CouncilCouncil MinutesMinutes
23 JUNE 1998
TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 23 JUNE 1998
INDEX OF MINUTES
1. Attendance 1
2. Prayer 1
3. Apologies 1
Members on Leave of Absence 1
4. Confirmation of Minutes 2
5. Announcements by the Mayor without discussion 2
6. Question Time 2
7. Declarations of Members’ Interests 4
8. Questions of which due notice has been given without discussion 4
9. Petitions and Memorials 4
10. Orders of the Day 4
11. Committee Reports 4
Technical Services Committee 5 TS98.45 Northwood Street - Local Area Traffic Management Petition 7 TS98.46 Local Area Traffic Management – Entry Statements 9 TS98.47 West Leederville Traffic Calming – Kimberley, Woolwich Intersection 12 TS98.48 Perry Lakes Drive – Traffic Management 16 TS98.49 Cromarty Road – Traffic Management 19 TS98.50 Loftus Street – Road Upgrading 24 TS98.51 Woolwich Street, West Leederville – Proposed “Two Hour” Parking Restriction 27
TS98.52 Connaught Street, West Leederville – Proposed “No Stopping” Restriction 30 TS98.53 Clune Avenue, West Leederville – Proposed “Two Hour” Parking Restriction 32 TS98.54 McCourt Street, West Leederville – Proposed “No Stopping” Restriction 34 TS98.55 Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville – Proposed “No Parking” Road or Verge Restriction 36 TS98.56 Bikewest Generic Minor Works and End of Trip Facilities Funding 38 TS98.57 Laneways – Five Year Program 40 TS98.58 Mitchell Freeway On/Off Ramps (Old Lake Monger Drive) – Road Closure 43 TS98.59 Management of Naturally Vegetated Areas of Public Open Space (Remnant Bushland) 44 TS98.60 Tender for the Provision of Road Treatment Services – Tender No. 1-99 51 TS98.61 Tender for Laying Brickpaving – Tender No. 2-99 55 TS98.62 Tender for Supply and Delivery of Drainage and Associated Products – Tender No. 3-99 57 TS98.63 Tender for Supply and Delivery of Concrete – Tender No. 4-99 61 TS98.64 Tender for the Construction of Cast-in-Situ Concrete Footpaths and Dual Use Paths – Tender No. 5-99 63 TS98.65 Tender for the Hire of Trucks – Tender No. 6-99 65 TS98.66 Tender for the Supply and Delivery of Sprinklers, UPVC Pressure Pipes and Various Ancillary Equipment – Tender No. 7-99 67
Corporate and Customer Services Committee 70 CCS98.63 Accounts for Payment 72 CCS98.64 Investment Schedule as at 31 May 1998 73 CCS98.65 Financial Statements for the period ended 31 May 1998 74 CCS98.66 Documents Sealed 75 CCS98.67 Youth Advisory Committee Proposal 76 CCS98.68 Quarry Amphitheatre – Ticketing and Box Office System 84 CCS98.69 Quarry Amphitheatre – Review of Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use 95 CCS98.70 Quarry Amphitheatre – Review of Fees and Charges 102 CCS98.71 Joan Watters Respite Services – Review of Fees and Charges 109
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23UNEM.DOC (iv)
CCS98.72 Joan Watters Community Centre – Review of Fees and Charges 111 CCS98.73 Review of Fees and Charges – Regulatory Services 113 CCS98.74 Review of Fees and Charges – Halls and Community Centres 117 CCS98.75 Review of Fees and Charges – Works Bonds 120 CCS98.76 Review of Fees and Charges – Sports Grounds and Reserves 121 CCS98.77 Floreat Surf Life Saving Club Lease 124 CCS98.78 Sale of Property – 258 Selby Street, Floreat 128 CCS98.79 Wembley Golf Complex Attendance 131 CCS98.80 Standing Orders Procedures Relating to Deputations at Committee Meetings – Policy 133 CCS98.81 Insurance Renewal – 1998/99 136 CCS98.82 Local Government House Equity 143
Development and Environmental Services 148
DES98.106 Lot 5 (No. 10) And Lot 4 (No. 12) Abbotsford Street, West Leederville - Proposed Use Of Residential Zoned Properties For Various Administrative, Consulting And Therapeutic Activities Associated With The Niola Private Hospital 150 DES98.107 Lot 1 (Unit 1, No. 181-185) Cambridge Street, Wembley – Proposed Home Occupation (Home Office for Home Maintenance Service) 154 DES98.108 Lot 226 (No. 83) Empire Avenue, City Beach – Proposed Retaining Walls and Front Fence 156 DES98.109 Lot 490 (No. 11) Orana Crescent, City Beach – Proposed Patio 160 DES98.110 Lot 61 (No. 77) Woolwich Street corner Holyrood Street, West Leederville – Proposed Garage and Storage Loft 163 DES98.111 Lot 822 (No. 122) Salvado Road, Wembley – Proposed Two Grouped Dwellings (Three Storey) 166 DES98.112 Lot 1 (No. 10) Ruislip Street, West Leederville – Proposed Single Residential Dwelling (Two Storey) 169 DES98.113 Lot 49 (No.35) Woolwich Street, West Leederville – Proposed Two Single Dwellings (Two Storeys) 175 DES98.114 Lot 201 (No. 273B) Salvado Road, Corner Lissadell Street, Floreat – Proposed Single Dwelling (Single Storey) 179 DES98.115 Lot 558 (No.350) Salvado Road, Floreat – Proposed Additions and Alterations (Two Storey) to Existing Residence 181 DES98.116 Lot 1343 (No. 140) Essex Street, corner Scaddan Street, Wembley – Proposed Two Storey Additions to Existing Dwelling 184 DES98.117 Lot 377 (No. 17) Oakdale Street corner Abordale Street, Floreat – Proposed Additions and Alterations to Single Residential Dwelling 186 DES98.118 Lot 151 (No. 6) Maloney Way, City Beach – Proposed Additions and Alterations to Existing Single Residence 189 DES98.119 Lot 138 (No. 249) Salvado Road, Floreat – Proposed Two Grouped Dwellings (Single Storey) 191
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23UNEM.DOC (iv)
DES98.120 Lot 8 (No. 13) Southport Street, West Leederville – Proposed Office 196 DES98.121 Lots 43,44, and 45 (No. 353) Cambridge Street, Wembley – Proposed Restaurant 199 DES98.122 Subiaco Oval Development – Stage Four Two Tier Grandstand, Function/Social Facilities and Access and Support Facilities 202 DES98.123 Various Council Owned Vacant Lots – Truro Place, City Beach 209 DES98.124 Health Act Notice – Closure of Wembley Scout Hall, 148 Jersey Street, Wembley 214 DES98.125 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Notice – 18 Joseph Street, Leederville – Illegal Structures 219 DES98.126 Local Government Act Notice – Illegally Constructed Additions to Dwelling – 91 Alexander Street, Wembley 223 DES98.127 Building Application – 50 Simper Street, Wembley 226 DES98.128 Building Licences Approved Under Delegated Authority 229 DES98.129 Delegated Decisions and Notifications 230
12. Motions of which due notice has been given 233
13. Representation on Statutory Authorities and Public Bodies 235
13.1 Member – Mindarie Regional Council 235 13.2 Four Members – Local Government Insurance Services Board of Management 236 13.3 WAMA Member – Western Australian Greenhouse Council 239
14. Urgent Business 241
14.1 Appeals to the Town Planning Appeals Tribunal 241 14.2 Revocation of Pollution Abatement Notice – Quarry Amphitheatre 245
15. Confidential Reports 248
15.1 Mindarie/Tamala Park Land 248 15.2 Ocean Gardens Retirement Village 249
16. Closure 249
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23UNEM.DOC (iv)
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
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 23 JUNE 1998 AT 5.34PM
1. ATTENDANCE
Present:
Mayor Ross J Willcock JP
Councillors: Marlene A Anderton (from 5.36pm) David G Berry (from 5.39pm) Graham J Burkett JP Corinne MacRae Robina J McConnell Pauline O’Connor JP Kerry Smith Ian W Steele
His Worship the Mayor was absent from the meeting from 5.55pm to 6.40pm. Cr Smith took the Chair as Presiding Member and dealt with Items CCS98.63 to DES98.106.
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 Neil Costello, Manager Customer Services
2. PRAYER
The Mayor took the Chair and the prayer was read by the Chief Executive Officer.
3. APOLOGIES
Nil
MEMBERS ON AND APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with Clause 2.9 of the Standing Orders, Cr Corinne MacRae be granted Leave of Absence from 8 to 21 July 1998 inclusive.
Carried
4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Moved by Cr Burkett, seconded by Cr Smith
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 26 May 1998 be confirmed.
Carried
Moved by Cr Burkett, seconded by Cr Smith
That the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Council held on 9 June 1998 be confirmed.
Carried
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION
(i) Cambridge/Stirling Boundary Change
The Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Manager Corporate and Customer Services met with the Local Government Advisory Board last week to put the Town’s case for the boundary realignment. The Town’s arguments were well received.
(ii) Kings Park Board Membership
The Governor has appointed the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor, Cr Kerry Smith, as the Town’s representatives on the Kings Park Board.
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23UNEM.DOC (iv)
(iii) Best Budget Award
The Town has been recognised as a major award winner in the Department of Local Government’s Best Budget Awards for 1997/98.
6. QUESTION TIME
The following questions were submitted by Mr Philip Edmands, 108 Daglish Street, Wembley.
Question 1 What was the budget allocation for Local Area Traffic Management Works within the Town for each of the financial years ending 30 June 1997 and 30 June 1998?
Answer 1 Budget allocation 1996/97 $200,000 Budget allocation 1997/98 $242,000 Question 2 In each of those years how much of the allocated budget has in fact been spent?
Answer 2 Expenditure in 1996/97: $17,732 (ShawMac Consultant - $8,000) Expenditure in 1997/98 $80,000 (Estimate final) $62,710 at 31 May 1998
Question 3 Of the amount so spent in each of the two relevant years, how much was spent in each year in West Leederville in the area from and including McCourt Street east to and including Southport Street? In particular, how much was spent on a street by street basis on that area in each of those two years?
Answer 3 Expenditure in 1996/97 Estimated Consultancies: West Leederville/Wembley/Floreat $18,000 Expenditure 1997/98 – West Leederville Estimate: Kimberley Street $36,000 Ruislip Street $30,000 Northwood Street $ 4,000 Holyrood Street $ 2,000 Blencowe Street $ 2,000 St Leonards Avenue $ 2,000 McCourt Street $ 2,000 Total: $80,000 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23UNEM.DOC (iv)
All amounts in 1997/98 were spent in the West Leederville area.
Question 4 Do any Councillors live in any of the streets referred to in Question 3 above? If so, which Councillors, in which streets, and did those Councillors vote in favour of works in their or any other street in the area referred to in question 3? Where they did which Councillors so voted in respect of which streets and for which works?
Answer 4 All Elected Members pursuant to the Local Government Act, if present, must vote unless precluded from doing so.
Unless requested that the voting be recorded, the way in which a Member has voted, is not known. No Members are recorded as voting against any decision of Council in regard to the matters referred to.
The issue of Local Area Traffic management is one that has an interest in common to a significant number of electors and the Local Area Traffic Management Plan under consideration by Council covers a wide area and forms part of an ongoing program. Many streets are affected by the Local Area Traffic Management Plan proposals.
7. DECLARATIONS OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS
Nil
8. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT DISCUSSION
Nil
9. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
Cr Burkett advised the meeting that he had received a submission from Mrs Patricia Allerding, 2 Landra Gardens, City Beach in relation to the development of the Gayton Road Shopping Centre. The Mayor advised that the matter could not be dealt with at this meeting, and requested the Administration to investigate Mrs Allerding’s concerns as a matter of urgency.
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23UNEM.DOC (iv)
10. ORDERS OF THE DAY
Nil
11. COMMITTEE REPORTS
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23UNEM.DOC (iv)
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
The report of the Technical Services Committee Meeting held on 9 June 1998 was submitted as under:-
1. ATTENDANCE
Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members:
Cr Ian Steele (Presiding Member) 5.32pm 8.07pm
His Worship the Mayor, Ross Willcock JP 5.32pm 7.18pm 7.30pm 8.07pm Cr Robina McConnell 5.42pm 7.12pm 7.15pm 8.07pm Cr Pauline O’Connor JP 5.32pm 8.07pm Cr Kerry Smith (Deputy) 5.32pm 8.07pm
Observers:
Cr Graham Burkett JP 5.46pm 7.18pm 7.21pm 8.07pm Cr David Berry 5.42pm 7.45pm 7.47pm 8.07pm Cr Corinne MacRae 5.32pm 7.36pm 7.39pm 8.07pm
Officers:
Graham Partridge, Chief Executive Officer Chris Colyer, Executive Manager Technical Services Richard Watson, Manager Works and Engineering Ross Farlekas, Manager Parks and Landscape Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Committees)
Adjournments: Nil
5 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Time meeting closed: 8.07pm
2. APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Cr Marlene Anderton
3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Resolved that the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Technical Services Committee held on 12 May 1998, and contained in the May Council Notice Paper be confirmed.
4. QUESTION TIME
Nil
5. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS
Deputations:
Item TS98.46 - Philip Edmands Item TS98.47 - Anthony Hasluck
6. DECLARATIONS OF MEMBERS INTERESTS
Nil
7. REPORTS
6 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.45
NORTHWOOD STREET – LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PETITION (File Reference: TES0028)
PURPOSE:
To comment on a petition received at the May 1998 Council Meeting.
BACKGROUND:
In 1993 the former City of Perth managed a local area traffic management community consultation group that investigated the local area traffic management for the West Leederville precinct bounded by Lake Monger Drive, Cambridge Street, Harborne Street and Southport Street. This work has been taken over by the Town of Cambridge and the next stage for the implementation of the work was resolved within the 1997/98 Budget. The work in Ruislip Street and Kimberley Street did commence this financial year. The left turn lane from the Mitchell Freeway off ramp into Southport Street, to permit traffic to travel northwards in Southport Street, was implemented by Main Roads WA last financial year.
It has been recognised that the development of the West Leederville Traffic Management Plan will be carried out over a number of years. The extent of the proposed work and the funds available would not permit the total program to be implemented at one stage.
It is also recognised that in the initial plan there were a number of residents in the north western section of the precinct that opted not to support the development of traffic management devices. More recently, the residents in this area have requested devices and it is recognised that these will be considered within the 1998/99 budget. The petition that was tabled at the full Council meeting in May 1998 reflects the Northwood Street community response to the staging of the works.
DETAILS:
The petition was signed by 44 residents of Northwood Street. The coordinator of the petition carried out a door knock in the street and approached 49 households. The coordinator of the petition says that, “The petition clearly reflects the street’s opinion that further traffic counts and sand bagging, etc are 7 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
not what the street is asking for: it asks for the platforms to be put in place and for consultation with the street as to the measures to be put in place north of Ruislip Street”.
When the present work is complete, it is proposed to proceed with traffic counts in Northwood and the surrounding streets to determine any variation in traffic flows. When this is complete a further report will be submitted to Council in order that the next stage of the work can be developed. It is premature at this stage to recommend any additional treatments that may encourage traffic to move from one area to another.
COMMENTS/SUMMARY:
The petition is recognised as a response by the people in Northwood Street to the work being carried out in Kimberley Street and Ruislip Street. The extent of the impact of the Kimberley/Ruislip work will be determined by traffic counts when that work is completed.
The distribution of the Main Roads Local Area Traffic Management Policy will be a significant input into any further work that is carried out in the area of local traffic management as they do control the signage. A recent lecture in Perth by a British engineer highlighted the developments of local traffic management in Britain. His report highlighted the significance of the development of a safe road for all road users and the need to develop both local streets and district roads.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That:-
(i) the petition relating to Local Area Traffic Management in Northwood Street be received;
(ii) prior to reconsidering further work in the local area traffic management precinct bounded by Lake Monger Drive, Harborne Street, Cambridge Street and Southport Street within the 1998/99 Budget, consideration be given to assessing the impact of the most recent works in Kimberley and Ruislip Streets,
8 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
(iii) in assessing further works priorities within the region, the current Main Roads WA policies be acknowledged and people in Northwood Street and other significant locations within the precinct be consulted.
Carried
9 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.46
LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT – ENTRY STATEMENTS (File Reference: TES0028)
PURPOSE:
To provide an update on Local Area Traffic Management budget works and report on a delay in Main Roads WA road signing policy.
BACKGROUND:
In July 1997, the Council resolved that the flush entry statements be constructed at a number of side streets off Cambridge Street and Lake Monger Drive that access the local residential precinct bounded by Lake Monger Drive, Harborne Street, Cambridge Street and Southport Street. In November 1997, the Council resolved that a number of flush red hotmix entry statements be laid at the side streets of the district distributor roads leading to Salvado Road between Selby Street and Brookdale Street, Gregory Street between Grantham Street and Dodd Street and Daglish Street between Grantham Street and Dodd Street. These entry statements were to be accompanied with signs indicating “Local Traffic Zone” and speed designated signs as approved by Main Roads WA.
Plans for the above works have been prepared. The entry statements in the residential precinct bounded by Lake Monger Drive, Harborne Street, Cambridge Street and Southport Street have been constructed. The Main Roads WA have not agreed to the erection of the signs, namely “Local Traffic Zone” or “40 kilometres per hour”.
DETAILS:
Main Roads WA have been requested to install the traffic signs at the entry statements. The signs requested were “Local Area Zone” and “40 kilometres per hour” regulatory signs. Furthermore, Main Roads were asked to install white edge lines at each end of the red hotmix entry statement to highlight the entrance to a local residential area.
The above entry statements and traffic calming proposals were also forwarded to Main Roads for consideration with their Local Area Traffic Management Trial program. Main Roads did propose that their policy for Local Area Traffic Management devices and signage would be available in May 1998. 10 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
The most recent enquiries have indicated that Main Roads have decided not to proceed with any of Town of Cambridge proposals for Local Area Management trials. They propose to trial the Local Traffic Zone, 40 kilometres per hour designation signs at the subdivision of Ellenbrook in the Shire of Swan. Main Roads have decided not to proceed with any other trials at this stage.
Main Roads have said that they would not proceed with the Local Traffic Zone, 40 kilometres per hour signage on any other roads until the Ellenbrook trial is complete and their new policy is established. The Main Roads interim policy to be released in May 1998 has not been released to date.
The impact of the red hotmix entry statements is severely diminished without the proposed associated signage.
COMMENTS/SUMMARY:
When the proposed flush red hotmix entry statements were resolved in July and November 1997 it was anticipated that Main Roads would support the associated Local Traffic Zone, 40 kilometre per hour signage. It is now apparent that this is not the case. The entry statements have little impact without the signage. It is proposed that these entry statements not proceed at this time.
It is proposed that the funds be transferred to the 1998/99 budget and additional funds be added in order that the traffic management devices within the precinct roads can be continued. Furthermore, the members of the Local Area Management Consultative Committees be notified of the recent developments with respect to the implementation of the Local Area Traffic Management plan and signage.
It is therefore recommended that:-
(i) the flush red hotmix entry statements, as approved in TS97.78 July 1997 and TS97.140 November 1997, not proceed at this stage;
(ii) the Local Area Traffic Management surplus funds from 1997/98 budget be carried over to the 1998/99 budget;
(iii) the Council continues to negotiate with the Main Roads WA to resolve the appropriate signage for local residential precincts.
11 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Committee Meeting 9 June 1998
Mr Edmands addressed the Committee in relation to this matter. During discussion, Members did not support the recommendation of the Administration and agreed that:-
• flush red hotmix entry statements should proceed;
• the Minister for Transport be requested to direct Main Roads WA to approve the erection of appropriate signage for local residential precincts;
• His Worship the Mayor and/or his representative and the Chief Executive Officer to meet with the Minister for Transport to discuss this issue;
• a progress report be submitted to the next meeting of the Technical Services Committee.
Council Meeting 23 June 1998
During discussion, Cr O’Connor said that there is no reason why the 40 kilometre per hour signage cannot be installed into the Local Traffic Zone.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That:-
(i) it is Council’s intention that the flush red hotmix entry statements, as approved in TS97.78 July 1997 and TS97.140 November 1997, proceed;
(ii) the Minister for Transport be requested to direct Main Roads WA to approve the erection of appropriate signage for local residential precincts and be advised that this area is representative of traffic problems within the metropolitan area;
(iii) a meeting be arranged with His Worship the Mayor and/or his representative, the Chief Executive Officer and the Minister for Transport to discuss this issue;
(iv) a progress report be submitted to the next meeting of the Technical Services Committee.
Carried
12 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.47
WEST LEEDERVILLE TRAFFIC CALMING – KIMBERLEY, WOOLWICH INTERSECTION (File Reference: TES0041)
PURPOSE:
To report on the progress of adopted budget works and comment on community feedback resultant from the works.
BACKGROUND:
In June 1997, Council approved the construction of median islands in Woolwich and Kimberley Streets at the intersection of Woolwich/Kimberley Streets.
