct a fence that complies with the relevant height provisions of the front fencing policy but now seeks approval to now install infill panels which are to consist of wooden pickets spaced at intervals of 0.5:1 in lieu of the required 2:1 spacing. The proposed spacing of the pickets will mean that the fence does not comply with the requirement that it remain 80 per cent visually permeable over the height of 0.75 metres.

COMMENT:

Fencing

Compliance standards under the Residential Design Guidelines state that:-

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 192 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

5.7.5 A minimum of 80% of the area of any wall or fence within the primary street setback area and more than 750 millimetres above natural ground level shall be visually permeable. The maximum amount of solid fencing permitted within the front setback equates to 5.73 square metres. The amount proposed in this application is 14.7 square metres which includes the portion of fence proposed across the front of the property and along the two side boundaries.

When an application does not meet compliance standards under the Residential Guidelines, it is assessed under the performance criteria as follows;

(a) Front fences consistent with the existing streetscape character and

Sufficient grounds are considered to exist to support the variation in this instance. The subject property is located on Herdsman Parade which is classified as a District Distributor A road in the Town’s Road Hierarchy and carries significant volumes of traffic. Recognition is given in the RDG’s to consider variations to the policy requirements when properties are situated on such roads. There are a number of properties in this same street section which have solid walls across the front boundary and indeed along the length of Herdsman Parade. The Residential Design Guidelines are therefore partially satisfied in terms of the proposal being consistent with the streetscape.

The design of the fence and use of pickets, albeit spaced at closer than standard intervals, is not likely to unduly impact on the amenity of the streetscape. The Council has regularly supported such proposals, particularly when fences are designed to provide features that help to break up the bulk of the impact of the structure. The design of the fence, with a combination of brick piers and pickets, is considered to provide this.

The fence will extend 8.0 metres across the front of the 15.29 metre wide frontage. A 3.0 metre crossover and 2.0 metre setback to provide for sight lines will mean that the home will not be fully obscured behind the fence.

Having regard to the comments outlined above, it is considered that the proposed fence will not unduly compromise the streetscape and sufficient grounds exist to support the variation.

CONCLUSION:

It is considered that the proposal partially meets the relevant performance criteria in the Residential Design Guidelines. There are a number of solid walls along Herdsman Parade and there is a good argument that they are necessary to reduce traffic noise and vehicular headlights from a busy district distributor road, to limit the impact of traffic and contribute to an improved amenity for the subject site.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 193 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by A Kelly at Lot 1722 (No. 68) Herdsman Parade, Wembley for infill panels to be affixed to the front fence, noting variations to visual permeability, as shown on plans dated 24 February 2003.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 194 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.33

LOT 2 (NO.11) WARRI ROAD, CITY BEACH. – ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING DWELLING INCLUDING ENCLOSURE OF CARPORT (File Reference: PRO0291)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To determine the application for preliminary building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1.

BACKGROUND:

BA/DA REFERENCE: 102BA 2001 LANDOWNER: T R Maddox APPLICANT: T R Maddox ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R20

POLICY: Residential Design Guidelines (RDG)

COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed Primary street setback 7.5 metres without provision Varies - Nil to 4.5 metres (Clause 5.3.5 of RDGs and for averaging. Clause 20(1)a of TPS)

Secondary street setback 1.5 metres Varies - Nil to 1.9 metres (R Codes)

DETAILS:

Lot Area: 462.5 square metres Open Space: 65 per cent

Approval is sought to undertake alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at Lot 2 (No. 11) Warri Road, City Beach. The proposed internal modifications and upper floor addition do not require the Council’s discretion, however, it is also proposed to enclose an existing walled pergola within the front setback area of the property that is currently used as a carport.

The lot is irregular in shape with a truncated boundary to the primary street and secondary street frontage, previously required for an intersection being the corner of Warri Road and Peasholm Street. However, Peasholm Street is not constructed in that alignment and Warri Road now finishes in a cul de sac. The property is the only lot in this section of Warri Road and areas of public open space are immediately adjacent to the north with pedestrian access routes to West Coast Highway and the beach.

The above factors combined with the manner in which the existing buildings are orientated, results in an unusual situation where the lot does not have a readily discernable primary street frontage. The dwelling has been orientated toward both the open space to the north and also to the west to capture ocean views.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 195 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Currently, there is a screen wall that runs along what is the primary street boundary which screens the existing structure. The existing parking area is accessed from the northern leg of Warri Road and when viewed from the street, does not appear to project forward of the building line and is not a dominant aspect in the streetscape. It is proposed to utilise the existing crossover to access the remodelled parking area and as such, the status quo will be largely maintained.

The applicant seeks to vary the Council requirement relating to primary and secondary street setbacks, as a significant portion of the garage is proposed to be located within these street setback areas.

Applicants grounds for request

The applicant has provided the following comments (summarised) regarding the location of the garage in support of the application:-

• The lot is irregular in shape and submit that because of this it is unreasonable to apply primary and secondary street setbacks as gazetted and we seek Councils discretion when considering the application; • The existing carport is to be replaced in essentially the same footprint area with an enclosed garage which would retain essentially the same encroachment into the setback area; • The existing carport has been in place some 10 to 15 years. As such, an enclosed garage in similar scale would be of no significant difference; • The proposed garage would be in keeping with the streetscape as it exists and will offer an improved visual appearance to the streetscape; • The proposed enclosure would not set any precedence to other properties within the street or area generally, because of the particular nature of the circumstances in this regarding the irregularity in lot shape and the alignment to the cul de sac and public open space; • The garage will offer much needed protection to vehicles, security and storage for equipment and assist in unwarranted vandalism and theft that has occurred regularly in the past (proximity to open space); • The levels of the garage and surrounding soft landscaping buffer to the street frontage is such that the garage is sunken to an average of approximately 1.5 metres; • The soft landscaping to the street frontage comprises a well established generally native garden which provides screening and shade. It is proposed that this be retained; • The immediately adjoining neighbours consent to the development;

COMMENT:

Front setback (TPS No.1)

The purpose of street setbacks is to ensure consistency of street setbacks within each precinct. In terms of development in street setback areas, the Residential Design Guidelines state that garages, carports and other development should not detract from the dominant elements of houses and landscape within the streetscape.

Clause 20 (1) (a) of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme Text and Clause 5.3.5 of the Residential Design Guidelines state that the minimum setback from a primary street boundary to buildings shall be 7.5 metres without the provision for averaging. The Performance Criteria for exercise of discretion in respect of street setbacks under the Residential Design Guidelines are as follows:-

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 196 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

(a) The setback is compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street; and

(b) A reduction in the setback would not adversely impact on the pattern of development in the street because of the position, shape or topography of the lot.

The proposed garage will have a primary street setback varying from nil to 4.5 metres instead of the required 7.5 metres. However, as discussed, the irregular shape of the lot and the orientation of the buildings on the lot, means that the primary street boundary effectively presents as the rear boundary of the lot and therefore the modifications to the existing carport largely retains the current situation in regard to the streetscape. The inclusion of a solid door to the carport on the northern elevation will be the discernable difference, however, this is not considered to be a detracting factor in this instance as the carport is currently walled on two sides and only permits views to the rear yard of the property. Further, given the configuration of the buildings, a solid boundary wall in this location of a corner lot facing a secondary street, would be not unusual.

Secondary Street setback (R Codes)

For the reasons outlined above, the proposal also represents a variation to the secondary street setback requirements of the R Codes. Element 2, Section A3.3 of the R Codes nominate that garages should have a set back of 1.5 metres from secondary streets. The new garage will have a setback that ranges from nil to 1.9 metres.

As such, the application is required to be considered under the Performance Criteria of the R Codes, part 3.2.3, which state:-

The setting back of garages so as not to detract from the streetscape or appearance of the dwellings, or obstruct views of dwellings from the street and vice versa. For the reasons outlined above, it considered that the proposal meets the criteria and can be supported.

As highlighted by the applicant, approval to the variation would not create a precedent in the streetscape as the lot is the only property in this section of Warri Road and the irregular shape of the lot gives rise for special consideration to be granted. There are mature trees and other vegetation on site and a wide verge area surrounds the lot, which will also help to screen the garage from the street.

In terms of the design of the garage, its brick and tile construction will complement the existing dwelling and the addition of timber grained door will not detract from the overall appearance of the dwelling nor be a dominant aspect in the street.

Overall, it is considered that the proposed garage will not detract from the dominant elements of houses and landscape within the Warri Road streetscape and therefore the primary and secondary street setback variations for the proposed garage is acceptable.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 197 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

CONCLUSION:

In view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed variation to the primary and secondary street setback requirements for the garage are acceptable. Due to the irregular shape and the orientation of the buildings on the lot and the design of the garage complementing the existing dwelling, the garage will not have a detrimental impact on the existing streetscape and pattern of development. As such, it is considered that the proposal could be supported.

An absolute majority decision is required due to the variation sought to the Town Planning Scheme.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application submitted by Terry Maddox for a garage, at Lot 2 (No. 11) Warri Road, City Beach, noting a variation to the primary and secondary street setback, as shown on the plans dated 26 February 2003.

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 198 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.34

NOISE - AUTOMATIC POOL CLEANERS (File Reference: ENS 0004)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To provide information to the Council on the type of automated pool cleaners commercially available and the factors which affect noise emissions from such pool cleaners.

BACKGROUND:

At the Development and Environmental Services Committee meeting held on February 2003, a request was made for a report to be submitted on noise emanating from pool vacuum cleaners.

DETAILS:

Types of Automated Pool Cleaners

Currently, there is no Australian standard which specifies design criteria for automated pool cleaners. There are several different types of automated pool cleaners commonly available which utilise different operating mechanisms; these are described below:-

1. The original type of pool cleaning machine operates with a hammer-action where a spring-loaded triangular plastic mechanism moves back and forth to maintain suction. It is this operating mechanism which results in the audible ‘hammering’ sound and the production of vibrations into the surrounding terrain. The noise produced often contains annoying impulsive characteristics. Advice from a swimming pool maintenance company indicated that the standard triangular plastic hammer mechanism can be replaced with a softer silicon unit which can virtually eliminate any vibrations and resultant noise.

2. The second type of pool cleaner operates using a rubber diaphragm to maintain suction and undertake cleaning. Pool cleaners incorporating this operating design produce no audible noise or any vibrations.

3. The third type of pool cleaner looks similar to a domestic vacuum cleaner. It operates on the principal of moving parts against the surface being cleaned. This design does create some noise and vibration at the base of the pool, however it is generally not very intrusive as it does not contain the impulsive characteristics of the hammer type design.

Step deflectors and wing-type guards can be fitted to the above types of cleaners to assist in their free movement around a pool so as to prevent them lodging in corners or on pool steps which can also result in noise problems.

The construction of a domestic swimming pool is also a factor in the type of automated cleaner. Cleaners that have a more vigorous action are recommended for pools constructed of concrete, whereas automatic cleaners that create less impact and vibration are recommended for pools of fibreglass construction due to the more fragile nature of fibreglass.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 199 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Environmental Factors Noise emissions from the hammer-action type of automated pool cleaners can be affected by a number of factors:-

Geology. The first factor is the geological medium through which sound waves/vibration created by the hammering of the pool cleaner travel. The Perth coastal plain contains alluvial, shoreline, and eolian deposits throughout. Experience has shown that if a pool is located on or near limestone cap-rock (which is a significant feature in the coastal suburbs of the Town), the low frequency vibrations will be conducted through the limestone formations and result in low frequency sound and reverberation at an adjoining location.

Construction of pools on sand or alluvial soils does not appear to produce these annoying vibrations and noise.

Built Environment. Where a pool is surrounded by a lot of concrete structures such as retaining walls or expanses of paving, there is a greater likelihood that reverberation will occur. The resulting noise created by the transmission of vibration will also depend on the proximity and height variance of adjoining buildings and retaining walls.