At its meeting held in December 1997, Council approved the construction of three plateaus in Kimberley Street, between Woolwich Street and Vincent Street West. This work commenced in May 1998.
This work was initially introduced through the Public Community Consultation Committee established by the former City of Perth in 1993. The objective of the proposed works was to reduce the traffic speed through Kimberley Street, provide pedestrian crossing safe refuge and to accommodate cyclists.
In March 1997, Shawmac Consultant Engineers, circulated a survey to the 2,000 residents in this precinct to seek their comments on the next stage of the proposed works. The week prior to the commencement of works, a letter was distributed to the property owners adjacent to the works.
The public comments have been considered in the final design for all the road works. Initially it was proposed that kerb nibs be developed to provide kerbside parking embayments. These were omitted from design to ensure that the maximum parking possible was provided. There has been a reduction of 13 kerbside parking bays at the intersection due to these works. The design does provide for a turning movement for single unit truck at this intersection. This is the minimum desirable standard to ensure that buses attending the school and waste collection trucks can access the area safely.
13 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
DETAILS:
Further to the implementation of the works at the intersection of Kimberley Street and Woolwich Street, there has been some concern with respect to the reduction in parking. The Road Traffic Act indicates that kerbside parking should commence nine metres away from the end of a median island. Further, that the minimum width of a traffic lane be three metres. The Austroads Parking Standards indicate that the minimum width of a carpark bay be 2.1 metres. The kerbside parking has been adjusted to provide the maximum number of bays and remain within these standards.
It has been suggested that the length of the median islands be reduced. The length of the existing islands are twelve metres. Main Roads WA standards indicate that the minimum length of the islands should be twelve metres. The Austroads Standards indicate that in a position where the speed environment is 60 kph, the median islands should be a minimum of twelve metres. The size of the median islands is significant with respect to drawing the motorist’s attention to the fact that there is a significant feature ahead.
Prior to the installation of the islands, it was drawn to Council’s attention that some vehicles in Kimberley Street did not stop at the ‘Stop Signs’ at this intersection. Since the installation of the median islands, some public comments have indicated that vehicles are making a significant noise when coming to a stop at this intersection. This does indicate that there is a need for the islands to stand out and that their size is effective.
It has been suggested that the median islands be moved closer to the intersection. If this was done it would restrict vehicle turning movements at the intersection. Main Roads WA have been asked to move the holding lines in Kimberley Street at the ‘Stop’ locations forward, so that the motorist has improved sight distance. The islands will still provide the motorist with adequate protection from turning vehicles.
It has been suggested that the verge kerb be lowered for a distance from the intersection to the commencement of the parking zone. This would provide residents with an opportunity to mount the verge for parking. At present, the kerb height is 90-100mm and it is possible for a slow moving vehicle to mount the kerb.
14 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Verge parking can be approved where the width of the verge is in excess of the 2.1 metres and it does not contravene with the Council policy whereby one third of the verge can be paved for parking. It is considered desirable that, where regular parking is carried out; the verge be paved. The properties facing Kimberley Street have approximately twelve metre length frontage and it is not practical to park a car on one third of the length of this verge. Embayed parking could be considered up to a distance within six metres of the intersection providing a pavement width of in excess of 5.5 metres between the median island and verge side kerb accommodating the embayment. This could not be implemented in some locations due to the existing established verge trees and other services.
Residents have requested that Council carry out further traffic calming development in the section of Kimberley Street between Cambridge Street and Woolwich Street. As part of Council’s discussions resulting in the present work, it has been recognised that the development to date, is only a part of the total precinct plan. Furthermore, developments have been considered in Kimberley Street whereby red hotmix be laid to designate kerbside parking and the black bitumen residual be used for through traffic. This treatment would harmonise with the proposal to develop parking embayments near the intersection of Woolwich and Kimberley Streets and increase the kerb length for parking.
COMMENT/SUMMARY:
It is recognised that the works carried out to date have reduced the extent of kerbside parking at the Kimberley / Woolwich Streets intersection. The next stage of the work for traffic calming in the precinct may assist to offset this kerbside parking reduction.
It is recognised that the properties in Kimberley Street south of Woolwich Street, where the kerbside parking has been restricted, are serviced by a Council rear laned sealed right of way providing an alternative access to their property. Furthermore, that these properties do not have crossover access from Kimberley Street because their frontage is narrow and house design.
It is recognised that the Council notification to the residents prior to construction may have been improved. The improvement would be to include the designation of parking restrictions on the notice. It is planned that this be included in future.
15 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Kerbside parking in the eastern section of this West Leederville precinct is of great concern. The number of cars parked all day in the area due to the growth of businesses in the vicinity is increasing. There is an item on the June 1998 Agenda discussing parking restrictions in Woolwich Street, eastwards from Northwood Street. A public comment period will precede the Technical Services Committee consideration of these restrictions.
Committee Meeting 9 June 1998
Mr Hasluck addressed the Committee in relation to this matter.
During discussion, Members agreed that the need for, and detailed design of, the parking embayments be clarified and discussed with local residents.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That:-
(i) parking embayments at the Kimberley Street/Woolwich Street intersection be considered within the 1998/99 Budget;
(ii) the development of the Local Area Traffic Management in Kimberley Street be considered within the 1998/99 Budget;
(iii) the need for, and detailed design of, the parking embayments be clarified and discussed with local residents.
Amendment
Moved by Cr McConnell, seconded Cr Smith
That clause (i) of the motion be amended by inserting the words “or appropriate treatments” after the word “embayments”.
Amendment carried
The amended motion was then put and carried.
16 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
The motion, as carried, is as follows:-
That:-
(i) parking embayments or appropriate treatments at the Kimberley Street/Woolwich Street intersection be considered within the 1998/99 Budget;
(ii) the development of the Local Area Traffic Management in Kimberley Street be considered within the 1998/99 Budget;
(iii) the need for, and detailed design of, the parking embayments be clarified and discussed with local residents.
17 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.48
PERRY LAKES DRIVE – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (File Reference: TES0074)
BACKGROUND:
The 1997/98 works program included the resurfacing of Perry Lakes Drive from Underwood Avenue to Oceanic Drive. This work has been completed. The road pavement width has been maintained at 7.4 metres wide.
The Technical Services Committee at its meeting held on 12 May 1998, reinforced the intent that the road pavement recognises the adjacent regional park. Furthermore, that there be no encouragement for increase of traffic speed. It was also requested that the program be developed to reduce the traffic speed to 40 kph.
DETAILS:
The recognised traffic management devices for the reduction of speed appropriate for Perry Lakes Drive would include:
• Signage. • Narrow Lanes. • Plateaus. • Realignment of Road Pavement. • Chicanes. • Speed Humps.
The appropriate signs namely, 40 kph plus an information sign designating “Perry Lakes Picnic Area” would need to be accompanied by a change of road texture possibly red hotmix entry statements and speed reduction devices. The entry statements would be located in Perry Lakes Drive within the first fifty metres south from Oceanic Drive and north from Underwood Avenue. The speed reduction devices would need to be approximately 60 to 100 metres apart.
The width of the road pavement is significant in the reduction of traffic speed especially on the low traffic roads such as Perry Lakes Drive. While the road pavement was 7.4 metres wide, it would be expected that the traffic speed would increase. Now that the road centre line has been installed and the road traffic lanes are 3.7 metres wide, it is anticipated that the speed will reduce. Main 18 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Roads WA have been requested to consider painting an edge line on the road to establish two, three metre wide lanes. This will reduce the lane width and ensure that the traffic does keep away from the unprotected road bitumen edge which will preserve the road edge and also encourage a slower speed. However, Main Roads WA are of the opinion that this edge line would indicate a cycle lane which is undersized and could be dangerous. It is Main Roads WA intention to maintain a road centre line only in Perry Lakes Drive at this stage.
It is recognised that Perry Lakes Drive is part of the north/south cycle route through our Town. This cycle route has been chosen because of the comparatively low traffic volume on Perry Lakes Drive. The existing traffic volume is just in excess of 2,000 vehicles per day. Bikewest standards indicate that when the traffic volume is below 2,000 vehicles per lane, then the cyclist can ride in the lane with the motorist. In this set of circumstances the motorist would have adequate room to judge the overtaking distance and pass the cyclist without undue inconvenience to other parties.
The installation of speed plateaus is an option that the Council may wish to consider. Red hotmix plateaus 75mm high, up to 10 metres in length may be appropriate to reduce the speed below 60 kph. These would be located 60 to 100 metres apart.
The realignment of the major through route by introducing a series of long curves to make the main through road less direct was considered as an alternate route to slow traffic. It is not desirable to encourage the through traffic to progress through the park as it will have a greater influence on an extended picnic area. One of the key elements of the design of Perry Lakes picnic area is that there are a number of carparks along the eastern side of Perry Lakes Drive to enable picnickers to walk within the park around the lakes free from through traffic, from Perry Lakes Drive to the Alderbury Street/Meagher Drive road link to the east.
The preferred option to discourage traffic speed is to close the through road of Perry Lakes Drive. This would also necessitate the closure of the Alderbury/Meagher link from Oceanic Drive to Underwood Avenue. Then Perry Lakes Drive (part only), Alderbury Avenue and Meagher Drive (part only) would provide access from Oceanic Drive and Underwood Avenue to the Perry Lakes Reserve carparks but not permit through traffic. The through traffic would use Brockdale Street and West Coast Highway to link Underwood Avenue and Oceanic Drive.
19 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Chicanes and speed humps are considered inappropriate for Perry Lakes Drive.
The estimated cost for the installation of fourteen raised plateaus, two entry statements and the appropriate signage would be $40,000. Main Roads WA approval for the installation of this work would be necessary prior to installation. When this work is completed, Main Roads WA would be in a position to consider the installation of 40 kph speed signs.
COMMENT/SUMMARY:
It is recognised that the community use Perry Lakes Drive for two purposes. Firstly, as a link road between Oceanic Drive and Underwood Avenue. Secondly, as a Perry Lakes picnic area access road. These two uses are in many ways incompatible. The present 60 kph speed limit signs are recognised as a compromise between these two conflicting objectives.
Any alteration to the existing road network to reduce the traffic speed on Perry Lakes Drive would require major amendments and cannot be recommended at this stage.
It is therefore recommended that:-
(i) Main Roads WA be asked to reconsider the installation of edge lines along Perry Lakes Drive from Underwood Avenue to Oceanic Drive and establish two, three metre wide road traffic lanes;
(ii) if edge lines are installed by Main Roads WA, then the impact of the edge lines be monitored by the Council.
Committee Meeting 9 June 1998
During discussion, Members did not support the recommendation of the Administration and agreed that appropriate signs namely, 40kph plus an information sign designating “Perry Lakes Picnic Area”, accompanied by a change of road texture, possibly red hotmix entry statements, speed reduction devices and other measures be progressively considered for Perry Lakes. Furthermore, it was agreed that a report, with costings be submitted to the August 1998 meeting of the Technical Services Committee.
20 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That:-
(i) appropriate signs namely, 40kph plus an information sign designating “Perry Lakes Picnic Area”, accompanied by a change of road texture, possibly red hotmix entry statements, speed reduction devices and other measures be progressively considered for Perry Lakes Drive;
(ii) a report with detailed costings be submitted to the August 1998 meeting of the Technical Services Committee.
Carried
21 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.49
CROMARTY ROAD – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (File Reference: TES0068)
BACKGROUND:
The Council, at its meeting held on 16 December 1997, resolved as follows:-
“That:-
(i) the resolution of the Council meeting held on 24 June 1997 be reaffirmed;
(ii) the Administration undertake an investigation to establish a preferred technical solution to the traffic problems in Cromarty Road, including those adjacent to Edith Cowan University.”
At its meeting held on 24 June 1997, Council resolved as follows:-
“That:-
(i) the closure of the existing entrance/exit to Edith Cowan University from Cromarty Road be supported;
(ii) the construction of any additional entrances/exits to Edith Cowan University from Cromarty Road not be supported;
(iii) Edith Cowan University be requested to further explore those options for other entrances to the Campus, in conjunction with other stakeholders including the Town of Cambridge and its residents.”
At its meeting held on 24 March 1998, Council discussed the traffic management of Cromarty Road and resolved as follows:-
“That:-
(i) the report relating to Cromarty Road Traffic Management be received;
(ii) the residents of Cromarty Road be consulted on the five options as outlined in the report;
22 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
(iii) consideration in regard to the Cromarty Road Traffic Management options be deferred to the April meeting of the Technical Services Committee to allow for discussions to be held with Cromarty Road residents, the Vice Chancellor of Edith Cowan University and to further explore matters raised in the Road Management Study.”
On 13 May 1998, a meeting was held with the residents of Cromarty Road to discuss the options as requested by Council. The Council’s Chief Executive Officer has met with the Vice Chancellor of the Edith Cowan University and a report was referred to the residents meeting. The Road Management Study has progressed to the stage of establishing a Road Hierarchy upon which the Cromarty Road development can be discussed further.
DETAILS:
The Edith Cowan University has written to Council further to discussions with the Town of Cambridge Chief Executive Officer and indicated the following points:
• Enrolments in courses at the Churchlands Campus have peaked at 6,000 in 1991. • The present enrolments have stabilised around 5,000. • The recently endorsed Strategic Plan for the University envisages that by 2002, the Perth Metropolitan Campus will be consolidated at Joondalup and Mt Lawley. • The Strategic Plan for the University envisages that the Churchlands Campus will increasingly redefine its role as a cross sectoral campus incorporating partnerships in course delivery between private providers and the University.
The University preference is to develop a roundabout along Cromarty Road and access the University from this roundabout. The University is of the view that the Cromarty Road entrance to the University, without any other action, would direct increased volumes of traffic to the other entrances and create an unacceptable safety and congestion problem. The University acknowledges that it is anticipated that the traffic problems in Cromarty Road will decline over the years and at some stage in the future, it may be possible for the University to reconsider the need for the Cromarty Road entrance. They indicate that in the interim, it may be possible to remove the current median strip blocking entrance into the Campus at Cromarty Road to minimise traffic problems to the west of the entrance and that the University would be prepared to consider a financial contribution towards the cost of this road work.
23 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
The options that were presented to Council in March 1998, were also presented to the community at the meeting on the 13 May 1998. These options were:
(i) the construction of a section of Stephenson Avenue between Pearson Street and Empire Avenue and that an access from this link be made to the University;
(ii) that there be a link road between Pearson Street and Dolomite Court, to the north of the University and an access from the University be made to this link road;
(iii) the construction of a District Distributor Road to the north and adjacent to Cromarty Road within a 23 metre wide road reserve, ie. with a 3 metre encroachment into the University land. This through road would link Empire Avenue and Pearson Street and a service road would be reconstructed adjacent to the premises on the southern side of Cromarty Road. The western end of this District Distributor Road would link directly into Empire Avenue and the leg of Empire Avenue to the south would enter the link road at a stop ‘T’ junction;
(iv) the access to Edith Cowan University off Cromarty Road be closed and the right turn lanes from both Empire Avenue and Pearson Street into the University be extended;
(v) the link road between Empire Avenue and Pearson Street be built as indicated in (iii) above and from a stop ‘T’ junction at both Empire Avenue and Pearson Street. Further, that a link between the new District Distributor Road and the service road on the southern side be established so that residents south of Cromarty Road can enter the University, School, Pearson Street and Empire Avenue;
(vi) a break in the median island adjacent to the Cromarty Road entrance to the Edith Cowan University be made to accommodate traffic travelling westwards in Cromarty Road to enter the University. This break in the median be so built as to prevent traffic exiting the University and turning right into Cromarty Road.
The community did express a firm view that the only solution acceptable was to close the entrance from Cromarty Road to the University. They cited a number of examples of concern to them:
• At least 100 vehicles per day turn right across the median island to access the University when travelling from Pearson Street.
24 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
• Vehicles travelling north along Empire Avenue, turn right into Cromarty Road and proceed into the University contrary to the existing signs. Some vehicles access the university carpark via the primary school grassed areas.
• A District Distributor Road parallel with the existing Cromarty Road would restrict access to the primary school for both cars and pedestrians.
• Some trucks drive on the wrong side of the existing median islands because of their restrictive nature.
• Cars accessing the University travel on the wrong side of the median islands so that they can access the University.
• The option of providing a service road and District Distributor Road along the proposed 23 metre wide road reserve would be restrictive in that the width of the service road median and through road would be too narrow for bus bays and turning movements.
• There is a significant volume of truck traffic from the shops to the south of Cromarty Road that come through Ayr Street and proceed to Pearson Street via Cromarty Road.
• U turns around each end of the existing Cromarty Road median islands were unacceptable.
• The use of driveways in Cromarty Road to facilitate U turn movements was not acceptable.
• The vehicle movements across the Cromarty Road median strips was not acceptabe.
• The vehicle lights shining through resident windows when the vehicles exit the Campus into Cromarty Road was disturbing the residents.
• The long line of vehicles travelling westward in Cromarty Road waiting for vehicles to turn right into the University is not acceptable.
The community was requested to consider possible short term solutions and the longer term solutions. It was recognised that the closure of the University entrance and the possibility of a service road linking Empire Avenue with Pearson Street, or the option of a ring road around the University Campus will take some time. The community were not able to discuss possible short term solutions. They were keen that the access from Cromarty Road to the University be closed. The community clearly supported Council in its endeavours to close the entrance from Edith Cowan University into Cromarty Road.
25 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
There are 27 properties accessing the southern side of Cromarty Road, 17 were represented at the meeting. There were 25 residents/ratepayers at the meeting.
The Road Management Study Hierarchy established by Council in May 1998, identifies Empire Avenue and Pearson Street as the two District Distributor Roads to carry district traffic to the district facility of the Edith Cowan University. Cromarty Road is recognised as a Local Distributor and it is therefore acknowledged that it is desirable that the entrance to the University off this street be closed. Recognising the road hierarchy and the community requests, it is considered that there are two options for the development of the University. These are:
• The upgrading of the entrances from Empire Avenue and Pearson Street.
• redevelop the existing carpark and University internal roads to match these access points.
COMMENT/SUMMARY:
The future development plans for the Edith Cowan University show that the worst of the traffic problems has passed. The community are keen that there be a long term solution that includes the closure of the entrance from Cromarty Road to the Edith Cowan University.
Once this has been completed, an assessment of the traffic and the traffic management devices within Cromarty Road needs to be reassessed. It is considered that the existing carriageway of Cromarty Road with the traffic management devices at Crieff Street removed, permit through traffic, without access to the University, with access to the primary school without traffic signals at Cromarty Road/Empire Avenue and Cromarty Road/Pearson Street would be desirable.
Council will need to negotiate a settlement with the Edith Cowan University for the establishment of the closure of the crossover off Cromarty Road. This could be Council’s first priority and will need to be done at a significantly high level.
26 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That in relation to traffic management in Cromarty Road:-
(i) the Council’s preferred option is:-
(a) right turn pockets in Empire Avenue and Pearson Street medians be extended at the two existing University entrances;
(b) the Edith Cowan University be asked to redevelop their carpark to accommodate the closure of their access from Cromarty Road;
(c) the existing entrance/exit to the Edith Cowan University from Cromarty Road be closed;
(ii) discussions be continued at a Senior Executive level with Edith Cowan University to implement the preferred option.
Carried
27 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.50
LOFTUS STREET – ROAD UPGRADING (File Reference: TES0280)
BACKGROUND:
Main Roads WA have proposed to upgrade Loftus Street and at the same time, link the Northbridge Tunnel exit with Sunderland Street to the existing cross road of Cambridge Street, Sunderland Street and Loftus Street. The eastern leg of this intersection will be renamed as the “Graham Farmer Freeway Off Ramp.”
The section of Loftus Street that is to be upgraded extends from Wellington Street to Vincent Street. The section of Loftus Street within the Town of Cambridge extends from the intersection with Railway Parade to the intersection of Cambridge Street. The plans, as laid on the table, show the land acquisition on the eastern side of Loftus Street, the proposed road pavements, the additional dual use paths, the proposed drainage network, the proposed signs and line marking, and the proposed tree planting program.
DETAILS:
The proposed work will include a continuous median in Loftus Street between Railway Parade and Cambridge Street. The following intersections within our Town will be affected:
• Cambridge Street and Harrogate Street Intersection
- The traffic will be permitted to turn left in and out of Harrogate Street from and to Cambridge Street.
• Loftus Street and MacEwan Street Intersection
- The traffic will move left in and out of MacEwan Street from and to Loftus Street.
• Oxford Close and Railway Parade Intersection
- The traffic movements will be left turn into and out of Oxford Close from and to Railway Parade.
28 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
The intersection alterations will be enforced with the implementation of the median island in the through road. This will enhance the traffic movements at the intersections of Cambridge Street / Loftus Street, Railway Parade / Loftus Street and through Loftus Street.
The existing dual use path underpass at Bermondsey Street will be extended to the new dual use path on the eastern side of Loftus Street. There will be a new path under Loftus Street using the Railway Reserve. There will be a pedestrian phase in the traffic signals to assist pedestrians crossing Cambridge Street, Graham Farmer Off Ramp and Railway Parade at the Loftus Street intersections.