Maintenance. Noise emissions can also arise from old or poorly maintained equipment. A properly maintained pool cleaner (as with most mechanical equipment) requires the replacement of worn components; such as the rubber skirting which helps maintain suction, and the coil springs which maintain tension control to regulate the frequency of the hammer mechanism. Similarly, a properly maintained pool pump requires periodic maintenance, such as the replacement of bearings and rubber mountings to prevent the creation of excessive noise.

Operation. Complaints relating to noise emissions from automated pool cleaners can be prevented by educating pool owners to operate their systems during periods where a higher sound level is acceptable, such as between 7am and 7pm Monday to Saturday, or 9am to 7pm on Sundays and public holidays.

Complaints The following table outlines the complaints received by the Town since July 1995 concerning domestic swimming pool pumps or pool cleaners, as well as the total number of noise complaints received in that year:

Year Pool Pump Pool cleaner Total Noise complaints complaints Complaints 1995/96 5 Nil 88 1996/97 2 Nil 83 1997/98 1 Nil 54 1998/99 nil Nil 67 1999/00 1 1 80 2000/01 4 Nil 60 2001/2002 3 Nil 88 2002/ to date 1 1 + 1 enquiry 57

The more recent complaint concerned a pool cleaner being operated for several hours after 9.00pm. Investigations revealed the pool cleaner to be one that operated on the hammer- action mechanism. The complaint was resolved by simple modifications being undertaken to the machine which successfully abated the noise emissions.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 200 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Enquiries with Western Suburbs and coastal local governments revealed the following complaint statistics for automatic pool cleaning systems over the previous two years:

Town of Vincent < 2 Town of Claremont < 2 City of Nedlands < 2 Town of Cottesloe 0 City of Subiaco 0 City of Joondalup < 70 – including pool pump/filter complaints City of Stirling < 3

The statistical information presented above equates to automated pool cleaners being responsible for only a fraction (0-2%) of all noise complaints dealt with by each local authority.

Legal

The legal instrument used to monitor and control environmental noise, including noise generated by automatic pool cleaners, is the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

The Regulations are specific in terms of the allowable noise levels received by an affected party and will vary according to the complainant’s location and the time of day the noise occurs. The Regulations allow for penalties of 5-15 dB(A) to be applied so to as to take into account the annoying characteristics of some noise ie the tonal, impulsive or modulating components.

Environmental Health Services provides a comprehensive noise control service whereby individual complaints are investigated and assessed in accordance with these Regulations. Compliance with the Regulations is routinely achieved through a variety of methods which may involve negotiations as to the operating times of equipment, modifications to or around the equipment, relocation of the equipment, or replacement of faulty or unsuitable equipment. Legal proceedings to abate excessive noise emissions is a last resort option.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

To provide a safe physical environment for the Town through environmentally orientated operation practises and ensure that the Town’s regulatory activities include a high component of education and prevention.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

POLICY:

Nil – The Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations apply in these situations.

CONCLUSION:

The legislation used to control environmental noise within the Town are the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. These Regulations have proved to be effective in dealing with noise complaints arising from the operation of automated pool cleaners.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 201 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Nuisance noise from the operation of automatic pool cleaners is dependant upon several variable factors including the geology of the surrounding environment; the nature of the surrounding built environment; the age of the equipment and the maintenance undertaken on it; the design and method of operation of the individual cleaner; and the time the equipment is operated.

The Administration’s experience is that the occasional noise complaint regarding automatic pool cleaner can be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant by proper maintenance and adjustments to operating times of such equipment.

The Administration is unable to recommend one automatic pool cleaner in preference to another as this would be contrary to the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. Further, it is very likely to be contrary to the Trade Practices Act 1974 for the Council to attempt to ban the use of the hammer-action type automated pool cleaners within the Town.

From the Town’s noise complaint statistics, as well as the alternative remedial actions available, noise from automatic pool cleaners is not considered to be a problem in the community.

Committee Meeting 18 March 2003

During discussion, Members agreed that advice on options to assist in reducing noise from automatic pool cleaners be included in Council’s next newsletter and also provided to owners of swimming pools at the time of the next Council pool inspections.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That the current practice of investigating and assessing noise complaints on an individual basis to ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 be continued.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 202 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.35

SUBIACO REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – OMNIBUS AMENDMENT NO. 2 (File Reference: PLA0061)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To respond to a draft amendment to the Subiaco Redevelopment Scheme 1996 which the Subiaco Redevelopment Authority (SRA) intends to advertise for public comment.

BACKGROUND:

The Subiaco Redevelopment Act 1994, requires the authority to formally consult with the City of Subiaco, the Town of Cambridge and the Western Australian Planning Commission and refer the proposed amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority prior to seeking the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure’s consent to advertise the proposed amendment.

DETAILS:

The Omnibus amendment proposes eleven changes to the Town Planning Scheme. These changes relate to the following:-

1. Hospital and 23 hour Recovery Centre. 2. Guest House 3. Showroom 4. Gross Floor Area 5. Exempted Home Occupations 6. Exempted Signage 7. Retirement Village 8. Density Code for the Greenway 9. Maximum Carparking requirements 10. Redevelopment Costs 11. Markets

COMMENT:

With the exception of Item 7 Retirement Village, none of the other amendments has any material impact on the Town of Cambridge.

Item 7 proposes to incorporate the recently constructed St Ives Retirement Village into a neighbouring precinct ‘Price Street’ to reflect its residential use. Currently it is located in the precinct referred to as ‘Bishop Street’ which promotes commercial and light industrial development. Residential use is not listed at all in the Bishop Street precinct and at the time the retirement village was approved, the SRA used its discretionary powers under their Scheme.