The new design will provide one right turn lane in Railway Parade for east bound traffic to turn right into Loftus Street and two through lanes with the option of the second through lane being used for left turn movements. There will be two lanes for west bound traffic in Railway Parade for traffic to exit the intersection. Loftus Street will have three through lanes in each direction at the Railway Parade intersection, plus two right turn lanes for north bound traffic. There will be no right turn lanes from Loftus Street for south bound traffic to turn right into Railway Parade.
At the intersection of Loftus Street and Cambridge Street, the existing two west bound lanes in Cambridge Street will be retained. There will be two right turn lanes and two left turn lanes for traffic travelling eastwards in Cambridge Street at the new Loftus Street intersection. There shall be four lanes exiting the Northbridge Tunnel to enter Loftus Street from the east. One will be designated for right turn traffic and the other for left turn traffic. The centre two lanes will be designated for through and turning movements. The south bound traffic in Loftus Street will have three through lanes and one right turn lane from Loftus Street into Cambridge Street west bound. The north bound traffic in Loftus Street will have five lanes, two specifically designated for right turn into Aberdeen Street for access to the Graham Farmer Freeway On Ramp at Aberdeen Street.
“No Parking “and “No Standing” signs will be relocated on the new kerb alignment to control traffic in Loftus Street, along Railway Parade and Cambridge Street, in accordance with the present practice.
COMMENT/SUMMARY:
The proposed road works have been considered for commencement by Main Roads WA in the latter part of 1998. The design has been carried out in accordance with Australian Standards. 29 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
It is considered that the advantages of the proposed road works will be to:
• Improve road safety. • Improve the capacity for traffic in Loftus Street. • Provide for safe turning movements at the intersections of Cambridge Street / Loftus Street and Loftus Street / Railway Parade. • Provide clear and direct access from the Town of Cambridge to and from the Northbridge Tunnel. • Provide direct access from the Town of Cambridge to Wellington Street and the City of Perth Central Business District via Loftus Street. • Provide direct access linking the Town of Cambridge and the Northern City Bypass Tunnel via Cambridge Street/Loftus Street and Grantham Street/Loftus Street.
There will be some changes in the traffic volumes within our Town associated with this work and the other proposals in the area including the Mitchell Freeway On/Off Ramp to and from Wellington Street. It is considered that the traffic under the West Perth Railway Bridge at Sunderland Street will be reduced and the traffic along Southport Street from Cambridge Street to Lake Monger Drive will also be reduced. It is recognised that there may be an increase in traffic on both Cambridge Street and Railway Parade, however, the extent of this increase is not clear.
It is therefore recommended that the Council concurs with the proposed upgrading of Loftus Street, Cambridge Street and Railway Parade in accordance with Main Roads WA Plans Numbers 9731-4232, 9731-4275-1, 9731-4235-1.
Committee Meeting 9 June 1998
During discussion, Members agreed that the information relating to the proposed upgrading of Loftus Street, Cambridge Street and Railway Parade be noted.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That the information relating to the proposed upgrading of Loftus Street, Cambridge Street and Railway Parade, in accordance with Main Roads WA Plans Numbers 9731-4232, 9731-4275-1, 9731-4235-1 be noted.
Carried
30 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.51
WOOLWICH STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED “TWO HOUR” PARKING RESTRICTION (File Reference: PKG0006)
BACKGROUND:
The demand for parking in Woolwich Street, West Leederville, has increased due to the recent implementation of “Two Hour Parking” restrictions on both sides of Kimberley Street south of Woolwich Street and the Kimberley/Woolwich Streets road works.
Residents have expressed concern at the lack of available parking during business hours and have requested time restrictions.
A survey of residents was conducted to gauge their response to the proposed restrictions.
DETAILS:
Football parking restrictions exist to the west of Kimberley Street and east of Kimberley Street as far as Holyrood Street.
The section of Woolwich Street extends from West Leederville Primary School to Southport Street. The nature of the street is residential with the exception of the Deli on the northern side of Woolwich Street opposite Holyrood Street.
The survey of affected residents has been conducted. The results of this survey are as follows:
64 surveys were circulated and there were 17 respondents; 6 respondents indicated that the current restrictions were satisfactory; 10 respondents indicated that the current restrictions were unsatisfactory; 10 respondents indicated that the proposed restrictions were satisfactory; 6 respondents indicated that the proposed restrictions were unsatisfactory.
31 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
The following general comments were made by the respondents:
• Workers are parking all day and walking to nearby businesses; • The problems associated with football parking are beginning to filter east of Holyrood Street; • Commuters are parking in the eastern section of Woolwich Street and walking to public transport nearby; • Restrictions at the eastern end of Woolwich Street are not being adhered to or enforced after hours; • The proposed restrictions are acceptable if sufficient parking permits are made available.
Many vehicles parked in these locations during the day belong to residents who do not have off street parking facilities.
If motorists from the commercial zone along Cambridge Street are restricted from parking in this section of Woolwich Street they will need to find another location.
The proposed restrictions have majority community support and address the problems that exist. They allow residents to park in their street with the minor imposition of using their parking permits.
Residents will be notified that applications can be made for parking permits at the Council’s office.
COMMENTS/SUMMARY:
There is support in the community for the recommended parking restrictions judging from the survey replies. Many residents regret the change but see it as inevitable and welcome the residential parking permits.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That:-
(i) a 2 hour parking restriction be imposed on the northern side of Woolwich Street, West Leederville, commencing 24 metres west of Kimberley Street and extending 86.5 metres westwards, operative from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 11.00am Saturday, in lieu of unrestricted parking; 32 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
(ii) a 2 hour parking restriction be imposed on the southern side of Woolwich Street, West Leederville, commencing 24 metres west of Kimberley Street and extending 75 metres westwards, operative from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 11.00am Saturday, in lieu of unrestricted parking;
(iii) a 2 hour parking restriction be imposed on the northern side of Woolwich Street, West Leederville, commencing 6 metres east of Kimberley Street and extending 50 metres eastwards, operative from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 11.00am Saturday, in lieu of unrestricted parking;
(iv) a 2 hour parking restriction be imposed on the northern side of Woolwich Street, West Leederville, commencing 55 metres west of Carlton Street and extending eastwards to Southport Street, operative from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 11.00am Saturday, in lieu of unrestricted parking;
(v) a 2 hour parking restriction be imposed to the southern side of Woolwich Street, West Leederville, commencing 14.7 metres east of Kimberley Street and extending eastwards to Southport Street, operative from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 11.00am Saturday, in lieu of unrestricted parking;
(vi) a “Football” parking restriction be imposed on the northern side of Woolwich Street, West Leederville, commencing 6 metres east of Carlton Street and extending eastwards to Southport Street, operative from 6.00pm to 11.00pm Monday to Friday and 11.00am to 11.00pm Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, in lieu of unrestricted parking;
(vii) a “Football” parking restriction be imposed on the southern side of Woolwich Street, West Leederville, commencing 14.7 metres east of Kimberley Street and extending eastwards to Southport Street, operative from 6.00pm to 11.00pm, Monday to Friday and 11.00am to 11.00pm Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, in lieu of unrestricted parking;
as shown on Plan Numbers E283-03-02 and E283-85-02, laid on the table.
Carried
33 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.52
CONNAUGHT STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED “NO STOPPING” RESTRICTION (File Reference: PKG0006)
BACKGROUND:
A resident in Connaught Street has written to Council explaining that motorists have been parking on both sides of Connaught Street and restricting through access. Consequently, consideration is being given to introducing a “No Stopping” restriction.
A survey of residents was conducted to gauge residents response to the proposed restrictions.
DETAILS:
The proposed restrictions were requested by residents of Connaught Street and Council’s Rangers.
A survey of affected residents has been conducted. The results of this survey are as follows:
8 surveys were circulated and there was 1 respondent; 0 respondents indicated that the current restrictions were satisfactory; 1 respondent indicated that the current restrictions were unsatisfactory; 1 respondent indicated that the proposed restrictions were satisfactory; 0 respondents indicated that the proposed restrictions were unsatisfactory.
All of Connaught Street is residential and all residences adjacent to the proposed restrictions have access to off street parking.
Recent developments in the street may have increased the demand for parking in this location.
Council’s Rangers report that the area is often congested after hours.
34 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
The north-south section of Connaught Street is 5 metres wide and the east-west section is 6.6 metres wide. This is adequate for parking on one side of the road only and one lane traffic on the straight, and no parking and one lane of traffic at the 90 degree bend.
Council’s sanitation contractors, Cleanaway, have not reported difficulty due to congestion in Connaught Street. The proposed restrictions have been developed to allow for movements of a single unit truck. This caters for the movements of sanitation and emergency vehicles.
COMMENTS/SUMMARY:
The recommended restrictions provide the maximum options for parking and one lane for moving traffic. It is anticipated that motorists will not park two cars opposite each other and provide no through lane.
The recommendation will resolve the excessive parking at the 90 degree bend in Connaught Street.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That a “No Stopping” restriction be imposed on the southern and western sides of Connaught Street, West Leederville, commencing 18 metres west of Carlton Street and extending 60 metres westwards and then northwards to the northern boundary of 21 Connaught Street, operative at all times, in lieu of unrestricted parking, as shown on Plan Number E276-98-01, laid on the table.
Carried
35 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.53
CLUNE AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED “TWO HOUR” PARKING RESTRICTION (File Reference: PKG0006)
BACKGROUND:
There is a two hour parking restriction in operation on both sides of Northwood Street to the south of Clune Avenue. These restrictions were implemented over the past two years.
The demand for parking in this location has increased due to recent developments in the Vincent Street West commercial zone. The completion and occupation of another development in Northwood St opposite Clune Avenue will occur in the near future.
Concern has been expressed about the number of vehicles parked in Clune Avenue on weekdays and the congestion caused by these vehicles. Vehicles are often parked halfway over the path on the southern side to reduce the congestion. The path shows signs of deterioration.
Council’s Rangers report that the sanitation contractors, Cleanaway, have often reported difficulty due to congestion in Clune Avenue.
A survey of residents was conducted to gauge their response to the proposed “2 Hour” Parking restrictions.
DETAILS:
The proposed restrictions were requested by residents of Clune Avenue.
A survey of affected residents has been conducted. The results of this survey are as follows:
7 surveys were circulated and there were 5 respondents; 2 respondents indicated that the current restrictions were satisfactory; 3 respondents indicated that the current restrictions were unsatisfactory; 3 respondents indicated that the proposed restrictions were satisfactory; 2 respondents indicated that the proposed restrictions were unsatisfactory.
36 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
The following general comments were made by the respondents:
• The proposed restrictions are acceptable if parking permits are made available. • The current congestion was caused by builders who have now completed their job. • Suggest allowing parking on the southern side only.
Tenants of the new building may soon replace the builders and park their vehicles in Clune Street.
The southern side of the street is residential and the northern side is open space. Most residents have access to off street parking.
If motorists from the commercial zone are restricted from parking in this section of Clune Avenue they will need to find another location. The number of locations available for commercial property tenants to park has greatly reduced over recent years.
The existing road pavement is 7.4 metres wide which is adequate for parking on both sides plus one lane of traffic.
The proposed restrictions allow for future expansion of the current “Football Parking” zone if required.
COMMENTS/SUMMARY:
The proposed restrictions have majority community support and address the problems that exist and those expected to occur in the near future. They allow residents to have parking facilities available in their street with the minor imposition of parking permits.
They provide parking facilities which are compatible with the requirements of moving traffic.
Residents will be notified that parking permits will be issued upon request.
37 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That a “2 Hour Parking” restriction be imposed on both sides of Clune Avenue, West Leederville, commencing 6 metres west of Northwood Street and extending westwards to St Leonard’s Avenue, operative from 8.00am to 6.00pm, Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 11.00am, Saturday, in lieu of unrestricted parking, as shown on Plan Number E273-98-02, laid on the table.
Carried
38 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.54
MCCOURT STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED “NO STOPPING” RESTRICTION (File Reference: PKG0006)
BACKGROUND:
Council’s Rangers report that the sanitation contractors, Cleanaway, and other motorists often reported difficulty negotiating McCourt Street just north of Woolwich Street, due to congestion caused by vehicles parked on both sides of the road.
A survey of residents was conducted to gauge their response to the proposed “No Stopping” restriction.
DETAILS:
The results of this survey are as follows:
3 surveys were circulated and there were 2 respondents; 0 respondents indicated that the current restrictions were satisfactory; 2 respondents indicated that the current restrictions were unsatisfactory; 1 respondent indicated that the proposed restrictions were satisfactory; 1 respondent indicated that the proposed restrictions were unsatisfactory.
The following general comments were made to improve the proposal:
• The restricted area be extended to the northern boundary of their property at 80 McCourt Street.
The request to extend the restricted zone has been accommodated in the recommendation
The eastern side of the street is residential and the western side is part residential and part open space. Adjacent residents have access to off street parking.
The time proposed restrictions complement the existing football parking restrictions at this location.
39 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
COMMENTS/SUMMARY:
The proposed restrictions have community support and address the problems that exist.
The restrictions provide parking facilities which are compatible with the requirements of moving traffic.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That a “No Stopping” restriction be imposed on the eastern side of McCourt Street, West Leederville, commencing at Woolwich Street and extending 47.4 metres northwards, operative at all times in lieu of unrestricted parking as shown on Plan Number E258-98-01, laid on the table.
Carried
40 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.55
LAKE MONGER DRIVE, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED “NO PARKING”, ROAD OR VERGE RESTRICTION (File Reference: PKG0006)
BACKGROUND:
There is a limestone wall at the south eastern corner of the junction of Lake Monger Drive and Northwood Street. This wall does restrict motorists sight distance at this junction.
Vehicles have recently been parked on the verge on the south side of Lake Monger Drive just east of Northwood Street.
DETAILS:
The junction of Lake Monger Drive and Northwood Street permits left turn only traffic movements from Lake Monger Drive into Northwood Street and vice versa.
The presence of vehicles parked on the verge in Lake Monger Drive produces a dangerous situation for motorists in that there is not adequate stopping sight distance for the motorist travelling westwards in Lake Monger Drive when approaching the Northwood Street junction.
COMMENTS/SUMMARY:
It is proposed to impose a “No Parking, Road or Verge” restriction on the southern side of Lake Monger Drive. The recommended restriction will improve traffic safety by removing a hazardous condition.
It is therefore recommended that a “No Parking, Road or Verge” restriction be imposed on the southern side of Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville, commencing 6 metres east of Northwood Street and extending 104 metres eastwards, operative at all times, in lieu of unrestricted parking as shown on Plan Number E309-98-01, laid on the table.
41 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Committee Meeting 9 June 1998
During discussion, Members agreed that the “No Parking, Road or Verge” restriction commencing 6 metres east of Northwood Street should only extend to the first three properties of Lake Monger Drive.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That a “No Parking, Road or Verge” restriction be imposed on the southern side of Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville, commencing 6 metres east of Northwood Street and extending 51 metres eastwards, operative at all times, in lieu of unrestricted parking as shown on Plan Number E309-98-01, laid on the table.
Carried
42 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.56
BIKEWEST GENERIC MINOR WORKS AND END OF TRIP FACILITIES FUNDING (File Reference: TES0303)
BACKGROUND:
Bikewest have requested Council submissions for 1998/1999 minor works grants. Bikewest, in their proposed 1998/1999 funding package to municipal authorities, provides a maximum of 66 % of the total project cost in relation to:
• Generic minor works • Supply of end of trip facilities
The projects are to relate to dual use paths. With relation to Generic minor works, these works may include removing obstructions in the middle of a dual use path, repairing pram ramps, drainage grates and constructing missing links in dual use paths. Also the supply of end of trip facilities, engages in the provision of bicycle parking at areas of community interest. The facilities may include bike racks, surrounding brick paving and a table.
DETAILS:
The following sites have been investigated and proposed for 1998/1999 two thirds funding from Bikewest. Application forms have been submitted to Bikewest for assessment and funding approval. Bikewest will confirm grants about Mid June 1998.
GENERIC MINOR WORKS
SITE/S SCOPE OF WORKS ESTIMATE GRANT
Oceanic Drive Tree root damage $3325 $1995 West Coast Hwy
Chipping Road Tree root damage $500 $330
Kalinda Drive Challenger Pde Tree root damage $904 $597
43 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
END OF TRIP FACILITIES
Floreat Beach 4 bike racks, brick paving $5000 $3300 And 1 table.
Wembley Golf 4 bike racks, brick paving $5000 $3300 Course entrance And 1 table.
Chipping Road 4 bike racks, brick paving $5000 $3300 Adjacent to Bus And 1 table. Terminal Fig 1
44 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
FUNDING IMPLICATIONS:
No budget allocation exists for these works, therefore it will be necessary to submit a further report seeking approval for Council’s contribution of $7,000 maximum, should the submission be approved by Bikewest.
COMMENT/SUMMARY:
The works proposed will provide a safer and effective mode of bicycle transport in the Town of Cambridge. The above areas of dual use paths are recognised for their important community use and poor condition. The above sites have been proposed based on these elements.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That:-
(i) the proposed Generic Minor Works (as outlined in Fig. 1) be endorsed;
(ii) a further report seeking authorisation for unbudgeted expenditure be submitted should the proposal be approved by Bikewest.
Carried
45 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.57
LANEWAYS – FIVE YEAR PROGRAM (File Reference: TES0311)
BACKGROUND:
Council, at its meeting held on 24 February 1998, resolved as follows:-
“That:-
(i) the program for the upgrade of laneways, adjacent to Cambridge Street, Harborne Street and Herdsman Parade as Stage 1 to 6 be adopted;
(ii) a further report be submitted to address road acquisition and funding issues;”
be deferred until the Road Management Study has been considered.”
A Road Management Study has been completed by BSD Consultants and included public input and recommendations for a Laneway Policy within the Town of Cambridge.
An objective of the BSD study was to maximise the use of laneways to supplement the access restrictions on District Distributor Roads. BSD Consultants have suggested that the acquisition and upgrading of all laneways behind properties facing District Distributor Roads receive priority.
From the Road Management Study, the District Distributor Roads adjacent to laneways will be Cambridge Street, Harborne Street and Herdsman Parade. The proposed standard for construction is flush edge kerb, bitumen hard stand and soakwell drainage.
As Council acquires the laneways, their maintenance will be under Council control and budget. The work preparation will be streamlined. Building development access will also be more manageable.
46 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
DETAILS:
The City of Perth criteria for the assessment of laneways was different. An assessment has been made of the survey provided by the City of Perth of the laneways on their criteria that is, the nature of the surface, the extent of use and drainage issues. In addition to this criteria, consideration has been given to those laneways where drainage issues have arisen during the time this Council has been in operation.
A criteria based on the extent of use, sandy surface and drainage problems would bring forward the priority of the laneways bounded by:
• Ruislip, Cambridge, Connolly and Northwood Streets. • Gregory, Daglish, Grantham and Cambridge Streets. • Daglish, Pangbourne, Bournville and Cambridge Streets. • Right of way linking Alexander Street and Jersey Street, south of Herdsman Parade.
It is evident that whichever criteria is taken for the establishment of the works program, it is difficult to prioritise the works within the existing $200,000 per year budget, as so many of the laneways are in a similar poor condition. However, whichever of the two criteria that are used, it is evident that the north/south laneway bounded by Bournville, Daglish, Harborne and Cambridge Streets is clearly the one that conforms to both criteria. It is owned by Council at present and the proposed budget funds will provide an opportunity to commence the work in this right of way in 1998/99 financial year. This project has been forwarded for budget consideration.
COMMENTS:
Independent of the criteria used for the development of a program for the upgrading of the right of ways, it is evident that the extent of the issues is beyond the existing Council financial resources. The estimated cost of upgrading all the laneways would be approximately $4.5 million and at the rate of $200,000 per year, it would take approximately 25 years to complete the project.
It is anticipated that a right of way policy will be developed in the next six months with input from the Development Services and Technical Services Sections of the Council. From this policy, the priority program for the development of laneways be proposed.
47 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
A plan of the Council owned right of ways on which the nature of the material has been designated is attached to and forms part of the Notice Paper.
It is therefore recommended that:-
(i) the laneway running north/south, bounded by Cambridge Street, Bournville Street, Harborne Street and Daglish Street be considered as the priority project for 1998/99 Budget;
(ii) the Council proceeds with the development of a right of way policy and a five year right of way upgrading program, with an annual budget of $200,000.
Committee Meeting 9 June 1998
During discussion, Members agreed that the Council proceed with the development of a right of way policy which includes a planned upgrading program.
In developing the policy, the Administration was requested to consider the following:-
• closure of laneways;
• property owners’ contribution to the cost of acquiring the laneways;
• cost of maintaining the laneways.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That:-
(i) the laneway running north/south, bounded by Cambridge Street, Bournville Street, Harborne Street and Daglish Street be considered as the priority project for 1998/99 Budget;
(ii) the Council proceed with the development of a right of way policy, which includes a planned upgrading program.