The amendment proposed by the SRA is supported, however, from the point of view of the Town, it is considered appropriate that the addition to the Price Street precinct should be extended to incorporate land along Bishop Street adjacent to the recently subdivided Council owned land on Jersey Street. Indeed, at the time the Town rezoned the Jersey Street land from Commercial to Residential, the argument was put forward that with the development of housing in Subi Centro and the use of former industrial land for the retirement village, has resulted in a distinct change in the landuse character of this area. Further, since the Town

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 203 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

undertook the rezoning of its Jersey Street land, the industrial use immediately behind on Bishop Street (Sherrin’s Crane Hire) has closed down and has remained vacant ever since. In that period, the SRA has approved a residential short stay accommodation proposal on that land. Further emphasising the shift towards residential uses in this area.

In view of the above, it is recommended that the Council responds to the SRA’s invitation to comment on proposed amendment by proposing that the alteration to the Price Street Precinct be further extended to further intake all of the land on Bishop Street roughly north of Upham Street, taking in the Activ Foundation building and the former Sherrin’s Crane Hire property. It is noted that the City of Subiaco depot is located on the eastern side of Bishop Street in this vicinity and that there have been suggestions in the past that the depot will be relocated to a more suitable location. If this is to be the case, then it would seem appropriate to also include the depot site in the Price Street precinct.

CONCLUSION:

The Subiaco Redevelopment Project has seen significant areas of land, once used for industrial purposes, now transformed into housing of various forms. Residential uses have expanded westwards in a belt along Salvado Road and more recently, the St Ives retirement village development has seen the introduction of approximately 250 residential units immediately adjacent to remaining mixed commercial/industrial uses in Jolimont. The recent subdivision for residential purposes of Council owned land on Jersey Street has added to the change in landuse that this area is undergoing. The remaining strip of commercial/industrial zoning within the Salvado Road belt is now incongruous with its surrounds. It is therefore recommended that the SRA be requested to add to their current Scheme Amendment proposal to reflect this change.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That, in relation to its proposed Town Planning Scheme Amendment, Omnibus Amendment No. 2, the SRA be advised that:-

(i) in relation to items 1-6 and 8-11 of the draft amendment, the Town has no comment to offer;

(ii) in relation to item 7 of the Draft amendment, the SRA be requested to further extend precinct 7 ‘Price Street’ to incorporate all of the area currently in Precinct 5 ‘Bishop Street’ between Upham Street and Salvado Road. In particular, from the point of view of the Town, this should include the strip of land on the western side of Bishop Street incorporating the current Activ Foundation building and the vacant industrial site on the corner of Bishop Street and Salvado Road.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 204 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.36

TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO.1 – AMENDMENT NO.5 - REZONING OF LOT 16 (NO. 364) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY (File Reference: PRO 0533)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To reconsider plot ratio bonuses proposed in exchange for the owner's agreement to enter into a heritage agreement associated with an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No.1 to rezone Lot 16 Cambridge Street, Wembley, from its current Residential R40/60 zoning to that of Local Centre.

BACKGROUND:

The owners of the property are seeking an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No.1 to rezone the site from Residential R40/60 to Local Centre.

The rezoning is justified by way of the Council initiated and adopted Wembley Town Centre Study, which identified the site as being suitable for inclusion in the local centre zone. To date, the amendment has progressed to the position where the Council at its meeting held on 23 April 2002 agreed to adopt the amendment upon the satisfactory finalisation of a heritage agreement.

The heritage agreement is in the final stages of completion now with all major aspects of the draft prepared by the Town’s solicitors being agreed upon and its completion is imminent.

Plot Ratio/Density Coding

Precinct Policy 7.4 – Wembley, under development standards, notes that plot ratio controls within the Wembley Town Centre are 1:1.

As the matter of the rezoning has now substantially progressed and the finalisation of the heritage agreement is imminent, the applicant has requested that the matter of a bonus plot ratio be reconsidered. The applicant has incurred not insignificant costs with the preparation of the heritage agreement and has requested that some additional consideration again be given to matter of a bonus plot ratio.

In addition to the provision of the Heritage Agreement, the applicant has also agreed to vest a portion of the site, necessary for the construction of a roundabout currently proposed at the intersection of Simper and Cambridge Streets, without compensation. The vesting of this land is agreed to on the basis that this will eventuate when the Town commits to the construction and if the construction does not proceed, the area will remain with Lot 16. If Council takes up the land and does not proceed with the roundabout, then the land must be returned to the owners of Lot 16.

In recommending an increase in plot ratio, consideration is made to ensure that the resultant increase would not result in a development that would be incompatible with the surrounding locality.

The applicant has requested that approval be granted to the following matters:-

• The applicant seeks to vary the proposed plot ratio of 1:1 which prevails under the “Local Centre” zone, to be increased to 1:1.1;

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 205 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

• The area of the church building, the subject of the Heritage Agreement, not to be taken into account in the plot ratio calculations and the whole of Lot 16, with an area of 5257 square metres, used for all plot ratio calculations on any new development proposed on the land. • The R60 coding, which currently is one of the dual codings applied to the land, remain over the site. • All plot ratio and site coverage calculations are to be made on the current area of the site, rather than the reduced area if the land is taken for road widening.

In considering the applicant’s request, the following matters are raised:-

In accordance with Clause 27 of TPS No.1- Variations to Standards, the Council has the ability to vary development standards by up to 10 per cent from the specified maximum plot ratio, as long as the increase or variation would not adversely affect the cultural heritage significance of that, or any other conservation area or place including the streetscape or precinct in which it is located.

The applicant’s request to increase the plot ratio from 1:1 to 1.1:1 is therefore consistent with what is currently allowed to be considered under the Scheme. It is noted, however, that the applicant seeks the plot ratio to be calculated over the whole of the landholding which comprises the section of the land containing the church and the eastern side of the lot where the school is located. Whilst it is considered appropriate that the plot ratio be calculated over the whole site while it remains in one title, should the land be subdivided off at a later time, then the plot ratio should be applied to any resultant lot or lots, based on the area of any new lot or lots created.

The Heritage Agreement contains specific development standards that seek to ensure that any new development on the eastern half of the lot will not adversely affect the current standing of the church. The Agreement requires that new buildings observe specified setbacks and height limitations and that the Church retains its ecclesiastical theme. The specific controls detailed in the Heritage Agreement continue to be augmented by the existing developments standards of TPS No.1 and therefore it is considered that adequate development controls exist to ensure that the church or its setting will not be adversely affected by development on the adjoining lot being developed by an additional ten per cent over what is currently permitted.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the request for a 1.1:1 plot ratio is consistent with the Scheme provisions and can therefore be supported.

In considering the applicant’s request that the R60 coding, which currently is one of the dual codings applied to the land remains, the following matters are raised.

Under TPS No.1, the land is currently coded R40/60. In the areas where dual coded R40/60 applies (in the Wembley Precinct), the R60 standards only apply when the lot has a minimum lot area of 1200 square metres. The subject lot has an area of 5257 square metres and therefore under the current zoning could have been developed to this standard. As such, the applicant does not seek to obtain a higher density that what is currently permitted under the existing zoning and development control policies. As with the plot ratio, additional development control policies currently exist within TPS No.1 to temper any proposed development of the lot.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 206 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Having regard to the above matters, it is considered that the proposed R60 coding of the land is consistent with the scheme provisions and can therefore be supported.

CONCLUSION:

Having regard to the above matters and those matters previously considered in respect to the rezoning of the site, it is recommended that the Council can support the applicant’s request. Support is given primarily on the basis that what is being sought is consistent with the current provisions of Town Planning Scheme No.1. Given this situation, it is recommended that the proposal be viewed as only a minor variation to the advertised amendment and there is no requirement to re-advertise.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That Council’s decision of 23 August 2001 be modified by consenting to a plot ratio of up to 1.1:1 and a density coding of R60 being applicable to the area of land currently known as Lot 16 (No.364) Cambridge Street, Wembley and any subsequent subdivision of this land.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 207 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.37

DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS (File Reference: ADM0048)

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To report on matters that have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the Council of other proceedings in relation to Planning Services.

DELEGATED DECISIONS

The following items (for the month of February 2003) have been dealt with under delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:-

• Grouped dwelling - 41 Barrett Street, Wembley; • Two grouped dwellings - 48 Pangbourne Street Wembley; • Two grouped dwellings - 5 Pangbourne Street Wembley; • Subdivision - 30 Pangbourne Street, Wembley.

NOTIFICATIONS

The following items are notifications of appeals and decisions for Council’s information:-

Appeals received

No appeals were lodged against a decision of the Council during February 2003.

Appeal determinations

The following appeal was determined by the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal during February 2003.

Property: Lot (135) 14 Tara Vista, West Leederville

Proposal: Three level dwelling

The Council at its meeting held 25 June 2002 considered an application for the proposed dwelling and decided:-

That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, and matters required to be considered under this Scheme generally, and in particular, as the proposal would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality, Council REFUSES the application submitted by Chien-Chang Chen and Chang Feng-Chu Chen for a three level dwelling at Lot 135 (No. 14) Tara Vista, West Leederville as shown on plans dated 29 May 2002 for the following reasons:-

(i) non-compliance with the side setback requirements under the Residential Planning Codes – Table 2;

(ii) non-compliance with the secondary street setback requirements under the Residential Planning Codes – Clause 1.5.8 (c);

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 208 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

(iii) the excessive bulk and scale of the development and the extensive earthworks required to accommodate the dwelling with result in the dwelling having an adverse impact upon the streetscape and the overall amenity of the area.

The applicants appealed against the Council’s decision and the matter was considered by the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal at a hearing on 20 November 2002. The Tribunal handed down its decision on 26 February 2003.

Decision: Upheld

The Tribunal decided that the appeal be allowed subject to such conditions that the First Respondent (the Town) would normally apply in the development of this nature.

Having reviewed the proposal, it is not considered that there are any particular conditions which are required to be applied. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal be advised as such.

A copy of the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal's decision is circulated with this agenda.

Implications:

The Tribunal's decision had regard to the Town's Residential Design Guidelines. In having such regard, the Tribunal reached the view that the proposal was consistent with the provisions of the Guidelines. Further, the Tribunal considered that two areas of non- compliance with the Residential Planning Codes were of no particular significance.

Western Australian Planning Commission decision regarding Telecommunications Facility at Wembley Golf Course.

The Council at its meeting held on 17 December 2002 considered an application for a telecommunications facility at the Wembley Golf Course and decided:-

That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge, Town Planning Scheme No.1 and matters required to be considered under this scheme generally and, in particular, as the proposal would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality, Council refers the application for the telecommunications facility at Lot 2, The Boulevard, Wembley submitted by Planning Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd as shown on plans dated 25 October 2002 to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a RECOMMENDATION FOR REFUSAL for the following reasons:-

(i) concerns for possible adverse health effects to those within the proximity of the facility;

(ii) the adverse visual impacts of the tower on the surrounding area due to its height exceeding the maximum of 20 metres as contained within Policy 5.3 Telecommunications Infrastructure.

The Western Australian Planning Commission has notified the Town that it has resolved to grant planning approval to the proposed telecommunications tower at the Wembley Golf Course. Following this decision, the applicants have again requested the Council to support a lease for the area required to construct the facility. A separate report on the matter of the lease is to be discussed by the Corporate and Customer Services Committee at its meeting on 17 March 2003.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 209 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That the report on delegated decisions and notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period ending 28 February 2003, be received.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 210 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

DES03.38

BUILDING LICENCES APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (File Reference: ADM0048)

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT:

To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building licences approved under delegated authority in February 2003.

BACKGROUND:

Listed hereunder are the total numbers of licences issued in the month of February 2003. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of licences issued on the same month of the previous year.

February 2003 February 2002 Building Licences 29 40 Sign Licences 0 0 Preliminary Building 0 4 Licences Demolition Licences 2 3

Value of Construction $2,469,521 $2,626,029

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett

That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Licences approved under delegated authority for the month of February 2003, as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 211 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

9. REPORTS FROM DELEGATES: COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS

9.1 Coastal Management Advisory Group

As this group has not met for some time, Members agreed that it could be removed from the Agenda until further notice.