48 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Amendment
Moved by Cr McConnell, seconded by Cr Steele
That Clause (ii) of the motion be amended by adding the words “to be submitted to the October meeting of the Technical Services Committee”.
Amendment carried
The amended motion was then put and carried
The motion, as carried, is as follows:-
That:-
(i) the laneway running north/south, bounded by Cambridge Street, Bournville Street, Harborne Street and Daglish Street be considered as the priority project for 1998/99 Budget;
(ii) the Council proceed with the development of a right of way policy, which includes a planned upgrading program to be submitted to the October meeting of the Technical Services Committee.
49 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.58
MITCHELL FREEWAY ON/OFF RAMPS (OLD LAKE MONGER DRIVE) – ROAD CLOSURE (File Reference: TES0115)
BACKGROUND:
Main Roads WA have written to Council requesting that the area of land previously used as an On/Off Ramp between the Mitchell Freeway and Lake Monger Drive adjacent to Kimberley Street in West Leederville be transferred from Road Reserve to Recreation Reserve. The area of land is approximately 1.09 hectares.
DETAILS:
This section of Road Reserve is surplus to the requirements of the Main Roads WA. The land on the east and west is bounded by the Town of Cambridge Lake Monger Reserve. The land is designated on the Main Roads WA Plan Number 9225-189-1 which is attached to and forms part of the Notice Paper.
The service authorities were approached with this transfer proposal and have indicated no objections to the closure. Where services and plant have to remain within the land, they will be protected by an easement. This will include the Water Corporation’s sewer line and their overflow drainage system from Lake Monger.
COMMENT/SUMMARY:
The transfer of the vesting of the section of land previously designated as Road Reserve to the Town of Cambridge for Parks and Recreation would be an advantage for Council in that:
• There would be a continuity of land management throughout the Lake Monger Reserve. • The Council would be in a position to carry out development works on the land.
It is recognised that the development of the land will be an expense to Council, however, the staging of this work will be under the control of Council and can be carried out as funds permit.
50 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That Main Roads WA and the Department of Land Administration be advised that the Town of Cambridge will accept responsibility for the care, control and management of the Road Reserve surplus to the Main Roads WA requirements as indicated on the Main Roads WA Plan Number 9225-189-1, which is attached to and forms part of the Notice Paper, and that the said land be designated for Parks and Recreation.
Carried
51 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.59
MANAGEMENT OF NATURALLY VEGETATED AREAS OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE (REMNANT BUSHLAND) (File Reference: PLA0081, RES0117)
BACKGROUND:
At the March 1998 meeting of the Technical Services Committee, the Administration was requested to prepare a report on the status of the Town’s remnant bushland areas. The report was to enable a program of works to be developed in regard to proper management or possible disposal of these areas.
Information was also requested to be provided on forming links with the local communities so that they develop a better appreciation of these fragile bushland areas through information dissemination and involvement with rehabilitation works.
In September 1994, at the commencement of the first financial year for the Town of Cambridge, the City of Perth undertook a remnant vegetation inventory and assessment survey on behalf of the Town of Cambridge. The aim was to gather information on the areas of remnant bushland present within the maintained reserves in the Town of Cambridge. Remnant vegetation is defined “as land on which there is vegetation which is either a remainder of the natural vegetation of the land, or if altered, is still representative of the structure and floristics of the natural vegetation and provides the necessary habitat for native fauna” (definition as used by the Perth Environment Project).
DETAILS:
The survey identified seven recognised locations within existing recreational passive parks. However, there are another five locations within the Town of Cambridge that come under the classification of remnant bushland.
The attached table (Remnant Bushland Areas) which forms part of this notice paper, identifies the locations of these 12 remnant bushland areas, defines their size, describes their overall condition, (as per the 1994 survey and assessment) and details some of the major works that were undertaken within these sites in the last three years.
52 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
As shown the most significant areas in terms of size are the Coastal Dunes, Chipping Park, Templetonia Park. However, in terms of community issues or concerns, the smaller neighbourhood areas such as Roscommon Park, Malton Park and Ocean Village Park seem to be of a higher priority.
Council Policy No.3.1.2, titled “Maintenance – Naturally vegetated areas of Public Open Space”, sets out the procedure for the management of naturally vegetated areas of public open space in residential developments (remnant bushland) to ensure their long term viability in a sustainable manner. This policy (is attached and forms part of this Notice Paper) identifies:-
• Reasons on the importance of retaining remnant bushland areas. • Management guidelines for implementation. • Maintenance programs that are to be considered when developing works programs and budgets.
This policy was last reviewed in May 1997. This review ensured that the policy that was adopted in May 1997 is within the guidelines of Industry standards and contemporary bushland rehabilitation practices. This has been confirmed by the Manager of Parks and Landscape by comparing the above policy’s Management guidelines and maintenance programs against the bushland Management guidelines and recommendation of the:-
• Allen Park and Environs Management Plan prepared for the City of Nedlands by Ecoscape, July 1996. • Kings Park Bushland Management Plan, September 1995. • Kensington Bushland Management Plan, June 1993.
BUSHLAND MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES
Eight management categories with individual objectives are usually identified in most Bushland Management plans. These are as follows:-
Weed Control Objectives
1. Control existing weed species, commencing with the most problem weeds first. 2. Prevent introduction of any further weed species and further weed invasion of bushland areas. 3. Involve the community in the weed control program.
53 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
4. Minimise any detrimental effects of the weed control program on the native flora. 5. The weed control program needs to be integrated with revegetation programs to avoid the replacement of one weed species with another.
Disease Control Objectives
1. Prevent the introduction and spread of Dieback (Phytophthora sp.) 2. Monitor the vegetation of the area for the presence of fungal diseases such as Phytophthora, Armillaria and any other plant pathogens.
Feral Animal Control Objectives
1. Control or, where possible, eradicate feral species from the bushland where they impact on the bushland’s biological values. 2. Ensure that any feral animal control measures do not adversely impact on the bushland’s native flora or on people visiting or using the area. 3. Restrict domestic animals that are currently allowed to roam within the bushland area.
Bushland Restoration Objectives
1. Reinstate indigenous flora and vegetation communities where they have been disturbed. 2. Reduce or, if possible, remove all disturbance factors originating both internally and externally to the bushland area. 3. Create self sustaining, naturally regenerating vegetation communities by removing inhibitors so as to maximise natural regeneration.
Interpretation and Education Objectives
1. Increase people’s knowledge of the bushland’s existence and regional importance. 2. Raise the level of information available to the community of the bushlands flora and fauna. 3. Educate people on the current and proposed management objectives for the bushland.
54 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
4. Aim to engender a spirit of care for, and ownership of, the bushland, especially among local residents, park and beach users, school children and other visitors.
Research and Monitoring Objectives
1. To gather additional data on the flora of the bushland. 2. Monitor changes to the floral environment, specifically those occurring in response to the implementation of management strategies advocated by Council’s Bushland Management policy.
Fire Control Objectives
1. To protect human life. 2. Protect property (private or public) including adjacent homes. 3. Protect the ecological integrity and biological values.
Access Objectives
1. Establish and maintain a system of pedestrian and disabled paths compatible with the conservation of the study area’s ecological integrity and biological values. 2. Reduce the multiplicity of informal existing tracks to reduce disturbance of vegetation through trampling and subsequent loss of indigenous flora and weed invasion. 3. Link pathways within the bushland area with existing pedestrian access and cycle paths within and adjacent to the bushland area.
Most of the Council’s policy falls within these eight objectives apart from Disease Control and Feral Animal Control. However, these two management categories are monitored by Council staff on a regular basis.
It is recommended that these eight management categories be included in the policy relating to the maintenance of naturally vegetated areas of Public Open Space.
55 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
PAST WORKS UNDERTAKEN
As listed in the attached table (Remnant Bushland Areas), works have in the past been undertaken in these areas as follows:-
• Weed Control (chemical, mulching, mowing) • Bushland restoration (planting) • Fire Control • Fence installation • Path construction • Erosion control (brushing)
These works have been funded by operating and non-operating funds in the past three years depending on the nature of the works and total approximately $165,000. These works also conform with Council’s Policy No. 3.1.2 and the eight Bushland Management categories as identified previously.
An example of a successful remnant bushland restoration program is the one that was undertaken in 1993 by the City of Perth and continued by the Town of Cambridge at the:-
• Bushland between West Coast Highway and Yaltara Road • Bushland between Hale Road and Chipping Road
Works that were undertaken in these locations as late as June 1997 involving the community included:-
• Planting • Fencing, path construction • Weed control (chemical and mulching) • Educational signage installation
Links have been established with the City Beach Primary School, the Bush Guardians (an after school ecology club), Kapanara Primary School, the Baha’i faith group and individual members of the community. These have been involved with planting programs.
A link was also formed in 1996 with the City Beach High School by the Administration, to discuss future strategies and initiatives on bushland rehabilitation.
56 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
The City Beach Primary School and Ecology Club are in the initial stages of developing and implementing a Management Plan on a section of dunes south of the City Beach groyne. Close contact has been maintained with the above to enable their project to be progressed. The Council has also assisted the City Beach Primary School in making an application to the Natural Heritage Trust for funding.
FUTURE DIRECTION – PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT
An audit has been conducted by his staff on the status of all the remnant bushland areas in the Town of Cambridge to confirm and update the previous City of Perth survey. The eight management categories as identified earlier have been used and applied to these remnant bushland areas in order to identify a plan of action and future direction for Council in the proper management of these naturally vegetated areas.
In order to preserve and sustain an appropriate natural environment in these areas it is recommended that Council adopt and fund the long term implementation of the following eight management categories:
1. Weed Control 2. Disease Control 3. Feral Animal Control 4. Bushland Restoration 5. Interpretation and Education 6. Research and Monitoring 7. Fire Control 8. Access
The above categories form the basis for planning, budgeting and implementing works programs. The attached Remnant Bushland Rehabilitation Improvement Program which forms part of this Notice Paper was developed by applying the objectives of the above eight categories to each bushland site in order to identify a scope of works and estimated levels of expenditure.
Priorities have been established taking into account known community interest/concerns, condition of bushland and previous work undertaken. Funding levels have been estimated from the requirement to implement some or all of the following works:
57 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
• Bush restoration (planting) • Weed control (chemical, mulching, mowing, hand removal) • Interpretation and education (signage, advertisements, community involvement) • Fire control (fire breaks, remove excess dead material) • Access (paths, fencing, carpark)
The proposed Remnant Bushland Rehabilitation Program identifies appropriate funding allocations. This will enable a level of works to be undertaken which will result in significantly improving these bushland areas.
By funding this program, it will enable an increased involvement by community groups and individuals to participate in some of the works (ie. weed control, planting, feral animal status reports). It is intended to aim to engender a spirit of care for and ownership of, the bushland, especially among local residents, park users and school children. This can be achieved by informing/contacting the local community prior to the implementation of any works and by informing the community via erection of signs after the implementation of any works.
It should be noted that once works to each bushland site are completed, funding for their ongoing maintenance needs to be allocated, to prevent deterioration of these assets. It is estimated at this stage that an additional $1,000 per hectare would need to be allocated to the maintenance of the bushland areas, over and above their current operating budgets.
FUNDING IMPLICATIONS
The Remnant Bushland Rehabilitation Improvement Program lists a number of park locations (12) in priority order with estimated costs totalling $597,000, staged over ten years until the years 2008/2009.
The projects are to be listed in the Non-operating Draft Budget each year for Council consideration, commencing with Year 1 in 1999/2000.
Committee Meeting 9 June 1998
During discussion, Members agreed that community participation be arranged if and when required.
58 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
The Administration was requested to check whether the City Beach Primary School application to the National Heritage Trust for funding was successful and if firebreak maintenance is undertaken in bushland areas.
FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 9 June 1998)
Following a request at the Technical Services Committee Meeting on 9 June 1998, the following information is provided:-
• Fire break maintenance is undertaken in bushland areas annually to ensure the safety and health of residents.
• The City Beach Primary School’s application for Natural Heritage Trust funding was not approved initially, and they have resubmitted their application.
They have also submitted an application to the Gordon Reid Foundation for funding assistance and they will also apply for a Coast Care Grant from Coast West.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That:-
(i) the Remnant Bushland Rehabilitation Improvement Program, as attached to a and forming part of this Notice Paper, be approved;
(ii) park locations with estimated costs as listed in each year of the program be listed in the Non-operating Draft Budget of each year for Council consideration;
(iii) the program be updated annually to reflect any completed works, revised priorities and costs;
(iv) Council Policy “Maintenance – Naturally Vegetated Areas of Public Open Space” be amended to include the eight Bushland Management Categories identified in the report;
(v) community participation be arranged if and when required.
Carried
59 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.60
TENDER FOR THE PROVISION OF ROAD TREATMENT SERVICES – TENDER NO. 1-99 (File Reference: TEN0102)
BACKGROUND:
Tenders for the Supply of Pavement Profiling Premixed Asphalt and the Supply and Laying of Hotmixed Asphalt were called by the Town of Cambridge on 9 May 1998 and closed on 25 May 1998. Six tenders were received.
DETAILS:
The scope of work includes; pavement profiling, supply coldmix and hotmix and supply and lay hotmix.
Details for all submissions for Tender No. 1-99 are as follows:
SUPPLY AND LAYING OF HOTMIXED ASPHALT
Quoted on mix type, for example, 7mm size stone (granite), 35 blow equates to the required compaction for the voids/bitumen ratio).
7mm/35blow
SUPPLIER JOB SIZE – TONNE 0-25 26-50 51-100 101- 201- 301- 400+ 200 300 400 PRICES $/ TONNE HOT MIX 129.50 106.90 90.00 85.95 84.95 83.95 83.25 BORAL 140.00 122.00 108.00 103.00 99.00 97.00 96.00 PIONEER 134.00 133.00 118.00 115.00 102.00 94.00 94.00 PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGY CSR 216.00 147.00 117.00 100.00 100.00 99.00 95.00 BGC 165.00 125.00 104.00 98.00 196.00 95.00 94.00
60 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
10mm/35blow
HOT MIX 129.50 106.90 90.90 85.95 84.95 83.95 83.25 BORAL 139.00 121.00 107.00 102.00 98.00 96.00 98.00 PIONEER 132.00 131.00 117.00 114.00 101.00 90.00 90.00 PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGY CSR 215.00 146.00 116.00 98.00 98.00 98.00 94.00 BGC 164.00 124.00 103.00 97.00 95.00 94.00 94.00
10mm/50blow
HOT MIX 129.50 104.90 90.90 85.95 84.95 83.95 83.25 BORAL 138.00 120.00 106.00 101.00 97.00 95.00 94.00 PIONEER 130.00 128.00 115.00 112.00 98.00 90.00 90.00 PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGY CSR 214.00 145.00 114.00 97.00 97.00 96.00 92.00 BGC 164.00 124.00 103.00 97.00 95.00 94.00 94.00
14mm/50blow
HOT MIX 123.50 100.90 85.90 82.95 81.95 80.95 78.95 BORAL 126.00 113.00 99.00 94.00 91.00 89.10 80.00 PIONEER 128.00 126.00 114.00 103.00 94.00 90.00 90.00 PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGY CSR 212.00 142.00 112.00 95.00 95.00 94.00 90.00 BGC 164.00 124.00 102.00 96.00 94.00 93.00 93.00
14mm/75blow
HOT MIX 123.50 100.90 85.90 82.95 81.95 80.95 78.95 BORAL 125.50 112.00 98.00 93.00 90.00 88.00 87.00 PIONEER 126.00 126.00 114.00 108.00 94.00 90.00 90.00 PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGY CSR 210.00 141.00 111.00 93.00 93.00 92.00 89.00 BGC 164.00 124.00 102.00 96.00 94.00 93.00 93.00
61 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
SUPPLY AND LAY RED HOTMIX – FOR ROADS AND PATHS
HOTMIX Red Mix 196.95 176.95 165.95 160.95 159.95 158.95 157.95 CSR Red Mix 250.00 170.00 140.00 130.00 130.00 130.00 125.00 BORAL Red Road Mix 194.00 176.00 162.00 157.00 155.00 153.00 151.00 Red Path Mix 200.00 182.00 168.00 163.00 171.00 159.00 157.00 BGC Red Road Mix 225.00 185.00 160.00 155.00 155.00 154.00 154.00 Red Path Mix 250.00 200.00 195.00 190.00 190.00 190.00 190.00 PIONEER PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGY
SUPPLY OF PREMIXED ASPHALT
PRICES $/ TONNE 7mm Cold mix 10 mm Cold 7mm Hot mix 10mm hot mix mix ex to ex to ex to ex plant to plant depot plant depot plant depot depot HOT MIX 73.00 79.00 73.00 79.00 60.90 74.90 68.90 74.90 BORAL 80.00 85.00 80.00 85.00 75.00 80.00 74.50 79.50 PIONEER 82.00 90.00 80.00 88.00 85.00 93.00 83.00 91.00 PAVEMENT TECHNOLOGY CSR 72.00 79.00 71.00 78.00 BGC 78.00 83.50 78.00 83.50
62 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
SUPPLY HOTMIX ON COUNCIL TRUCKS EX PLANT
7mm 10mm 14mm
PRICES $ / TONNE 35 Blow 35 Blow 50 Blow 35 Blow 75 Blow HOT MIX 68.90 68.90 68.90 63.90 63.90 BORAL 76.50 75.50 74.50 72.00 72.00 PIONEER 84.00 85.00 86.00 83.00 85.00 PAVEMENT 73.00 72.00 72.00 70.00 70.00 TECHNOLOGY CSR 72.00 71.00 71.00 70.00 70.00 BGC 78.00 78.00 78.00 77.00 77.00
PAVEMENT PROFILING
Profiling $/m²/depth mm 25mm 30mm 75mm 100mm 125mm 150mm HOTMIX 1.15 1.23 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 CSR BORAL 1.48 1.59 1.70 1.78 1.97 1.91 BGC PIONEER 1.50 1.61 1.84 2.07 2.30 2.53 PAVEMENT 1.20 1.30 1.50 1.70 1.90 2.00 TECHNOLOGY
Pavement Technology add mobilisation to the above price.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Expenditure with this tender will be charged to the relevant budget allocations.
COMMENTS:
The exact quantities of asphalt to be used during the 1998/99 fiscal year are difficult to estimate. The extent of business in 1997/98 was $150,000.
In assessing the submissions received it can be seen that pricing for the laying of Hotmix Asphalt is competitive, however Hotmix Pty Ltd, our current contractor, is cheaper than the other tenderers. They provide a full range of services including supply, supply and lay, profiling and red hotmix.
63 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That the annual tender, as submitted by Hotmix Pty Ltd, for the supply of premixed asphalt and the supply and laying of hotmixed asphalt in accordance with the specification as detailed in Tender No. 1-99, be accepted for a twelve month period.
Carried
64 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.61
TENDER FOR LAYING BRICKPAVING – TENDER NO. 2-99 (File Reference: TEN0101)
BACKGROUND:
Tenders for Laying Brick Paving were called by the Town of Cambridge on 9 May 1998 and closed on 25 May 1998. Three tenders were received.
DETAILS:
The tenders are for the laying of the sand bed and laying bricks.
Details of all submissions received for Tender No. 2-99 are as follows:
Laying to Cutting Pavers Edge brick Reinstatement Pattern to Match on Mortar Bed Building Utility line Service Outlets $/m² $/m $/m $/m $/m²
Aline Brickpaving 6.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 12.00
Danny 10.50 2.00 2.50 7.00 13.00 Brickpaving
Bluestream 7.50 3.50 4.00 4.00 20.00 Holdings
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Expenditure with this tender will be charged to the relevant budget allocations.
COMMENTS:
The approximate quantities of brick paving are difficult to estimate as it will depend on extent of work approved in the budget. There was no work carried out under this tender in 1997/98.
65 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
In assessing the submissions received, it can be seen that Aline Brickpaving Company is the cheapest. Aline has carried out brickpaving for the Town of Cambridge in 1996/1997. It is on this basis that it is recommended that Council awards the Contract for Brickpaving to Aline Brickpaving
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That the annual tender, as submitted by Aline Brickpaving, for the laying and reinstatement of brick paving general in accordance with the specifications as detailed in Tender 2-99, be accepted for a twelve month period.
Carried
66 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.62
TENDER FOR SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF DRAINAGE AND ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS – TENDER NO. 3-99 (File Reference: TEN0103)
BACKGROUND:
Tenders for the Supply and Delivery of Drainage and Associated Products were called by the Town of Cambridge on 9 May 1998 and closed on 25 May 1998. Four tenders were received.
DETAILS:
Details of all submissions received for Tender No. 3-99 as follows:-
PIPES
Description Cost $/metre Diameter Class Rocla Ingal Civil (mm) Products 225 2 18.92 3 22.44 4 27.73 Slotted 24.63 300 2 27.82 - 3 33.01 33.90 4 41.12 - Slotted 34.42 36.90 375 2 44.66 - 3 53.48 42.90 4 66.10 - Slotted 52.00 46.40 2 63.80 - 450 3 75.80 50.10 4 94.29 - Slotted 71.86 53.60 2 81.26 - 525 3 96.56 64.10 4 120.19 - Slotted 90.07 67.40
67 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
2 99.95 - 600 3 119.50 71.10 4 147.72 - Slotted 109.47 74.60
MANHOLE WELL LINERS
Description Rocla Tyson 1092mm x $/each $/each
310mm long 59.85 -
610mm long 119.70 -
910mm long 179.55 -
1220mm 239.40 - long
GRATED GULLY COVERS
Raised & Flushed Rocla Tyson Add Tech Steel $/each $/each $/each
1050x1050x150mm 220.00 190.00 - 550.00 1200x1200x150mm 236.00 200.00 + Delivery
1350x1200x150mm 252.00 238.00 -
CONCRETE MANHOLE COVERS (Square with Inserts)
Rocla Tyson $/each $/each
1050x1050x150mm 85.00 75.00
1200x1200x150mm 95.00 89.00
1350x1200x150mm 125.00 112.00
68 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
CONCRETE MANHOLE COVERS (with Circular inserts)
Rocla Tyson $/each $/each
1050x1050x150mm 85.00 72.00
1200x1200x150mm 95.00 86.00
1350x1200x150mm - 104.00
GULLY BASES
Rocla Tyson $/each $/each
1050 x 150mm 60.00 52.00 (nom diameter)
1200 x 150mm 70.00 56.00
1300 x 150mm 80.00 63.00
SIDE ENTRY GULLY PITS (Universal Type)
Rocla Tyson $/each $/each
Lid - 129.00
Frame - 89.00
Deflection Slab - 173.00
69 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
SIDE ENTRY GULLY PITS
Rocla Tyson Add Tech $/each $/each Steel $/each
Lid - 535.00 585.00
Frame - 495.00 -
Deflection Slab - - -
BOLT ON STEP IRON Rocla Price Each
400 X 215 $22.00
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Expenditure with this tender will be charged to the relevant budget allocations.
COMMENTS:
In 1997/98 the Council spent $13,400 on drainage pipes and manholes.
The Ingal Civil Products sell corrugated aluminium pipes which have a shorter life than concrete in some soil types and are good value in the larger sizes.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That the annual tender for the supply and delivery of drainage and associated products, as outlined in accordance with the specifications detailed in Tender No 3-99, be accepted as follows for a twelve month period:
• Rocla - Concrete Pipes - Manhole Well liners - Bolt On Step Iron
• Ingal Civil Products - Aluminium Pipes
• Tyson Precast Products - Grated Gully Covers - Concrete Manhole Covers – square - Concrete Manhole Covers – circular inserts
70 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
- Gully Bases - Side Entry Gully Pit (universal type) - Side Entry Gully Pits
Carried
71 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.63
TENDER FOR SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF CONCRETE – TENDER NO. 4-99 (File Reference: TEN0104)
BACKGROUND:
Tenders for the Supply and Delivery of concrete for 1998/99 were called by the Town of Cambridge on 9 May 1998 and closed on 25 May 1998. Four tenders were received.
DETAILS:
In 1997/98 Council bought $23,600 worth of concrete under its tender.
Details of all submitted tenders for Tender No. 4-99 are as follows:
ƒ means greater than or equal to Delivered $/m3 ƒ 3.4m3 Waiting Time 20mpa 20mpa Extra/Over /14 /20 Rapid Hardening Boral Concrete 113.50 113.50 4.00 $0.92/min Maxi Mix Concrete 108.00 108.00 5.00 $0.91/min Pioneer Concrete 107.80 105.00 4.00 $0.94/min after 30 min CSR Readymix 106.00 106.00 4.20 $1.00/min Concrete after 60 min
Boral Concrete
Boral Concrete will charge $113.50 per cubic metre (m3) for loads less than 3.4 m3, independent of the aggregate size. Onto this dollar figure should be added a minimum charge of $21.00 per m3 for every cubic metre less than 3.4 m3.
72 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
CSR Readymix
CSR Readymix will charge $106.00 per cubic metre (m3). For concrete where the load is less than 3.4 m3 an amount will be added to this figure equal to the difference between 3.4 m3 and the quantity delivered by the kilometre distance for cartage. The cost for cartage is $22.00 up to 20 kilometres plus one dollar per cubic metre per kilometre thereafter.
The Readymix Plant is open between 6.30am and 3.00pm, Monday to Friday. Outside these hours there will be an additional charge depending on the time and day of the week. Sundays and public holidays will also attract a flat rate of $250.00 to open the Depot.
Maxi Mix Concrete
This Company will charge between $307.00 for 2.8 m3 of concrete to $110.00 for 0.24 m3 for small loads.
Pioneer Concrete
For a load of less than 3.4 m3 from Pioneer Concrete it is necessary to subtract the amount of concrete to be purchased from 3.4 m3 and the difference is multiplied by the cartage rate of $20.00 per m3.
The opening of the Pioneer Plant after 12.00 noon on Saturday or all any time during the day on Sundays or public holidays will require a plant opening fee of $300.00.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Expenditure with this tender will be charged to the relevant budget allocations.
COMMENTS/SUMMARY:
It is recognised that the Tenders for the Supply of Concrete are very competitive. The management of the concrete projects is essential to ensure that the delivery of the concrete is carried out in normal working hours to obtain the best price. It is considered that this is manageable recognising that the footpath work that Council undertakes can be done in normal time and any footpath work or drainage work requiring out of hours work can be carried out by a contractor under his rates. Alternatively the minor emergency repair work that Council does
73 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
do in an overtime situation would involve on site mixing of concrete. This can be the case in repairing of manholes or manhole lids.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That the tender, as submitted by CSR Readymix for the supply and delivery of concrete, in accordance with the specification, as detailed in Tender No. 4-99, be accepted for a twelve month period.
Carried
74 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.64
TENDER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CAST-IN-SITU CONCRETE FOOTPATHS AND DUAL USE PATHS – TENDER NO. 5-99 (File Reference: TEN0105)
BACKGROUND:
Annual tenders for the construction of cast-in-situ concrete footpaths and dual use paths were called by the Town of Cambridge on 9 May 1998 and closed on 25 May 1998. Five tenders were received.
DETAILS:
The amount value of work in this area in 1997/98 was $123,500.
The details of submissions received for Tender No. 5-99 are as follows:
Cobblestone KF Concrete Alex Concrete Hillmack Hepburn Westside Concrete Path 24.50 26.75 23.00 22.00 20.95 $/m2 Cut Concrete / 5.00 10.00 2.50 8.00 5.00 Bitumen $/m. Salvage Slabs 1.00 2.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 (each) $
Public Liability 5 5 10 5 5 Insurance $ million million million million million
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Expenditure with this tender would be charged to the relevant budget allocations.
COMMENTS:
This work is competitively tendered and closely specified. There are three contractors who would all do the work at a very similar low price. The public liability insurance of $5 million or $10 million does not adversely influence the
75 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
schedule rate. It is recommended that the lowest tender from Westside Contractors be accepted.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That the annual tender as submitted by Westside Concrete Contractors Pty Ltd for the construction of cast-in-situ concrete footpaths and dual use paths in accordance with the specifications as detailed in Tender No. 5-99, be accepted for a twelve month period.
Carried
76 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.65
TENDER FOR THE HIRE OF TRUCKS – TENDER NO. 6-99 (File Reference: TEN0106)
BACKGROUND:
Tenders for the Hire of Trucks were by the Town of Cambridge on 9 May 1998 and closed on 25 May 1998. Eight tenders were received.
DETAILS:
The value of this tender in 1997/98 was $19,500.
Details for the submissions received for Tender No. 6-99 are listed as follows:
Single 6 Wheel 8 Wheel Semi Public Axle Tipper Tipper Tipper Liability $/hour $/hour $/hour $/hour Insurance $ __ M JE McNamara - 45.00 - - 10
R Callamo - - - 70.00 10
J Cooke - - 49.00 - 5
Kwinana Hire 42.00 47.00 53.00 75.00 10
Executive Plant 43.00 48.00 54.00 76.00 10 Hire
Mayday 43.00 46.00 52.00 75.00 10 Earthmoving
S Joynson - 55.00 - - 10
Dalco Earthmoving 43.00 48.00 57.00 75.00 10 (4)
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Expenditure with this tender will be charged to the relevant budget allocations.
77 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
COMMENTS:
Council owns one single axle tippers and from time to time depending on the nature and scope of a project or projects there is a need to hire trucks. Generally either single axle tippers, six wheel tippers and on occasions eight wheel tippers may be required sometimes at short notice.
As all the costs submitted are similar and due to the often limited availability of trucks when required, it is recommended that the Council accepts all tenders as submitted for the Hire of Trucks.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That all annual tenders as submitted for the Hire of Trucks, with first preference given to the lowest hourly hire rate in each respective class of truck depending on availability when required, in accordance with the Tender No. 6-99, be accepted for a twelve month period.
Carried
78 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
TS98.66
TENDER FOR THE SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF SPRINKLERS, UPVC PRESSURE PIPES AND VARIOUS ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT – TENDER NO. 7-99 (File Reference: TEN0107)
BACKGROUND:
Tenders for the supply and delivery of sprinklers, UPVC pressure pipes and various ancillary equipment (Tender No. 7-99) were called and closed on 25 May 1998.
The current tender for the supply of the above goods expires on 30 June 1998.
This tender allows for the Parks and Landscape business to purchase irrigation parts from a single supplier as required in order to maintain its irrigation systems.
DETAILS:
Four submissions were received from the following suppliers:
• Hugall & Hoile • Elliotts Irrigation • Total Eden • Quinti & Co.
All submissions received conformed to the tender requirements with prices submitted being on a schedule of rates. The term of the tender is to commence on 1 July 1998 and expire on 30 June 1999.
Tenders were assessed against the following criteria:
• Organisational profile. • Value for money. • Ability to meet time frame. • Credentials of key personnel.
To enable the assessment of criteria, “Value for money”, the suppliers schedule of rates were applied to a range of commonly used items as follows:-
79 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
Item Hugall & Total Eden Elliotts Quinti & Hoile $ Irrigation Co $ $ $ 100 DV 25mm Solenoid Valves 14.98 17.85 17.80 15.00 R50 Sprinkler 17.99 21.00 20.95 20.00 20mm Articulated Riser 2.14 2.16 2.29 2.60 1419 Hit Valve Box 18.63 18.60 18.55 24.50 20mm Pressure Pipe 3.30 5.95 3.20 3.56 ESP Rainbird 12 Station Controller 303.45 395.58 303.00 418.00
TOTAL 360.49 461.14 365.79 483.66
Overall Hugall and Hoile have tendered the lowest rates on the majority of items. They have had the contract for the past two years for the supply of reticulation parts and have performed at a satisfactory level.
FUNDING IMPLICATIONS:
The total expenditure is anticipated to be approximately $90,000 per annum. This is based on expenditure in the last twelve months. This level of expenditure is budgeted within the adopted Council Budget.
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr O’Connor
That the most suitable tender, being that submitted by Hugall and Hoile for the supply and delivery of sprinklers, UPVC pressure pipes and various ancillary equipment, as detailed in Tender 7-99, be accepted for a twelve month period.
Carried
80 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
The following information was submitted to the Technical Services Committee meeting held on 9 June 1998 and is provided for Council’s information.
8. COUNCIL ISSUES/INFORMATION UPDATE
The information sheet detailing progress on issues related to the Technical Services Committee was circulated for the information of Members.
9. REPORTS FROM DELEGATES: COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS
9.1 Local Emergency Management Advisory Committee.
Cr McConnell reported that the next meeting will be held on Thursday 2 July 1998.
9.2 Lake Monger Redevelopment Working Group.
Nothing further to report since last month.
9.3 Mindarie Regional Council.
Cr McConnell reported that the next meeting will be held on Thursday 2 July 1998.
10. GENERAL BUSINESS
10.1 Swans at Lake Monger Drive
Councillor McConnell requested that consideration be given to preventative measures required to prevent swans being injured by vehicles on Lake Monger Drive.
10.2 Parking Study in West Leederville
The Administration was requested to submit a progress report on the parking study in West Leederville to the next meeting of the Technical Services Committee to be held on Tuesday 14 July 1998.
81 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR……………………………………………..
11. 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 8.07pm.
82 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CORPORATE AND CUSTOMER SERVICES
The report of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee meeting held on 15 June 1998 was submitted as under:-
1. ATTENDANCE
Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving
Members:
Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.00pm 9.10pm
Deputy Mayor, Cr Kerry Smith 6.00pm 9.10pm Cr David Berry 6.00pm 6.57pm Cr Graham Burkett (Deputy) 6.01pm 8.03pm 8.06pm 9.10pm Cr Ian Steele 6.00pm 9.10pm
Observers:
Nil
Officers:
Graham Partridge, Chief Executive Officer Jason Buckley, Executive Manager Corporate and Customer Services Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance and Business Services Carol Phillips, Manager Community Development Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Committees)
Also:
Ian Ashton and Fiona Symmonds, Starlight Theatre Lighting Salli Higham, Youth Development Officer
Adjournments: Nil
Time meeting closed: 9.10pm
70 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
2. APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE
His Worship the Mayor
3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Resolved that the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee held on 18 May 1998 and contained in the May 1998 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.
4. QUESTION TIME
Nil
5. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS
Mr Denis McLeod attended the Committee meeting and addressed Members in relation to Ocean Gardens Retirement Village.
6. DECLARATIONS OF MEMBERS INTERESTS
Nil
7. REPORTS
Council Meeting 23 June 1998
At 5.55pm, His Worship the Mayor vacated the chair and left the meeting to attend to a commitment with the BBC in London relating to an interview for the solo flight of Barry Markham. The Deputy Mayor, Cr Kerry Smith, then took the chair as Presiding Member.
71 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.63
ACCOUNTS FOR PAYMENT (File Reference: FIN0049)
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That in accordance with Regulation 13(2) 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:-
Municipal Details Amount
400590 Investment National Bank $200,000.00 400591 Investment Commonwealth Bank $200,000.00 400592 Investment Home Building Society $200,000.00 400593 Investment Challenge Bank $200,000.00 400594 Investment Bankwest $200,000.00 400595 Investment National Bank $200,000.00 400596 Recoup Advance Account V12690-V12769 $162,168.49 400597 Recoup Advance Account V12770 –V12812 $160,652.95 400598 Investment Bankwest $1,265.00 400599 Recoup Advance Account Wages Transfer (22/5/98) $111,558.30 400600 Recoup Advance Account V12813 – V12871 $196,450.72 400601 Recoup Advance Account V12872 – V12895 $97,909.10 400602 Recoup Advance Account V12896 – V13117 $264,035.63 $2,194,040.19
Carried
72 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.64
INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS AT 31 MAY 1998 (File Reference: FIN0038)
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is 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).
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.
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.
DETAILS:
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 % 1997/98 31 May 1998 General $220,000 $177,506 81% Reserves $156,100 $151,924 97% Endowment Lands $29,000 $106,042 366% TOTAL $405,100 $435,472 107%
73 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That the Investment Schedule as at 31 May 1998, as attached to and forming part of the Notice Paper, be received.
Carried
74 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.65
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31 MAY 1998 (File Reference: FIN0026)
BACKGROUND:
The Committee and Management Financial Statements for the period ended 31 May 1998 (as circulated with the notice paper) have now been produced.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Nil
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That both the Committee and Management Financial Statements for the period ended 31 May 1998 be received.
Carried
75 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.66
DOCUMENTS SEALED (File Reference: ADM0039)
BACKGROUND:
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.
28 May 1998 Town of Cambridge (Lessor) and Minister for 2 originals Education (Lessee) – Lease – Wembley Pre- Primary School
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
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 this Notice Paper.
Carried
76 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.67
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROPOSAL (File Reference: CM0068)
BACKGROUND:
Council at its meeting held 26 May 1998 considered the formation of a Youth Advisory Council and resolved as follows:
That:
(i) the Council supports, in principle, the concept of a youth advisory group in the Town of Cambridge; (ii) a report be submitted to the Corporate and Customer Services Committee outlining the process for convening a public meeting of youth; (iii) the report is also to provide details of funding options.
This report will:
1. address the issues of consultation with young people, including the methods and processes already implemented;
2. outline details of funding options currently available for young people and youth projects.
DETAILS:
At the last committee meeting, a proposal was put forward for the development of an ongoing system for youth consultation. This proposal used the model of a Youth Advisory Council as outlined by the Office of Youth Affairs.
The Office of Youth Affairs requires, from a participating local government, a description of the model for any proposed Youth Advisory Council, detailing both structure and function. The model suggested by the Administration retains the flexibility to allow young people to shape it to their needs and preferences, and ensures that it responds, in the first instance, to young people and their local environment. The model is open enough to allow for temporary involvement and project/issue-based participation.
77 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
1. Consultation
There are many ways to encourage youth input and Council is not bound to the Youth Advisory Council model. There are however some benefits to Council in participating in the Office of Youth Affairs’ Youth Advisory Council program, primarily related to funding applications. If it is decided to use a different structure, a budget allocation will be necessary to support the project and there may be a reduced capacity to access Office of Youth Affairs funding grants.
The Youth Development Officer has been employed now for two months and considerable groundwork has been laid for the development of consultative links with young people. These include:
• Development of networks with all local High Schools via Youth Education Officers, Chaplains and other student support team members, including discussion in relation to promoting and attracting young people to a youth committee;
• Participation in regional and broader youth services networks;
• Contact with existing local youth services;
• Participation in the work of the Project Team for the Community Needs Study to ensure that appropriate input from young people is included;
• Liaison with Youth Officers from bordering local governments including Subiaco, Nedlands, Stirling and Vincent, with a view to developing a co- ordinated regional response to young people;
• Discussion with Perth Inner City Youth Service (PICYS) to ensure that non- mainstream young people have the opportunity to participate;
• Emerging contact with young people through PICYS.
The participation of young people in all aspects of youth service development, from policy to projects, is important. It is recognised however that the representative participation of young people in any form of committee, forum or public meeting is difficult to achieve. Those who will attend, participate and put effort into initiatives are always likely to be the more motivated, articulate and confident individuals. The existence of a Council’s Youth Development Officer is gaining some visibility within the community and it is anticipated that future activities will raise that profile with young people, with a view to making participation more accessible and attractive.
78 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
The following is an outline of youth consultation currently being undertaken to date:-
• Liaison with schools and youth services to promote participation;
• Liaison with PICYS to link young people into the Community Needs Study;
• Liaison with the Office of Youth Affairs to develop a model for a youth committee which fairly serves the needs of young people, the Town of Cambridge and the Office of Youth Affairs;
• Contact with local media, youth services and schools for interested young people to meet to discuss setting up a youth committee;
• A meeting for young people organised for 30 June 1998 at the Joan Watters Community Centre. Extensive advertising of this meeting has been done and fliers and posters have been produced and distributed. Invitation to young people has been extended on the basis of working together with the Youth Development Officer to make Cambridge a “Youth-friendly Town”.
The Administration believes the consultation mechanisms either currently in place, or developing, will successfully achieve a level of contribution towards the establishment (or otherwise) of a Youth Advisory Committee.
It is believed that the holding of a youth forum at this stage would be premature, as it would be difficult to attract participants. Young people are generally unaware of local government and have few expectations that Councils can, or will provide for them. It is suggested that a youth-directed forum be planned for the future. The Youth Development Officer is developing a profile in the community and working to make Council more visible and accessible to young people.
Based upon consultations with youth workers within the Town, as well as young people themselves, Administration prior to last month’s meeting held discussions with officers of the Office of Youth Affairs to modify the Memorandum of Understanding associated with a Youth Advisory Committee more flexible so as to allow for continuing input or changing participation as the group developed.
In view of the consultative mechanisms already in process, the following strategy is recommended:-
1. Wide promotion be given to the accessibility of the Town’s Youth Development Officer, the Town’s desire for young people to be involved in the community and decisions that will affect them, and the intent of a Youth Advisory Committee. 79 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
2. The Youth Development Officer hold the initial meeting, as scheduled for 30 June 1998 at the Joan Watters Community Centre.
3. Dependent upon the response to this meeting, a series of similar (or modified) format small group meetings be held, at different locations throughout the Town.
4. At these meetings the opinions of participants be sought about the level of input and/or participation young people would wish from a Youth Advisory Committee.
5. The meetings be kept informal, friendly, responsive to the level of enthusiasm shown and seek to set the framework for ongoing participation in any event.
6. Consultation continue with professionals working with young people to gauge their support for and involvement with a Youth Advisory Committee.
Funding Options
Unfortunately, there are few options for funding of local youth services in an ongoing capacity. There are no specific grants available for the support of youth advisory groups outside of the Office of Youth Affairs Youth Advisory Council Program, which offers reimbursement for support costs including catering, training, youth leadership development and some clerical/administrative costs.