9.2 Western Suburbs District Planning Committee

Nothing further to report.

10. GENERAL BUSINESS

10.1 19 Kinkuna Way, City Beach

The Executive Manager advised that the neighbours at 17 Kinkuna Way, City Beach have recently, by way of their Solicitors, submitted a challenge to the building licence issued by the Town for the construction of the alterations and additions at 19 Kinkuna Way, City Beach.

It was noted that the Town has sought its own legal opinion which has confirmed that the building licence issued by the Town is valid. A copy of the letter from McLeod and Co. to the complainants’ solicitors was circulated to all Elected Members.

Council Meeting 25 March 2003

The Chief Executive Officer reported that further advice has been received from the Town’s solicitors in response to a letter of advice from Hardy Bowen, Lawyers to the complainant dated 21 March 2003. The Town’s solicitors have again confirmed that they are of the opinion that the Town’s decision is valid.

10.2 Development at 14 Boscastle Avenue, City Beach

Cr Smith referred to an email sent to Elected Members from Mrs Kay Kneuss, 4 Boscastle Avenue expressing concerns regarding the development at 14 Boscastle Avenue, City Beach.

The Administration was requested to check if a written response had been sent to Mrs Kneuss and, if so, a copy be forwarded to Elected Members.

10.3 Oceanic Drive – Pigeons

Cr Smith referred to a letter of complaint from a resident in Oceanic Drive regarding a neighbour’s pigeons.

The Administration advised that this matter is being investigated.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 212 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

11 CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

DES03.38

PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT PROSECUTION (File Reference: PRO0781)

(Refer Confidential Item 13.1)

DES03.39

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT PROSECUTION AND NOTICE (File Reference: PRO0703)

(Refer Confidential Item 13.2)

12. CLOSURE

There being no further business, the Presiding Member thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting of the Development and Environmental Services Committee closed at 8.25 pm.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\E DES.doc 213 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

10. ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil

11. REPRESENTATION ON STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC BODIES

Nil

12. LATE ITEMS

Nil

13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

The Mayor called for a motion to declare the following items as confidential. As no Member wished to move a motion to that effect, the Mayor advised that the meeting would continue as an open meeting.

13.1

DES03.39

PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT PROSECUTION (File Reference: PRO0781)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To seek the Council’s authority to initiate legal action against the occupier of 181 The Boulevard, Floreat for causing unreasonable noise emissions.

BACKGROUND:

The Town received a formal complaint from a resident in May 2002 regarding the emission of unreasonable noise (amplified music from a stereo system) from the house located at 181 The Boulevard, Floreat.

Several attempts were made to record the noise emissions using a sound level meter with a tape recorder that had been loaned from the Department of Environmental Protection. Two successful recordings were made in December 2002 and March 2003, however, the first recording may be inadmissible in court.

Investigations with the W A Police Service revealed that Police Officers have attended the premises on numerous occasions following the receipt of after hours complaints. The Police have received 32 complaints about after hours noise originating from 181 The Boulevard, Floreat between December 1999 and March 2003. Police records revealed that out of 21 attendances they required the occupant to turn down music on 14 occasions. Full information regarding the other 11 complaints have not been received. A Freedom of Information request will be lodged to obtain this information. The Police served one Noise Abatement Direction and seized the equipment on one occasion over that time.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\F ITEM 10 ONWARDS.doc 214 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

A warning letter was delivered to 181 The Boulevard, Floreat on 20 December 2002 outlining the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. An Environmental Health Officer visited the residence in March 2003 in the company of Police Officers during which the resident was directed to reduce unreasonable noise emissions being produced by a stereo system in the residence.

Legal

Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 makes it an offence to emit, or cause or allow, unreasonable noise to be emitted.

Noise is considered unreasonable if:- • it is emitted outside prescribed conditions or other provisions of the Act; • it interferes directly or indirectly with the health, welfare convenience comfort or amenity of any person in any premises and; • if it is prescribed to be unreasonable (ie it contravenes the assigned noise levels prescribed by the Noise Regulations).

Penalties for breaches of Section 79 attracts a fine of up to $5000.00.

COMMENT:

The Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 were gazetted on 31 October 1997, and came into effect on 31 January 1998. The regulations set assigned noise levels which have been carefully designed to ensure that noise from premises is kept to acceptable levels, whilst at the same time they are flexible enough to permit reasonable social activity to occur.

Noise induced stress can have adverse effects on a person’s health, in particular when frustration caused by the inability to control or manage noise impact is present.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

To provide a safe environment for the Town through environmentally orientated operation practises and ensure that the Town’s regulatory activities include a high component f education and prevention.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Costs of several thousand dollars could be incurred in taking legal action, as well as to take action if there is no compliance with the requirements of the Notices. A high percentage of such costs should be recoverable as court costs, as well as from possible fines.

CONCLUSION:

Many hours of valuable time have been consumed by the Police and the Town’s Environmental Health Services in pursuing this matter and ensuring the occupier of 181 The Boulevard, Floreat complies with the legislation, however, it appears obvious that no amount of coercion or seizure of equipment will prevent the occupier causing unreasonable noise.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\F ITEM 10 ONWARDS.doc 215 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Burkett, seconded by Cr Anderton

That legal action be authorised in terms of Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 against Mr Meyer of 181 The Boulevard, Floreat for the creation of unreasonable noise.

Carried

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\F ITEM 10 ONWARDS.doc 216 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

13.2

DES03.40

67 RUISLIP STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT PROSECUTION AND NOTICE (File Reference: PRO0703)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To obtain Council authorisation to initiate legal action against the owners of 67 Ruislip Street, West Leederville for construction of a house contrary to the approved building licences and associated plans and specifications, and to approve the issue of a Notice requiring the house, retaining walls and boundary walls be bought into compliance with the building approvals.