There are a range of small grants suitable for specific activities undertaken by a youth advisory group, including holiday recreation, arts and cultural events, needs analysis projects, recreational space and equipment projects and youth leadership training. A youth advisory group could probably successfully apply for funds to run small projects and to develop their own skills as a team. The Administration was unable to locate any likely funding sources to support the ongoing needs of a youth advisory group other than the program offered by the Office of Youth Affairs.
Many youth service grants primarily target “areas of high need”. Although some areas within the Town can show a clear and documented need, relatively high socio-economic status and small population means that the area, in regional or state-wide terms, is generally regarded as low-need and hence low priority. This perception will affect the Town’s ability to access funding. Small, one-off grants for activities, arts and cultural projects, youth leadership training, youth events or holiday activities may be more accessible.
80 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
A description of the funding programs that can be accessed for youth programs/projects are:
• Office of Youth Affairs
Funding is available for ongoing support to Youth Advisory Councils. Sponsors (ie local government) may seek reimbursement for the costs of catering, training, advertising etc. Councils are expected to provide administrative and clerical support. Small one-off grants are available to support youth initiatives such as entertainment, special events, recreation equipment, consultation and needs surveys, youth leadership training etc. These grants are available to non-YAC participants, but proposals from YACs are given priority. Applications for other government funding programs are also given priority and often ‘fast tracked’ if a submission has come through a YAC.
• Lotteries Commission
The Lotteries Commission provide a range of small one-off grants (mostly under $5000) for a range of purposes including:
• Research – feasibility/needs studies;
• Community Cultural programs – equipment and minor capital works in arts, media, culture
• Australia Council
Small one-off grants are available for cultural development and activities such as:-
• Youth arts – could be used for public youth arts, park redevelopment, arts competitions and festivals, development of youth spaces;
• Music – may be appropriate to youth music festivals, workshops etc;
• Literature – could be accessed for literature/media competitions, youth newsletters or media, youth net pages etc.
• Gordon Reid Foundation
This foundation supports “Innovative programs which address youth issues and have an holistic approach”. It is an appropriate source of funds for development of youth spaces, youth services and centres and outreach programs (not youth advisory groups). The level of financial support is ‘open’ and can be significant.
81 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
• Healthways
A source of small grants for activities and one-off projects. May be appropriate for youth leadership training. Projects should demonstrate a commitment to health and healthy activities which can include sporting events (surfing and skateboard events could be eligible), preventative work with substance contemplators and users, cultural activities such as urban arts/theatre, holiday events and programs.
• Family and Children’s Services
Grants of up to $2000 per holiday period are available for holiday activities targeting young people aged 12 – 18 years, and to run after-school programs for young people of high school age. Programs should enhance young people’s self- esteem and personal development. Some programs prioritise areas of “particular identified need”, but may be accessible to support a drop-in facility.
There are some other small foundations and agencies that might consider one- off grants, including:
• Ian Potter and George Alexander Foundation (small grants available for arts and cultural projects);
• United Way (small grants of less than $5000 for community health and welfare);
• Myer Foundation (support for youth services but limited funds available to WA);
• Festivals Australia (possible funding to run a youth or cultural festival).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
• Consultation Policy
As a customer-oriented local government, the Town recognises the right of the residents to contribute to the decision-making process through genuine and mutual consultation. With this basic philosophy in mind, the Administration is currently developing a community consultation policy that will delineate when consultation is necessary and the level of response required. Young people are not easy to consult with using the methods most often employed with adults, and many do not have voting rights. It is appropriate therefore that Council
82 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
consider its consultation process with young people in the town. Youth advisory groups can assist in accurate assessment of the needs and preferences of young people.
• Youth Policy
A Youth Policy is currently being developed for the Town. Ideally, such a policy should be developed with the input of young people. This could be an important contribution of a youth advisory group.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no direct financial implications associated with the establishment and operation of a Youth Advisory Council as the costs are funded by the Office of Youth Affairs.
Should Council decide not to establish a YAC as defined by the Office of Youth Affairs, a budget of approximately $3,000 will be required to support the development of a youth advisory group. This non-aligned budget would cover training for participants, consumables, travel allowances and a small amount of extra stationery.
STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS:
The proposed establishment of a youth advisory group supports Council’s Statement of Belief “that the interests of our ratepayers, residents, visitors and users of our town are paramount”.
The project is in line with Community Development Strategic Goals, namely
• To create a sense of community within the Town. Strategy: Engage appropriate consultative mechanisms in regard to changes and developments within the Town
• To promote communication with the people of the Town of Cambridge and the wider community and encourage their participation in council activities. Strategy: Use a wide variety of methods of communication appropriate to the tasks involved
83 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
SUMMARY:
Council has recently appointed a Youth Development Officer to formulate a strategic approach to youth issues in the Town. Part of that strategy is the development of a youth policy and the identification of local youth needs and issues. In line with the Council’s commitment to a consultative approach, the Administration believes it is appropriate that a youth reference group (Youth Advisory Committee) be established to:
• Establish a line of communication between young people and government;
• Provide Council with a youth perspective in matters impacting on the quality of life for young people in the Town.
A range of strategies have already been put in place to develop a positive, youth- friendly profile for the Town and to attract young people to working with the Administration on youth-oriented projects and issues. Potential funding sources for youth projects have been identified and listed in this report. Although such sources are limited they are accessible for small projects and events developed by young people for young people. The only direct source of funding for support of a youth advisory group is through the Office of Youth Affairs Youth Advisory Council program, although some other funding could be accessed for youth leadership training. The Council will need to consider allocating a specific budget to support a non-aligned youth advisory group.
It is therefore recommended that the Administration proceeds to establish a youth advisory group in accordance with the framework established by the Office of Youth Affairs, and the strategies outlined in the report.
Committee Meeting 15 June 1998
During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the formation of a youth advisory group as outlined by the Office of Youth Affairs.
It was agreed that the Administration proceed to establish a youth advisory group in accordance with the framework, as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding, and in conjunction with the Office of Youth Affairs. It was considered that this would provide the framework as to how the Youth Advisory Group would function and allow input from youth in this regard.
84 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That the Administration proceeds to establish a youth advisory group in accordance with the framework, as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding, and in conjunction with the Office of Youth Affairs and the strategies outlined in the report.
During discussion, Cr Smith said that the Memorandum of Understanding should be consistent in its terminology relating to the youth group. Members agreed that “youth advisory group” is the preferred title.
Amendment 1
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Berry
That the motion be amended by the addition of a further clause as follows:-
(ii) the terminology in the Memorandum of Understanding be amended to reflect the Council’s preference for the name “youth advisory group”.
Amendment carried
Discussion ensued. Cr Berry said that the Memorandum of Understanding had not yet received the Council’s endorsement. It was noted that the Memorandum of Understanding would be referred to Council for adoption.
Amendment 2
That Clauses (i) and (ii) of the motion be amended by inserting the word ‘draft’ before the words “Memorandum of Understanding”.
Amendment 2 carried
The amended motion was then put and carried.
The motion, as carried, is as follows:-
That:-
(i) the Administration proceeds to establish a youth advisory group in accordance with the framework, as outlined in the draft Memorandum of
85 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Understanding, and in conjunction with the Office of Youth Affairs and the strategies outlined in the report;
(ii) the terminology in the draft Memorandum of Understanding be amended to reflect the Council’s preference for the name “youth advisory group”.
86 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.68
QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE – TICKETING AND BOX OFFICE SYSTEM (File Reference: CMS0028 )
BACKGROUND:
Council at its meeting held 28 April 1998 resolved as follows:
That:
(i) the report relating to the Quarry Amphitheatre - Ticketing and Box Office System be received;
(ii) endorsement be given to adopting BOCS as the primary Ticketing System for the Quarry Amphitheatre;
(iii) an amount of $5,000 be included in the 1998/99 budget for the purchase of the hardware and software licenses associated with the Box Office and Ticketing system, subject to the confirmation of these costs by Administration, and the decision of Council on its preferred option for the provision of ticketing services;
(iv) the Administration give further consideration to, and a report be submitted to the June 1998 Corporate and Customer Services Meeting with a recommendation for a preferred option, and on any variations required for the Management Contract with Starlight Theatre Lighting as a consequence of the installation of the Box Office and Ticketing System;
(v) subject to the endorsement of Clause (ii) the Performance Hire Agreement be fully reviewed and encompass explanation of the Ticketing System options for Hirers, including special and community events, and presented for the consideration of the June 1998 Corporate and Customer Services Meeting.
This report will:
1. Outline the options available to Council for the provision of Ticketing and Box Office services.
2. Discuss the financial impacts.
3. Consider variations to the Management Contract with Starlight Theatre Lighting (STL).
87 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
The review of the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Hire in accordance with Clause (v) of the above resolution will be presented as a separate report.
DETAILS:
Council has endorsed BOCS as the primary Ticketing and Box Office System for the Quarry Amphitheatre. This decision was supported by the following advantages:
• BOCS is the major Arts and Cultural entertainment ticketing and box office system throughout the metropolitan area;
• BOCS is accepted by the ‘arts clientele’, and its systems are well known;
• BOCS as the primary ticketing and box office system of the Perth Theatre Trust’s group of theatres, is generally accepted by the wider community as the system used for performances at the Quarry Amphitheatre;
• BOCS’ networked system gives greater accessibility for patrons throughout the metropolitan area;
• BOCS allows some scope for the determination of discounted handling fees for residents of the Town.
In the report to the April 1988 Council meeting (CCS98.41) two different ways of implementing a ticketing relationship with BOCS were discussed. These were by:-
• the Town purchasing the equipment necessary, and providing an outlet at the Quarry Amphitheatre, or alternatively;
• the Town requiring STL to purchase the equipment and provide the service.
The above alternatives are based around a BOCS outlet being established on site.
• A third alternative exists whereby no ticketing and box office outlet is provided at the venue, but rather, patrons purchase tickets from one of the other established ticketing and box office outlets throughout the metropolitan area, or by telephoning BOCS main computer room.
88 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
1. Options available for Ticketing and Box Office services
Option 1 - That the Town establishes and provides the Ticketing and Box Office service
This would involve the purchase of hardware, and the purchase of software licenses. A recurrent operational allocation would be required for maintenance contracts and software upgrades. The outlet would be available to the community, on the basis of the current Management Contract, for 18 hours per week. Additional staff could, if the Town considered appropriate, be engaged to extend these hours. Alternatively agreement could be reached with STL, under the terms of the current Management Contract, to apply a greater weighting to the hours of staff service provision for the summer months, with less hours of service being provided for the lower usage winter months. Decisions of this nature would best be made once the patterns of use and satisfaction levels of patrons were monitored and evaluated. Other key points in this option would be:
• In addition to the hours outlined, the Box Office would be open prior to performances for purchase, exchange, collection of and/or notification of lost tickets.
• Tickets would be available to be collected, which negates the cost of a Handling Fee. (This would provide a valuable and cost saving service to patrons. The inability to collect tickets from the venue has been a criticism during the past performance season).
• The BOCS phone room is open from 8.30am until 8.00pm Monday to Saturday to complement the on-site service.
• Whilst BOCS has requested that Handling Fees be kept consistent (currently $6.00 for tickets to be mailed), it is possible for discounts to be given if determined by the Town, (ie Town of Cambridge residents).
• 30% of the Booking Fee (fee currently $2.00 per seat, ie 60c) is returned to the Town.
• The entire Handling Fee is returned to the Town for tickets administered and mailed out through the Quarry Amphitheatre outlet.
The major focus for the Town in establishing and providing this service is to deliver a better service to patrons who attend the Quarry Amphitheatre by raising the professionalism, customer service and accountability of the venue.
The benefits to patrons in this option would be:
89 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
• An on-site outlet where bookings may be made and personal service given to patrons.
• A local collection point for tickets, thus ensuring the handling fee of $6.00 per transaction is not levied.
• An on-site outlet where ownership in lost/stolen tickets may be validated and honoured.
• An on-site outlet for Council where bookings can be made, and tickets collected, for performances at other venues throughout the metropolitan area. The Council would receive revenue from commission on these ticket sales.
• The potential for discounted handling fees for residents of the Town who choose to have their reservations administered by mail.
The benefits to the Quarry Amphitheatre in this option would be:
• The profile and credibility of the venue would be raised as an accountable and technology-based performance venue.
• Immediate information and data would be available to assist with the marketing of the venue, (ie promotion for low booking performances).
• Ability to monitor the satisfaction levels of patrons who attend the Quarry Amphitheatre through survey.
• The Quarry Amphitheatre would be linked to other major performance venues and benefit from metropolitan wide publicity.
• Partnerships could more readily be developed with other major performance venues because of similar ticketing and box office arrangements.
The benefits to the Town in this option would be:
• A significant income stream may be generated from the commissions gained by an on-site outlet to assist with the reduction of the operational subsidy.
• An important objective of the Strategic Plan would be met by achieving best practice in ticketing and box office services for patrons.
• Continuity would be maintained with the Town purchasing the equipment and overseeing the management of the service.
• Certainty would be achieved with prompt payment of accounts and settlement of outstanding commissions. 90 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Option 2 - That Starlight Theatre Lighting establishes and provides the Ticketing and Box Office service
In April 1998, in response to the consideration of the report presented to the March and April 1998 meetings of Council, the Manager of STL wrote to Council and formally proposed as follows:
“I am writing to propose that Starlight Theatre Lighting establish, staff and operate the BOCS outlet at the Quarry Amphitheatre.
The BOCS system is available by phone from 8.30am until 8.00pm from Monday to Saturday. In addition, the Box Office at the venue would be available during the standard office hours as well from at least 30 minutes before any performances.
It is proposed that hirers would pay the standard BOCS booking fees, with 15% of this being returned to the Town of Cambridge as a commission. In addition, the normal BOCS ticketing handling fee of $6.00 will be reduced to $2.00 for Town of Cambridge ratepayers.
Starlight Theatre Lighting will pay the Town of Cambridge $2.00 of the handling fee, as a commission as well as offsetting the cost of postage where tickets are sent out via the Town of Cambridge mail system.
In the event that Starlight Theatre Lighting relinquishes the management contract, I undertake to sell the hardware to the Town at cost, less standard depreciation.
I believe that having the Box Office operated by Starlight Theatre Lighting will provide additional flexibility should, for example, the Box Office outlet become a major component of the operation. In this situation it is likely that the operation would impact on the Manager’s ability to complete normal administrative tasks. As a component of the Starlight Theatre Lighting core business, it would be a relatively easy matter to arrange additional labour to cover peak times, etc. where as within the Town’s structure, this becomes a matter for the line management of the day.
I trust this is satisfactory to the Council and look forward to your early advice.”
A precis of the key points in this option are as follows:
91 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
• STL would operate the Ticketing and Box Office service during normal office hours and 30 minutes prior to the commencement of performances.
• STL would offer discounted handling fees for Town of Cambridge residents if this service was determined by Council.
• STL would pay 50% of the booking fee (ie 30c) received from BOCS to the Town.
• STL would pay $2.00 of the handling fee to the Town by way of commission
• STL would offset the expenses incurred for stationery and postage where tickets are sent through the Town’s mail system.
• In the event the Management Contract is relinquished by STL an undertaking is given that STL will sell the plant and equipment associated with the Ticketing and Box Office system to the Town, at cost, less standard depreciation.
• In the event that the service expands to the point that the Ticketing and Box Office activity compromises the normal management functions of the venue, STL will provide labour at its own cost to address the problem.
The major focus for the Town to deliver a better service to patrons of the Quarry Amphitheatre by raising the professionalism, customer service and accountability of the venue could also be fulfilled by this option.
The benefits to patrons in this option would be:
• An on-site outlet where bookings may be made and personal service given to both hirers and patrons.
• A local collection point for tickets, thus ensuring the handling fee of $6.00 per transaction is not levied.
• An on-site outlet where ownership in lost/stolen tickets may be validated and honoured.
• An on-site outlet where bookings can be made, and tickets collected, for performances at other venues throughout the metropolitan area.
• The potential for discounted handling fees for residents of the Town who choose to have their reservations administered by mail.
The benefits to the Quarry Amphitheatre in this option would be:
92 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
• The profile and credibility of the venue would be raised as an accountable and technology-based performance venue.
• Immediate information and data would be available to assist with the marketing of the venue, including the ability to monitor the satisfaction levels of patrons who attend the Quarry Amphitheatre.
• Ability to monitor the satisfaction levels of patrons who attend the Quarry Amphitheatre through survey.
• The Quarry Amphitheatre would be linked to other major performance venues and benefit from metropolitan wide publicity.
• Partnerships could more readily be developed with other major performance venues because of similar ticketing and box office arrangements.
The benefits to the Town in this option would be:
• An income stream, but somewhat reduced from option 1 may be generated from the on-site outlet to assist with the reduction of the operational subsidy.
• There would be no outlay for the purchase of equipment or software licenses
• An objective of the Strategic Plan would be met by achieving best practice in ticketing and box office services for patrons.
• Certainty would be achieved with prompt payment of accounts and settlement of outstanding commissions.
Option 3 - That BOCS provide the primary ticketing and box office service for the Quarry Amphitheatre, but no outlet be established on-site
The major focus for the Town to deliver a better service to patrons of the Quarry Amphitheatre by raising the professionalism, customer service and accountability of the venue would only be partially fulfilled by this option. The benefits for patrons, as outlined in options 1 and 2, are substantially reduced – most notably a local on-site outlet where tickets may be booked, collected, validated and honoured if lost/stolen. This option also removes the potential for personalised service.
The benefits to the patrons in this option would be:
• BOCS telephone room is open 8.30am to 8.00pm Monday to Saturday to facilitate the booking of tickets. 93 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
The benefits to the Quarry Amphitheatre in this option would be:
• The profile and credibility of the venue would be raised with access for hirers to a networked ticketing and box office system. • Data would be available, upon request, to assist with the marketing of the venue. • The Quarry Amphitheatre would be linked to other major performance venues, providing potential for partnerships to be developed.
The benefits to the Town in this option would be:
• There would be no outlay for the purchase of equipment and software licenses.
• Certainty would be achieved with prompt payment of accounts and settlement of outstanding commissions.
2. Financial Impact
Option 1 - That the Town establishes and provides the Ticketing and Box Office service
Expenditure Costs provided to the April 1998 Council meeting have been confirmed as follows:
BOCA Printer $2,300 Software License $1,500 Installation Per hour $60 (1 hour unless difficult site) Phone line installation $180 Annual call cost (25c per day x 25 days) $63 Modem and cabling $400 TOTAL $4,503
In addition to this, would be costs for the stationery on which to print tickets and the initial training of staff. These costs are $400 per 10,000 for ticket stock and initial staff training at $300 per person.
94 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Revenue Income generation for the first season may be demonstrated by the following scenario:
• Booking Fee Commission ‘Assuming a 16 week Main Auditorium season (November to February, inclusive) with three shows each week, each running at 50% attendance (ie 48 performances x 320 tickets sold x 60c booking fee) = $9,216.
• Handling Fee Commission Added to this would be a proportion of the income generated through handling fees (ie assume 10%, 48 performances x 32 transactions x $3.00 net) = $4,600.
• Net Gain This would net $12,313 each year, (ie $13,816 minus depreciation of $1,503 per annum for equipment).
In future seasons this could be greater, and particularly so if the marketing and promotional strategies undertaken achieved greater utilisation of the venue than attendances in the example given.
For comparative purposes, 63 performances for which tickets were sold were programmed and presented during the 1997/98-summer season. Given that no marketing or ongoing promotion was undertaken by Quarry Amphitheatre management, the scenario used to demonstrate revenue potential should be considered conservative.
Option 2 - That Starlight Theatre Lighting establishes and provides the Ticketing and Box Office service
Expenditure There will be no financial outlay for the purchase or installation of the equipment for the Town.
If however, STL relinquished the management of the Quarry Amphitheatre, their letter of proposal offers to sell the equipment at cost, less standard depreciation. Administration has confirmed that this offer also applies in the event that Council determines not to extend STL’s Contract of Management at the end of the current term, in accordance with the terms of the Contract.
95 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Revenue Using the same scenario as in Option 1, and applying the conditions offered in STL’s letter of proposal, the income generation potential is as follows:
• Booking Fee Commission ‘Assuming a 16 week Main Auditorium season (November to February, inclusive) with three shows each week, each running at 50% attendance (ie 48 performances x 320 tickets sold x 30c booking fee) = $4,608.
• Handling Fee Commission Added to this would be a proportion of the income generated through handling fees (ie assume 10%, 48 performances x 32 transactions x $2.00 net) = $3,072. • Net Gain This would generate a total of $7,680 for the season’.
The same conservative position as taken in Option 1 as to potential for income generation should also be taken with this option.
Option 3 - That BOCS provide the primary ticketing and box office service for the Quarry Amphitheatre, but no outlet be established on-site
Expenditure There will be no financial outlay in this option.
Revenue Using the same scenario as in Options 1 and 2, the income generation potential is as follows:
Booking Fee Commission ‘Assuming a 16 week Main Auditorium season (November to February, inclusive) with three shows each week, each running at 50% attendance (ie 48 performances x 320 tickets sold x 60c booking fee) = $9,216.