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting on 23 May 2001, the Council decided that:-

“ (i) a Notice pursuant to Section 401(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 be served on:- Mr Carmelo Charles Saliba of 60 Luderman Road, Noranda, requiring him, being the builder on that piece of land being Lot 901 on Plan 98671, Certificate of Title Volume 2172, Folio 554 and known as 67 Ruislip Street, West Leederville, upon which is constructed a retaining and boundary wall; to pull down the said structure, within 35 days of the date of service of the notice as it has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans;

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to initiate any legal action to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Notice issued pursuant to (i) above, under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960. “

Accordingly, a Notice dated 25 May 2001 was served on Mr C C Saliba. The Notice required the boundary walls and retaining at 67 Ruislip Street, West Leederville be removed and rebuilt in accordance with the Building Licence approved plans and structural engineer’s specifications, and that the boundary wall, including retaining, is to be reduced to 1800mm in height.

Meetings were held on-site with Mr Saliba on 5 and 12 June 2001, and with Mr Saliba and his structural engineer 23 July 2001 to resolve the deficiencies and deviations from the approved plans. On 2 August 2001, structural engineering details and specifications were received that addressed and resolved the boundary wall and retaining deficiencies. Mr Saliba verbally agreed to carry out the works specified by his structural engineer.

Legal action was not initiated at the time as remedial work commenced but were not completed. No further work took place on this site between approximately December 2001 and November 2002. The reason given by the owner/builder was that he had personal problems and an injury, and he had not worked on the site for over 8 months.

On 24 May 2002, Notice was served on Mr Saliba in terms of the Town’s Local Government and Public Property Local Law requiring the removal of building materials

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\F ITEM 10 ONWARDS.doc 217 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

and refuse illegally deposited on the verge and Right of Way adjacent to the property. The Notice was not complied with. Accordingly, the verge and Right of Way were cleared by Council employees and Mr Saliba was invoiced for the costs of the work.

A debt collection agency is pursuing Mr Saliba for non-payment of this invoice.

DETAILS:

A further detailed inspection of the uncompleted building was undertaken in May 2002. This inspection revealed further variances to the building approvals.

The following summarises all the deficiencies and non compliant construction in relation to Building Licences 25BA-2000 and 173BA-2000 and the associated approved plans for the construction of a two storey house and associated retaining walls at 67 Ruislip Street, West Leederville by the owner/builder, Mr C C Saliba:

Boundary Wall to Double Garage (Southern Side of 67 Ruislip Street)

The boundary wall to the double garage was not constructed in accordance with the approved plans as:-

• the wall is constructed of 90mm brick (rather than 110mm brick), and • the number and location of the engaged piers supporting and reinforcing this wall are not in accordance with the approved plans.

Required Action:-

1. Construct two new additional engaged piers that are to be bonded to the existing brick boundary wall in accordance with the structural engineering details and specifications submitted to the Town on 2 August 2001.

2. The gable end of the boundary wall is to be secured to the roof framing in accordance with the engineering specifications submitted to the Town on 2 August 2001. Should the trusses be removed, submit structural engineering details and specifications to stabilise the gable end.

Boundary Wall to Southern and Western Side of 67 Ruislip Street

The boundary brick fence on the southern and western boundary of 67 Ruislip Street, as constructed, does not comply with the approved drawings and structural engineering details as:-

• the engaged piers are not located at the correct distances within that wall, • reinforcement rods have been omitted, and • the height of both sections of the boundary wall exceeds the retaining wall design.

Required Action:-

1. The southern boundary wall to be reduced to the approved 1.8 metre height limit when measured from the top of the neighbour’s retaining wall, and as detailed in the owner/builder’s agreement with the property owner the to the south. 2. The western boundary wall to be reduced to the approved 1.8 metre height limit when measured from the top of the neighbour’s retaining wall.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\F ITEM 10 ONWARDS.doc 218 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

3. Additional attached piers located within the property, and bonded to the existing boundary wall on the western side, are required. Submit structural engineering specifications and plans to rectify deficiencies in this section of the boundary wall so as to ensure the wall is structurally safe and adequate.

Garage Roof

At an on-site meeting on 23 July 2001, it was noted that the entire garage roof area had been covered with tiles. The owner/builder was informed that the full enclosure of the garage roof with tiles was contrary to the building approval, and that he required Council approval to vary the approval for the project in order to tile the entire garage roof.

An application to vary a condition of the preliminary approval and the Building Licence approval so as to provide full roof coverage of the garage was submitted on 1 August 2001. The application was considered by the Council at its meeting on 25 September 2001.

At that meeting, the Council decided:-

“ That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, and matters required to be considered under this Scheme generally, and in particular, as the proposal would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality, the Council REFUSES the application for additional roof covering submitted by C.C. Saliba at Lot 2 (No.67) Ruislip Street, West Leederville, as shown on plans dated 1 August 2001, for the following reason:-

(i) Non compliance with Table 1 of The Residential Planning Codes – Open Space

Footnote:

1. The applicant is reminded that a condition of the approval and building licence previously granted for this development, is that fifty per cent of the garage roof is to remain open. 2. The area of roofing already approved for the garage may be installed on the northern side of the garage, closest to the dwelling.”

This decision was not appealed.

Required Action:

1. Remove tiles from the garage roof so that fifty per cent of the roof remains open. The area of roof tiling already approved for the garage may be installed on the northern side of the garage, closest to the dwelling.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\F ITEM 10 ONWARDS.doc 219 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Roof Trusses to Garage

The second hand roof trusses used in the garage roof structure are not considered to be structurally safe or sufficient. The attempted strutting to top chords and strengthening to bottom chords and braces is considered unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Required Action:

1. As discussed with the owner/builder on 23 July 2001, provide structural engineering certification of the second hand trusses used in the garage roof structure, and implement any required remedial action once approved by the Town; or 2. Alternatively, replace the second hand trusses with roof framing for the 50% of the garage area that has been approved to be tiled, and the remaining open section to be appropriately framed with weatherproof materials that comply with the relevant codes and standards. 3. Provide structural engineering specifications for the weatherproofing of the exposed section the garage roof structure, and implement those measures once approved by the Town

Internal Balustrades

The balustrades to the internal stairway do not comply with the standards of the Building Code of Australia.