Handling Fee Commission No income would be derived from handling fees.
• Net Gain A total of $9,216, by way of booking fee commission would be generated for the season’.
96 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
3. Variations to Management Contract with STL
Dependent upon the choice of option for providing ticketing and box office services the Town’s legal representatives have advised that an addendum to the Management Contract with STL should be prepared to cover the operation and staffing of the system. This may best be achieved through a separate, small agreement.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Nil
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Dependent upon Council’s choice of option, variations will be required to be made to the draft 1998/99 Budget currently under consideration by Council. An allocation of $5,000 has been set aside for the purchase and installation of equipment, subject to the confirmation of Council’s choice of option. Revenue line items would require adjustment.
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:
The Town’s Strategic Plan and the Strategic Plan for the Quarry Amphitheatre both express a desire to facilitate the delivery of services which fosters a quality lifestyle and promotes richness in culture.
The Objectives of the Quarry Amphitheatre Strategic Plan are:
• To provide a diversity of quality and affordable entertainment for residents and visitors to the Town.
• To encourage and promote cultural appreciation.
• To encourage local performing arts groups to participate in events at the Quarry Amphitheatre.
• To achieve best practice in the planning and management of the venue.
• To meet the community’s expectations of the Quarry Amphitheatre.
The provision of ticketing and box office services would assist in achieving these objectives.
97 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
SUMMARY:
The Quarry Amphitheatre is the Town’s major cultural facility and the vision, mission and objectives of the facility all express the importance of linkages with the local, national and international arts and cultural entertainment industry.
The key focus in establishing and providing a ticketing and box office service is to deliver a better service to patrons attending the Quarry Amphitheatre by raising the professionalism, customer service and accountability of the venue.
• Option 1 firmly places the Council in control of the provision of a Ticketing and Box Office service, along with the supplementary services and conveniences that it offers for customers. It also signals a long term commitment to best practice principles for theatre management. Should the Town purchase the equipment and install the access lines required to operate the ticketing and box office system, there could be no misinterpretation by the community as to the professional relationship that exists between the Town and the Manager. This option delivers a cost- effective opportunity to provide personal customer service and a great many additional benefits for local residents who like to support arts and cultural entertainment at a range of venues around metropolitan Perth.
• Option 2, whilst providing the same level of customer service for patrons, together with an acceptable level of income generation for the Town, exposes the Town to a degree of ‘negative perception’ risk. The community may misinterpret the professional relationship between the Town as the owner and decision-maker, and the Manager if the Manager has a financial interest in some of the income generating functions. The division of powers and responsibilities is not so clearly defined as in Option 1.
• Option 3 brings a financial return with no effort, or responsibility for the provision and management of tickets to performances. This option is focussed on income generation without the high level of customer service provided by either Option 1 or 2.
A BOCS Ticketing and Box Office service will provide an accountable community resource, offering convenience and reliability for residents in accessing ticket purchases for performances at the Quarry Amphitheatre as well as other venues throughout the City. It is also important for the Quarry Amphitheatre to establish links with other major venues as this will give considerable impetus to marketing, promotional and sponsorship strategies.
98 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Committee Meeting 15 June 1998
During discussion, Members agreed that the Chief Executive Officer be also delegated authority to negotiate favourable contractual terms with BOCS and enter into an agreement for ticketing arrangements.
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That:-
(i) the provision of a Ticketing and Box Office outlet at the Quarry Amphitheatre be endorsed;
(ii) Option 1 be endorsed as the model for a Ticketing and Box Office service and purchases and the necessary equipment, print stock and training be purchased and installed at a cost of $5,000;
(iii) the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to implement the advice of the Town’s Legal Advisers and enter into an agreement with Starlight Theatre Lighting for the operation of the Ticketing and Box Office outlet;
(iv) the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to negotiate favourable contractual terms with BOCS and enter into an agreement for ticketing arrangements at the Quarry Amphitheatre.
Carried
99 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.69
QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE – REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE HIRE AGREEMENT AND CONDITIONS OF USE (File Reference: CMS0028)
BACKGROUND:
Council at its meeting held 28 April 1998 resolved to accept BOCS as the primary ticketing system for the Quarry Amphitheatre. Clause (v) of the resolution required the Administration to review the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use. In precis clause (v) read:
“Subject to endorsement of BOCS as the primary ticketing system the Performance Hire Agreement be fully reviewed and encompass explanation of the Ticketing System options for Hirers, including special and community events, and presented for the consideration of the June 1998 Corporate and Customer Services Meeting”.
This report will:
1. Identify changes made in the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use as a result of the operational experience gained during the 1997/98 Performance Season
2. Address Ticketing options for the Hirer
3. Consider conditions for Special Events and Sponsorship
The report is supplementary to the report titled - Quarry Amphitheatre – Ticketing and Box Office System.
The report titled – Quarry Amphitheatre – Review of Fees and Charges will also have an impact on this report.
DETAILS:
1. Changes to Performance Hire Agreement, Conditions of Use and documentation contained in ‘Information Package’
Council at its meeting held 16 December 1997 adopted documentation for the Hire of the Quarry Amphitheatre. The ‘Information Package’ for Hirers included:
100 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
• Letter of Welcome
• Performance Hire Agreement
• Conditions of Use
• Technical Specifications
• Guidelines and Operating Protocols
• Safety Procedures
• Fees and Charges
Following the experience gained throughout the operation of the summer performance season, the Manager has identified several shortcomings of the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use, as well as additional items for inclusion in the ‘Information Package’, and seeks approval to clarify and expand the information provided to Hirers. Additional information for inclusion is:
• Inclement Weather Policy • Application for Sponsorship of Events by the Town of Cambridge • A Hirer’s Checklist (which systematically sets out a time-line for achieving a successful event) • Additional performance/rehearsal details • Appointment with Manager (to ensure familiarity with venue and understanding of requirements)
NOTE: The Fees and Charges for the Quarry Amphitheatre, once reviewed will also form part of the reviewed Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use.
The Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use (legal agreement) and the supplementary ‘Information Package’ are both attached. All changes, and new information, have been highlighted.
2. Ticketing Options for Hirers
Council has endorsed BOCS has the primary ticketing system for the Quarry Amphitheatre.
Council has already received advice from BOCS (CCS98.41) to the effect that there would be no breach of the Trade Practices Act should the Quarry Amphitheatre require all Hirers to use the BOCS ticketing system.
101 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
There are however options, in addition to the core BOCS ticketing service, to accommodate the special needs of Hirers. As a guide these options are:
• Hard (or manual) Tickets at a cost of $25.00 event fee, plus $0.13 per ticket for up to 500 tickets, or no event fee and $0.13 per ticket for over 500 tickets. These tickets are then sold by the Hirer, who takes full responsibility for their sale, handling and management.
• Promoter Sales Tickets, which are generally complimentary and/or zero value tickets that may be accessed from BOCS by a Hirer at a cost of, up to 100 tickets – no charge, 101 – 200 tickets $0.25 per ticket or 201 and above tickets $0.50 per ticket. These tickets may then be given away, or sold by the Hirer. These tickets are often used to facilitate a season ticketing arrangement. BOCS have only made this service available since July 1997.
Neither of these methods of ticket sales negates the Hirers responsibility to pay the Booking Fee to the venue, as this is a Condition of Use of the Quarry Amphitheatre i.e. the Town will receive its commission of 60 cents for each ticket in addition to the ticket charge.
The Administration is of the view that if a Hirer wishes to control the management of their own tickets, under either of these options, the Quarry Amphitheatre should accommodate this, with the addition of conditions. These conditions should be:
• That the tickets are marketed under the name of the Hirer (or the Hirer’s company) so that no confusion exists within the market place as to where the ticketing service comes from (ie the name ‘Quarry’ or ‘Quarry Amphitheatre’ is not reflected in the transaction).
• The Booking Fee for the performance season is pre-paid to the Quarry Amphitheatre for the amount of hard or promoter tickets being handled.
• If a Hirer chooses to have 50% or less of hard or promoter tickets, with the balance being handled through the BOCS system, the Booking Fee for the performance season does not need to be pre-paid, as this will be covered by the ticket income held in trust.
Acknowledgement also will have to be made on the Performance Hire Agreement and within the Conditions of Use for the net charge made on gross credit card sales.
102 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
3. Special Events and Sponsorship
From time to time events are presented at the Quarry Amphitheatre that may be considered ‘Special Events’. These may include Concerts by Community Service Organisations or Education Institutions, Carols at Christmas time or events planned by Charitable Groups for a special purpose. Traditionally, a variety of methods have been used to sell tickets, but most have asked for some special consideration in reducing or waiving the fees and charges involved.
It is in the Town’s best interest to continue to support local service organisations and community groups. This supports the Town’s strategy of ‘creating a Town focus’ and also allows for a diversity of programming at the Quarry Amphitheatre. The level of support however should be consistent with the financial support given by the Town to other community groups within its funding programs. Due to the ad-hoc conditions of past practices the Administration believes conditions and/or guidelines for seeking financial assistance need to be included within the ‘Information Package’.
The Town currently has a Welfare/Community Groups Donations Program from which financial support is given to local community organisations. This Program has been used in the past as a vehicle to support community events at the Quarry Amphitheatre. The Administration believes however that the level of subsidy should be limited to venue hire, and that the staff, service and technical charges incurred for the performance should remain the responsibility of the Hirer. In addition, all other conditions of the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use should be fulfilled by the Hirer, including the payment of a bond, and the Booking Fee. Administration also recommends that a limit of two night’s subsidy be given to any one Organisation, per year. Council may also wish to restrict this sponsorship opportunity to the shoulder seasons so full advantage may be taken of the Festival Season in February and March each year.
Given the scenario of a two-night season for a Special Event, the costs would be estimated as:
Venue Booking Staff and Service Charges Total Hire Fee
Council $1,090 $1,090 sponsorship Hirer $640 Service Charges $400 $1,440 contribution Staff $400 (could be less if volunteer personnel used)
103 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Nil
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Nil
SUMMARY:
The Manager is currently holding tentative bookings for 46 performance/function nights for the forthcoming 1998/99 Summer Season. Discussions are ongoing with the Festival of Perth and other high profile performance companies. Clarification is required about the Ticketing and Box Office System, the fees and charges to be scheduled for the forthcoming season and of changes within the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use with which the Hirer will have to comply. It is therefore important that early consideration be given to all matters contained within this, and the other two Agenda reports relating to the Quarry Amphitheatre so that confirmation of these bookings can be achieved.
The Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use are the legal and binding agreement between the Town and the Hirer, and are pivotal to effective management. Given its status it is important that this document be confirmed by the Town’s solicitors as a workable, correct document. In pursuit of best practice and customer service, continual monitoring of the information that accompanies the Performance Hire Agreement is also required so that both the Manager and the Hirer are clear about their responsibilities, and the Town is in no way exposed in its duty of care.
The Quarry Amphitheatre is about to embark upon a program of marketing and promotion to raise its profile, and attract greater diversity and share of the cultural and performing arts market. To do this within a responsible financial framework is the challenge for the Manager and the Administration believes that the development of clear guidelines and policies will enable this to happen.
It is therefore recommended that:-
(i) the amended Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use for the Quarry Amphitheatre be adopted as attached;
104 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
(ii) additional information be included in the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use relating to the ticketing options and charges available for Hirers, including the following requirements for Hirers managing their own tickets as detailed below:-
(a) that the tickets are marketed under the name of the Hirer (or the Hirer’s company) so that no confusion exists within the market place as to where the ticketing service comes from (ie the name ‘Quarry’ or ‘Quarry Amphitheatre’ is not reflected in the transaction);
(b) the Booking Fee for the performance season is pre-paid to the Quarry Amphitheatre for the amount of hard or promoter tickets being handled;
(c) if a Hirer chooses to have 50% or less of hard or promoter tickets, with the balance being handled through the BOCS system, the Booking Fee for the performance season does not need to be pre-paid, as this will be covered by the ticket income held in trust;
(iii) the Administration confirms the contents of the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use with the Town’s Legal Advisers;
(iv) the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to make minor amendments to the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use if proposed by Council’s Legal Advisers;
(v) the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to make amendments to the ‘Information Package’ as required;
(vi) sponsorship for community events at the Quarry Amphitheatre be limited to support for the venue hire, with all service, staff and technical costs being the responsibility of the Hirer;
(vii) the Welfare/Community Groups Donations Program become the funding program for financial assistance for events at the Quarry Amphitheatre, and that applicants be required to address the criteria of that program.
105 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Committee Meeting 15 June 1998
During discussion, Members agreed that the normal procedure for ticketing is to be standard BOCS ticketing, and upon request on a production by production basis and in unusual circumstances e.g. charitable events, hirers may request to use hard ticketing. Any decision to depart from the normal procedures shall be at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer.
It was also agreed that a report reviewing the operations of the Quarry Amphitheatre ticketing arrangements be submitted in 12 months, and a further condition of use of the venue be inserted into the Hire Agreement recognising that data is to be shared between the promoter and the Quarry Amphitheatre.
Cr Burkett requested that he be recorded as voting against the recommendation of the Committee.
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That:-
(i) the amended Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use for the Quarry Amphitheatre be adopted as attached;
(ii) the normal procedure for ticketing is to be the standard BOCS ticketing and upon request on a production by production basis and in unusual circumstances e.g. charitable events, hirers may request to use hard ticketing. Any decision to depart from the normal procedure should be at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer;
(iii) additional information be included in the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use relating to the ticketing options and charges available for Hirers, including the following requirements for Hirers managing their own tickets as detailed below:-
(a) that the tickets are marketed under the name of the Hirer (or the Hirer’s company) so that no confusion exists within the market place as to where the ticketing service comes from (ie the name ‘Quarry’ or ‘Quarry Amphitheatre’ is not reflected in the transaction);
(b) the Booking Fee for the performance season is pre-paid to the Quarry Amphitheatre for the amount of hard or promoter tickets being handled; 106 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
(c) if a Hirer chooses to have 50% or less of hard or promoter tickets, with the balance being handled through the BOCS system, the Booking Fee for the performance season does not need to be pre-paid, as this will be covered by the ticket income held in trust;
(iv) the Administration confirms the contents of the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use including amendments with the Town’s Legal Advisers;
(v) the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to make minor amendments to the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use if proposed by Council’s Legal Advisers;
(vi) the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to make amendments to the ‘Information Package’ as required;
(vii) sponsorship for community events at the Quarry Amphitheatre be limited to support for the venue hire, with all service, staff and technical costs being the responsibility of the Hirer;
(viii) the Welfare/Community Groups Donations Program become the funding program for financial assistance for events at the Quarry Amphitheatre, and that applicants be required to address the criteria of that program;
(ix) a further clause be included in the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use, recognising that data is to be shared between the promoter and the Quarry Amphitheatre;
(x) a report reviewing these operations of the Quarry Amphitheatre be submitted in twelve months.
Carried
Members requested that the vote of all those present be recorded.
For: Crs Berry, MacRae, McConnell, Smith and Steele Against: Crs Anderton, Burkett and O’Connor
107 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.70
QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE – REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES (File Reference: CMS0028)
BACKGROUND:
Each financial year Council must establish the fees and charges to be levied at its facilities. The most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items.
This review will examine the structure of fees and charges for the Quarry Amphitheatre in relation to a range of other metropolitan theatres and regional performing arts centres.
DETAILS:
Apart from some minor adjustments in December 1997, when Council reviewed the Performance Hire Agreement and Conditions of Use for the Quarry Amphitheatre, no thorough review of fees and charges has been conducted since the Town assumed responsibility for its management in 1997.
Prior to this time, the Perth Theatre Trust monitored the use patterns and adjusted the fees and charges accordingly.
To assist with this process several theatres have been contacted and asked to provide information about fees and charges that will help set a comparative framework for both venue hire and services offered at the Quarry Amphitheatre.
As every theatre operates differently, with unique cost factors, it is not a simple task to provide a comparative schedule of exact charges levied against a Hirer. The following information will be translated to a grid of estimated charges. Seven theatres will be compared.
1. Regal Theatre, Subiaco
This theatre has a capacity of 1,041 seats. The daily rental includes the use of the theatre from 8.00am until midnight, one performance per day, use of air conditioning and heating, basic lighting rig and the services of the Front of House Manager. The cost is $2,500. A deposit of 50% is required upon confirmation of performance dates. A discount for the deposit rate may be negotiated for local hirers. Rehearsals and fit-up are charged at $850 per day. 108 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Electricity is charged at $165 per performance, with cleaning $120 per performance, additional costs for use of telephone and facsimile. The theatre’s sound system is available for hire at a cost of $200 per show. Additional equipment is available for hire at varying rates. Weekly rates can be negotiated. All staff costs are charged for and the theatre reserves the right to select or reject staff and to decide the number and categories of staff required. Wages are charged for all times attended or worked on behalf of the hirer, whether permanent or casual staff. Wages are charged at the current Theatrical Employees Award rate and recovered with a loading of 27% to cover the cost of staff on-costs (ie superannuation, training). Penalty rates and security charges are additional for Sundays and Public Holidays. If a piano is required a hire cost of up to $150 per performance is made.
2. Belvoir Amphitheatre
This amphitheatre has capacity for 3,000 patrons. A performance hire charge of $4,500 is levied, per performance. A deposit of $2,000 is required to confirm the booking. There is no lighting and/or sound system provided so these technical requirements become the responsibility of the Hirer to arrange, transport and erect with the assistance of an external hire agency. Staff requirements become the responsibility of the hirer. Service charges appear to be included in the hire fee.
3. Octagon Theatre, Nedlands
This theatre seats 658 patrons, and is one of several theatres operated by the Perth Theatre Trust on the campus of the University of WA. The performance charge is $450. Rehearsal cost is $150. Additional costs for each performance include the in-house lighting $175, in-house sound system $140, cleaning $60, hourly service charges $45 (with a minimum charge of $60). A deposit of $500 is required. University staff must be used in University theatres and the appropriate number of staff is determined by the Manager in compliance with health and safety standards. Wages are charged to the hirer for all times attended or worked on behalf of the hirer. A minimum call applies of 4 hours and rates range from $15 per hour to $45 per hour. Double rates apply for Sundays and Public Holidays.
4. Dolphin Theatre, Nedlands
This theatre has198 seats, and is located on the campus of the University of WA. The performance fee is $165. Rehearsal cost is $100. Additional costs for each performance include the in-house lighting $100, in-house sound system $60, 109 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
cleaning $60, hourly service charges $24 (with a minimum charge of $40). A deposit of $500 is required. University staff must be used in University theatres and the appropriate number of staff is determined by the Manager in compliance with health and safety standards. Wages are charged to the hirer for all times attended or worked on behalf of the hirer. A minimum call applies of 4 hours and rates range from $15 per hour to $45 per hour. Double rates apply for Sundays and Public Holidays.
5. Mandurah Performing Arts Centre
This centre has capacity for 800 patrons. It levies a charge of $1,900 per night, with a deposit of $250. The service, staff and technical charges are included in the price, however a small fee for utility charges is applied. The performing arts centre also has a small performance venue of similar capacity to the Undercroft.
6. Subiaco Theatre Gardens
The theatre has 302 seats. The performance hire charge is $278 with a rehearsal rate of $136. In addition to the hire charges lighting is charged at $220, service fee (includes cleaning) $220, technical fee $80, and industrial relations fee $19. Staff are charged for at rates ranging from $14.50 per hour to $19 per hour and a 25% loading is applied for staff on-costs. Minimum call is 4 hours.
7. Quarry Amphitheatre
The Quarry Amphitheatre has 644 seats. The performance charge is $545 and rehearsals and bump-in/out are charged at $225. The bond required is 30% or $500, (whichever is greater) and is required to confirm the booking. Additional charges are for Service Charges $135 per day (this includes cleaning, materials, security and electricity). Technical equipment hire is optional – Sound $15 and Lighting $45. Staff charges are $20 per hour per person with a minimum call of 3.5 hours, and staff requirements are determined by the Manager in compliance with health and safety standards. The hourly rate is inclusive of staff on-costs. Hirers may use the venue’s Volunteer personnel.
The following comparative grid of costs is provided as an estimate of the cost of a single performance, based upon the above information. Information such as this provides a useful baseline when establishing competitive pricing structures.
110 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Theatre Perform Cleaning Staff Technical Utilities Estimated Total Costs Regal $2,500 $120 $390 $200 $165 $3,375 Belvoir $4,500 IncludedRespons. Respons. Included $4,500 of Hirer of Hirer plus lighting and sound Octagon $450 $60 $339 $315 $225 $1,389 Dolphin $165 $60 $339 $160 $200 $924 Mandurah $1,900 Included Included Included $20 $1,920 Subiaco $278 $294 $300 $220 $1,092 includes cleaning Quarry $545 $240 $60 $135 $980 (optional) includes cleaning Quarry $560 $264 $160 $200 $1,184 Proposed (optional) includes cleaning
NOTE: Some Theatres offer a weekly charge for performances, dependent upon the number of performances throughout the given week, and whether or not the production set renders the venue unsuitable for the use of another hirer. Some theatres charge a reduced rate for a second daily performance (ie matinee and evening).