Required Action:

1. Alter the internal stairway balustrades to comply with the Building Code requirements.

Architectural Changes

Architectural changes have been made to:-

the finished elevations of the dining room, the kitchen and bedroom 3, the boundary wall to the double garage, which extends to the ROW boundary and is not setback 1560 mm in accordance with the approved plans, and the courtyard and gate indicated on the approved plans have not been provided.

Required Action:

1. Provide amended plans for the architectural changes to the elevations of the dining room, the kitchen and bedroom 3, as well as the changes to the courtyard and gate, 2. Provide amended plans and structural details indicating the boundary wall to the double garage extending to the ROW boundary.

Stormwater Disposal

Rain water currently discharges into the Right of Way due to the location of guttering and downpipes, particularly on the eastern side of the building adjacent to the ROW.

Required Action:

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\F ITEM 10 ONWARDS.doc 220 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

1. Submit revised plans and specifications for stormwater disposal systems that indicate that stormwater will be contained within the lot.

Legal

Section 374 (5) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 makes it an offence for a person who does or causes to be done any work in connection with the construction, amendment, alteration, extension or enlargement of a building that is not in conformity with the specifications and plans relating thereto and which have been approved by the local government under this section, without the prior approval in writing of the building surveyor.

Section 401 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 provides the authority to give to the builder or owner of the building, written notice where:-

• anything in the construction of the building which is not in compliance with, or is a departure from, the plans and specifications for the building, or • permission of the local government is required for carrying it out, and the work has been carried out without that permission.

The Notice may require him to pull down or so alter the building as to remove the cause of the objection and on being served with the notice the builder or owner shall comply with the requisition.

Section 401 goes on to outline a recipient’s appeal rights, and the enforcement process to ensure compliance where an appeal is dismissed.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

COMMENT:

Building Licence 173BA-2000 for the construction of the house was issued on 24 May 2000 and expired on 24 May 2002. Building Licence 25BA-2000 for the construction of the boundary retaining wall was dated 1 February 2000 and expired on 1 February 2002.

In a letter dated 24 July 2002, the owner/builder requested an extension of time to his building licence. In the Town’s response dated 7 August 2002, the owner/builder was provided with detailed information about all the above mentioned deficiencies and deviations from the approved building licences, as well as the action required to remedy those situations. In that letter, the owner/builder was requested to provide a Statutory Declaration by 21 August 2002, stating that he would undertake the required action on all the matters detailed in that letter is to be received. No response was received to that letter.

On 19 November 2002, Mr Saliba was observed on site and was subsequently approached to discuss these matters. He subsequently attended the Council Administration Offices where has was handed (and read) a copy of the letter dated 7 August 2002. Mr Saliba advised that due to personal problems and an injury, he had not worked on the site for over 8 months. All the non-compliant construction issues

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\F ITEM 10 ONWARDS.doc 221 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

detailed in that letter were discussed with him and he indicated that he would comply with the requirements of that letter. However, to date, no further remedial action has taken place.

Despite a considerable amount of officer time being expended on these issues and deficiencies since August 2000, getting the owner/builder’s co-operation and compliance has proved very difficult, and at times totally frustrating.

All these deficiencies and non compliant issues remain unresolved despite numerous site visits and discussions with the owner/builder that have taken place, as well as several letters, facsimiles and notices being issued to the owner/builder.

The Administration and Elected Members continue to receive complaints from affected residents regarding the unsatisfactory appearance of this uncompleted house.

CONCLUSION:

The owner/builder of 67 Ruislip Street, West Leederville has been given numerous opportunities to amend the structural deficiencies and non compliances with the building approvals issued of the house, retaining walls and boundary walls. In addition to the non-compliances, the house continues to be a blight on the area and it would seem quite apparent that the owner has little (if any) concern for his neighbours, nor any intentions to construct the building in accordance with the law.

The matters outlined in this report were discussed the Town’s solicitor on Friday 22 February 2003. The solicitor suggested that the Council prosecutes the owner/builder, as well as serving a notice requiring that the building be bought into compliance with the approvals.

As the Building Licences for this project have expired, it is recommended that the Council takes decisive action by:-

• authorising the service of a further Notice to remedy these deficiencies and non compliances with the original approvals, and • authorising the initiation of legal action in terms of Section 374 (5) the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 for the non-conformities with the building approvals in place for the house, retaining walls and boundary walls.

Committee Meeting 18 March 2003

During discussion, the Administration was requested to clarify clause (ii) of the recommendation prior to the next meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 25 March 2003.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That:-

(i) a Notice pursuant to Section 401 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 be served on:-

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\F ITEM 10 ONWARDS.doc 222 COUNCIL 25 MARCH 2003 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

Mr Carmelo Charles SALIBA of 60 Luderman Road, NORANDA, requiring him, being the owner/builder on that piece of land being Lot 901 on Plan 98671, Certificate of Title Volume 2172, Folio 554 and known as 67 Ruislip Street, West Leederville, upon which an uncomplete house, retaining walls and boundary walls have been constructed; to either pull down the non compliant sections of the said structures, or to bring the non compliant sections of the said structures into compliance with the approved plans and specifications, within 35 days of the date of service of the notice;

(iii) legal action be authorised in terms of Section 374 (5) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 against Mr Carmelo Charles SALIBA of 60 Luderman Road, NORANDA for departure from Building Licences 25BA-2000 and 173BA200 and the associated approved plans and specifications in the construction of the house, retaining walls and boundary walls on that piece of land being Lot 901 on Plan 98671, Certificate of Title Volume 2172, Folio 554 and known as 67 Ruislip Street, West Leederville.

Carried

14. CLOSURE

There being no further business, His Worship the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting closed at 7.05 pm.

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\03 MINUTES\March 2003\F ITEM 10 ONWARDS.doc 223