The fees and charges for the Quarry Amphitheatre extend however, to more than performance hire for the main Auditorium. Rates for performances in the Undercroft, as well as rates for weddings and other small or family functions for both the Auditorium and Undercroft, require review.
The Undercroft has recently been upgraded as a small performance venue with the expenditure of funds granted by the Lotteries Commission. A new cycloramic fireproof curtain, painting, safety enhancement measures and lighting have been installed. Additional sound equipment has been purchased for use in both the Undercroft and Auditorium. In addition to these upgrades maintenance to the carparks and surrounds of the Auditorium have been initiated.
Hire fees for the Quarry Amphitheatre, have in the past only been charged for the nights of actual use by a Hirer (whether for performance or rehearsal). This practice renders the venue unsuitable for use by almost all other Hirers for a considerable amount of days over the entire season. To encourage Hirers to condense their bookings, and to enable the Manager to program as many varying productions it is proposed that Hirers pay for each day of a block booking. This is a common requirement where venues are hired for the sole use of one Hirer. 111 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
In view of the above information the current and proposed fees and charges are outlined below (new clauses and/or categories are highlighted):
Category Current Proposed 1997/98 1998/99 $ $ HIRE RATES PERFORMANCES MAIN AUDITORIUM (includes services of Manager) Performance 545.00 560.00 Rehearsal 225.00 240.00 Tech/Dress Rehearsal (with ticket 560.00 sales) 560.00 Product Launch/Conventions
NOTE: Where the stage is not cleared between performances, the rehearsal hire fee will be charged for non- performance days 500.00 Performance Bond 500.00 or 30% of the hire or 30% of the hire fee, whichever is fee, whichever is the greater the greater Service Charge (per performance for electricity, 135.00 200.00 cleaning, security, materials and maintenance) Technical Equipment (Hire Optional) Lighting (including globe 45.00 80.00 replacement) 15.00 80.00 Sound
112 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Staff Charges (For staff required in addition to the 20.00 22.00 Quarry Amphitheatre’s volunteer per person, per per person, per personnel. Staff numbers will be hour (minimum call hour determined by the Manager in 3.5 hours) (minimum call 4 compliance with health and safety hours) regulations. Double rates for Sundays and Public Holidays). HIRE RATES PERFORMANCES UNDERCROFT Performances 50.00 80.00 Rehearsals 20.00 30.00 Tech/Dress Rehearsals (with ticket 80.00 sales)
NOTE: Where the stage is not cleared between performances, the rehearsal hire fee will be charged for non- performance days 500.00 300.00 Performance Bond or 30% of the hire or 30% of the hire fee, whichever is fee, whichever is the greater the greater Service Charge (per performance, for electricity, 30.00 60.00 cleaning, materials, security and maintenance) Technical Equipment (Hire Optional) Lighting (including globe 45.00 80.00 replacement) 15.00 80.00 Sound Staff Charges (For staff required in addition to the 20.00 22.00 Quarry Amphitheatre’s volunteer per person, per per person, per personnel. Staff numbers will be hour (minimum call hour determined by the Manager in 3.5 hours) (minimum call 4 compliance with health and safety hours) regulations. Double rates for Sundays and Public Holidays)
113 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
HIRE RATES WEDDINGS AND OTHER SMALL/FAMILY FUNCTIONS
KIOSK/LAWN Venue 175.00 200.00 Service Charge 25.00 60.00 Staff Charges (A member of staff must be present 20.00 22.00 at all times that the venue is in use. per person, per per person, per There will be no charge for staff in hour (minimum call hour (minimum attendance during normal office 3.5 hours) call 4 hours) hours. Double rates for Sundays and Public Holidays) 500.00 500.00 or 30% of the hire or 30% of the hire Venue Bond fee, whichever is fee, whichever is the greater the greater MAIN AUDITORIUM Venue Hire 200.00 240.00 Service Charge 135.00 200.00 Equipment Hire Optional 45.00 80.00 Staff Charges 20.00 22.00 (A member of staff must be present per person, per per person, per at all times that the venue is in use. hour (minimum call hour There will be no charge for staff in 3.5 hours) (minimum call 4 attendance during normal office hours) hours. Double rates for Sundays and Public Holidays) 500.00 Venue Bond or 30% of the hire 500.00 fee, whichever is or 30% of the hire the greater fee, whichever is the greater
UNDERCROFT Venue Hire 50.00 80.00 Service Charge 30.00 60.00 Equipment Hire Optional 20.00 80.00 Staff Charges 20.00 22.00 (A member of staff must be present per person, per per person, per at all times that the venue is in use. hour (minimum call hour There will be no charge for staff in 3.5 hours) (minimum call 4 attendance during normal office hours) hours. Double rates for Sundays and Public Holidays) 500.00 114 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Venue Bond or 30% of the hire 300.00 fee, whichever is or 30% of the hire the greater fee, whichever is the greater
SUMMARY:
Increases have been proposed for several categories of hire. Even with these increases the Quarry Amphitheatre compares favourably with other performance venues, particularly those within the western suburbs. The charges currently levied at the Quarry Amphitheatre, particularly those for service and utility charges are low in comparison to other venues, and with the added security implemented throughout the past season, contribution to these service costs should rise.
The in-house service for hirers has also substantially increased since the last review of fees and charges. Coupled with this has also been the planned maintenance program and substantial capital works within the Main Auditorium and office environments.
Technical upgrade has occurred in the Undercroft to enable its continued use as a small performance venue, and additional sound and lighting equipment has been purchased. Greater emphasis has also been placed on safety, and patrons are assured of greater support and service in this matter.
Committee Meeting 15 June 1998
During discussion, Members agreed that an opportunity cost clause be introduced to allow special fees to be charged for special events.
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That the charges for the Quarry Amphitheatre, detailed in the report including a clause to regulate fees for special events be adopted, effective from 1 July 1998.
During discussion, Cr Burkett said that a flat rate of $1,000 should apply for performance bonds rather than $500 or 30% of the hire fee.
115 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Amendment
Moved by Cr Burkett, seconded by Cr Anderton
That the performance bond amount be $1,000 in place of $500 or 30% of the relevant hire fee.
Amendment lost
The original motion was then put and carried.
Members requested that the vote of all those present be recorded.
For: Crs Berry, MacRae, McConnell, O’Connor, Smith and Steele Against: Crs Anderton and Burkett
116 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.71
JOAN WATTERS RESPITE SERVICES – REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES (File Reference: CMS0051 )
BACKGROUND:
Each financial year the Council must establish the fees and charges to be levied at its services and facilities. The most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items.
DETAILS:
The Home and Community Care program has established a Fees Policy and all funded services are required to implement a fee for service. Clients however cannot be excluded from receiving a service, or be disadvantaged in their ability to access care because they cannot afford to pay for it. The Coordinator of the Respite Services therefore must retain the ability to exercise discretion in this matter. Notwithstanding this, funded services are required to gradually increase the level of fees so that revenue is equivalent to approximately 20% of program expenditure.
The following schedule outlines fees currently paid together with the fees proposed.
Service Current Fees Proposed Fees 1997/98 1998/99 Centre-Based Care Transport and daily care $4.00 $5.00 Lunch $4.00 $4.00 Home-Based Care Respite, companionship, shopping, $4.00 per hour $4.00 per hour personal care, meal preparation maximum $8.00 maximum $10.00 per per week week
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Nil
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
117 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Nil
SUMMARY:
Small increases in fee for services have been proposed. During the next financial year, the Administration will conduct a full review of the Home and Community Care services and this will enable a more thorough examination of the framework for determining fees.
Committee Meeting 15 June 1998
During discussion, it was noted that the Town is required by State and Federal governments to gradually increase the level of fees so that revenue generated is equivalent to approximately 20% of funding.
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That the following fees and charges for the Joan Watters Respite Services be adopted for 1998/99:-
Service Fees 1998/99 Centre-Based Care Transport and daily care $5.00 Lunch $4.00 Home-Based Care Respite, companionship, shopping, $4.00 per hour personal care, meal preparation maximum $10.00 per week
Carried
118 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.72
JOAN WATTERS COMMUNITY CENTRE – REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES (File Reference: CMS0027, CMS0079)
BACKGROUND:
Each financial year the Council must establish the fees and charges to be levied at its facilities. The most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items.
DETAILS:
It is proposed to apply a general increase to the hire charges at the Joan Watters Community Centre in line with proposed increases at other Council halls and community centres. In applying increases it is noted that no increases in hall and community centre hire charges have been implemented in the four financial years since the creation of the Town of Cambridge.
A table illustrating the proposed changes is detailed below:
Note: Current 1997/98: ($18.00) Proposed 1998/99 $20.00
JOAN WATTERS COMMUNITY CENTRE (CURRENT) AND PROPOSED 1998/99 FEES Hall/Dining Craft Room BoardRoom Playgroup Childrens Per hour Per hour Per hour Per hour Centre Per hour Non Profit Organisations
(Pensioner Groups, Playgroups, Charitable Groups, Schools, Churches) ($10.00) ($8.00) ($7.00) ($8.00) ($8.00) (a) Meetings Lectures, 8 am - 6 pm $12.00 $10.00 $9.00 $10.00 $10.00 AGM’s etc 1/2 hour preparation 6 pm – 12 ($13.00) ($11.00) ($9.00) ($10.00) ($10.00) pm $15.00 $12.00 $11.00 $12.00 $12.00
b) Dances, trophy nights 8 am - 12 ($22.00) (No Alcohol) 2 hours pm $25.00 prep.
(c) Cabarets, Dances, 8 am - 12 ($30.00) Trophy nights, (With pm $35.00
119 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Alcohol) 2 hours preparation Community Activities
For which a fee is charged 8 am – 6 pm ($12.00) ($8.00) ($7.00) ($8.00) ($8.00) (Classes for Keep Fit), $15.00 $11.00 $10.00 $11.00 $11.00 Yoga, Dance etc limited to activities occurring less 6 pm – 12 ($15.00) ($11.00) ($9.00) ($10.00) ($10.00) than four times per week pm $18.00 $13.00 $12.00 $13.00 $13.00 1/2 hr prep. Private/Commercial
(a) Meetings, Lectures etc 8 am – 6 pm ($18.00) ($12.00) ($9.00) ($10.00) ($10.00) 1/2 hr preparation $20.00 $14.00 $11.00 $13.00 $12.00
6 pm – 12 ($22.00) ($15.00) ($11.00) ($12.00) ($12.00) pm $24.00 $17.00 $13.00 $16.00 $14.00
(b) Private ‘Function – 2 8 am – 6 pm ($18.00) ($12.00) ($9.00) ($10.00) ($10.00) hr prep $20.00 $45.00 $26.50 $30.00 $12.00
6 pm – 12 ($22.00) ($15.00) ($11.00) ($12.00) ($12.00) pm $24.00 $45.00 $26.50 $30.00 $14.00
(c) Commercial Use ($40.00) Involves: 8 am – 12 (i) Sale or pm transfer of goods for profit $60.00 (ii) Activities (or $400 occurring four or for 8 Hr more times a use) week
Note: After midnight – all halls $90 per hour or part thereof.
SUMMARY:
The above report outlines the fees for the use of the Joan Watters Community Centre in the 1998/99 Budget. During the next financial year Administration will conduct a full review of Joan Watters Community Centre as it develops a Business Plan and this will enable a more thorough examination of the framework for determining fees.
120 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That the fees and charges for the Joan Watters Community Centre for 1998/99 detailed in the report be adopted, effective from 1 July 1998.
Carried
121 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.73
REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES – REGULATORY SERVICES (File Reference: FIN0014)
BACKGROUND:
Each financial year, the Council must review and establish the fees and charges to be levied. The most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget, so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items.
This report addresses the fees and charges levied for the regulatory functions of the Council in Planning Services, Building Services, and Environmental Health Services. Many of these fees and charges are statutory charges set under other legislation such as Building Regulations and the Health Act. Statutory charges cannot be amended by Council but are included in this report, so that an overall perspective of the charges levied can be obtained.
DETAILS:
The review of charges shall be considered in the following sections:-
1. Planning Services 2. Building Services 3. Environmental Health Services 4. Planning, Building and Environmental Health Information Service Charges.
1. Planning
It is recommended that the planning fees be generally unchanged. The reason for this is that a completely revised and a new set of fees will be published as Regulations during the 1998-99 financial year. All Local Authorities will be required to modify their planning fees in accordance with the maximum set in these regulations. Advice from the Ministry for Planning indicates that the draft fee schedule as advertised is likely to be amended prior to gazettal of the standard planning fee structure. On this basis it is recommended that the current structure be maintained as an interim measure pending the introduction of the standard fees.
A new fee scale has been added for planning assessment for Building Licence applications.
122 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
A schedule is provided below outlining the proposed standard charges to be effective from 1 July 1998. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
1997/98 1998/99 (i) General Planning Services - Scheme Amendments/Rezoning $1,100 $1,100 A fee of $100 is to be paid on application and $1,000 paid on the final adoption of the amendment by Council. The applicant will be required to pay any advertising costs associated with the application. $200 $200 - Home Occupation Applications $100 $100 - Home Occupation Renewals
(ii Specific Development Applications ) - Change of Use $100 $100 - Development up to $1,000 $25 $25 - Development between $1,000 and $5,000 $100 $100 - Development between $5,000 and $50,000 $250 $250 - Development between $50,000 and $150,000 $300 $300 - Development between $150,000 and $500,000 $500 $500 - Development between $500,000 and $750,000 $1,500 $1,500 - Development between $750,000 and $1,000,000 $3,000 $3,000 - Development between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 $5,000 $5,000 - Development in excess of $2,000,000 $5,000 plus $5,000 $2,000 for plus every $2,000 million or for part thereof every to a million or maximum part of $50,000 thereof to a maximum of $50,000 (iii) Renewal and Modifications to Approved Planning Applications 50% of 50% of standard standard application applicatio fee n fee
123 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
(iv) Town Planning Assessment administration fee for Building Licence and Preliminary Building Licence applications which do not require formal planning approval - Garden sheds of less than 10 square metres floor area and No fee No fee pergolas - Residential extensions below $20,000 in value, all $50 $50 Garages, Carports and other Residential Outbuildings $100 $100 - All other residential development
(v) Applications for closure of Private streets & Right of Ways $200 plus $200 plus costs costs (vi) Subdivision Clearances $30 per lot $30 per lot
2. Building Services
All fees for Building Services are statutory charges specified in Regulation 24 of the Building Regulations 1989, which have remained unchanged. Systems are being developed to initiate licences and enforcement of hoarding building materials on footpaths.
It is proposed to levy an administrative fee for an Approval of Occupancy. An approval of Occupancy is occasionally sought from insurance agencies as a means of ensuring a new building has been inspected and approved for occupancy by the local authority.
BUILDING SERVICES
1997/98 1998/99 (i) Building Licence Applications Statutory Charge: Statutory Charge: (a) For Class 1 & 10 buildings (ie 0.35% of estimated 0.35% of estimated general residential development) construction cost. construction cost. (b) For buildings other than class 0.2% of construction 0.2% of construction 1 & 10 cost, but not less than cost, but not less than Note: A Building and Construction $40. $40. Industry Training Fund Levy (BCITF), 0.2% of construction cost, is collected by Council for payment to the State Government. (ii) Preliminary Building Licence Statutory Charge: Statutory Charges: applications 25% of scheduled 25% of scheduled * This fee is credited to the building application building application application for a Building Licence, fee (minimum fee fee (minimum fee if the project proceeds. $40). $40).
124 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
(iii) Hoardings/Scaffolding Licence Statutory Charge: Statutory Charge: ions $1 p/sqm $1 p/sqm * Based on area occupied per month (or part) (iv) Sign Licence Applications $40 $40 (v) Strata Applications Statutory Charge: Statutory Charge: * These charges are specified 20 cents per square 20 cents per square under the Strata Titles General metre of floor space metre of floor space Regulations. or $100, whichever or $100, whichever is the greater. is the greater. (vi) Demolition Statutory Charge: Statutory Charge: $50 per storey $50 per storey (vii) Approval of Occupancy $20 per building $20 per building * Administration fee
4. Environmental Health Services
The majority of the Environmental Health Services charges are statutory and there has been no increase for these charges. A new item has been created for the sale of copies of analytical reports relating to food samples (refer Section 246ZJ of the Health Act).
A schedule of the charges is listed below.
1997/98 1998/99 Statutory/Local Statutory/Local Law Charges Law Charges ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (i) Alfresco Dining - First 16 chairs $5 p/chair $5 p/chair - Each chair in excess of 16 $20 p/chair $20 p/chair (ii) Eating Houses - Registration $270 $270 - Licence to conduct an Eating House $30 p/annum $30 p/annum - Transfer of licence to conduct an $30 $30 Eating House (iii) Itinerant Vendor’s Licence $180 $180 (iv) Mortuaries Registration $80 $80 (v) Registration of offensive Trade - Fish Processing $170 $170 - Dye Works $170 $170 - Laundries (Drycleaners) $100 $100
125 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
(vi) Smallgoods Premises - Application for Registration $25 $25 - Application for Licence $25 $25 (vii) Pet Meat Shops - Registration of Class 1 Meat Shop $150 $150 - Registration of Class 2 Meat Shop $75 $75 - Transfer of Registration of Pet Meat $75 $75 Shop (viii) Application to Construct/Alter/Extend a Public Building - Under 200 square metres $100 $100 - Over 200 square metres $150 $150 (ix) Septic Tank Applications - Application Fee $75.00 $75.00 - Inspection Fee (a) for 1 or 2 fixtures $50.00 $50.00 (b) for each additional fixture $25.00 $25.00 - Re-inspection fee $25.00 $25.00 Local Government Report Fee $75.00 $75.00 Health Department of WA Application Fee $35.00 $35.00 (a) with local government report $110.00 $110.00 (b) without local government report (x) Administration Fee – Food Premises $50.00 $50 Fitout applications (no building licence) (xi) Copy of results of food analysis (per Nil $5.00 sample)
5. Information Services Charges
The following changes are recommended for Information Service charges:-
1. Building Plan Searches - fees for this service have not been increased. The City of Perth charges $30 per archives search application for plans held by them. In addition, the Town incurs courier costs of $15 to collect the plans from the city. Where the Town holds plans, the charge of $30 is the same amount as the City of Perth.
126 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
A schedule of the proposed fees is listed below:-
1996/97 1997/98 INFORMATION SERVICE (i) Building Plan Search and/or Retrieval from Archive $45 p/building $45 - Plans held by City of Perth $30 p/building p/building - Plans held by Town of Cambridge $30 p/building (ii) Septic Tank Plan Archive Search $10 $10 (iii) Building Licence List $60 p/annum $75 p/annum (iv) Planning Scheme Text $25 $25 (v) Planning Scheme Maps (per map) $10 $10 (A3) $80 (A1)
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That the fees and charges for Regulatory Services detailed in the relevant report be adopted, effective from 1 July 1998.
Carried
127 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.74
REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES – HALLS AND COMMUNITY CENTRES (File Reference: CMS0027)
BACKGROUND:
Each financial year the Council must establish the fees and charges to be levied at its facilities. The most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items.
DETAILS:
It is proposed to apply a general increase to the hall hire charges for the coming year. In applying across-the-board increases, it is noted that no increases in hall and community centre hire charges have been implemented in the four financial years since the creation of the Town of Cambridge. In comparison to hall charges at other Councils the proposed fees are in the middle to upper spectrum of those charges.
A table illustrating the proposed changes is detailed below:-
Leederville Town Hall & Floreat Community Hall Main Hall Lesser Hall 1997/9 1998/99 1997/98 1998/99 8 $ Per Hr $ Per Hr $ Per Hr $ Per Hr Non Profit Organisations
(Pensioner Groups, Playgroups, Charitable Groups, Schools, Churches, Club Meetings) (a) Meetings Lectures, AGM’s etc 1/2 8 am - 6 pm $13.00 $15.00 $6.50 $8.00 hour preparation 6 pm – 12 $16.00 $18.00 $9.50 $11.00 am (b) Functions (No Alcohol) 2 hours 8 am - 6 pm $22.00 $25.00 $15.00 $17.00 preparation 6 pm - 12 $22.00 $25.00 $15.00 $17.00 am (c) Functions (With Alcohol) 2 hours 8 am - 6 pm $30.00 $35.00 $20.00 $25.00 preparation 6 pm - 12 $30.00 $35.00 $20.00 $25.00 am Community Activities For which a fee is charged (Classes for 8 am – 6 pm $17.00 $19.00 $8.50 $10.00 Keep Fit, Yoga, Dance etc. Limited to 6 pm – 12 $20.00 $22.00 $12.00 $14.00 activities occurring less than four times am per week 128 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
1/2 hr preparation. Private/Commercial (a) Meetings, Lectures etc 1/2 hr prep. 8 am – 6 pm $18.00 $20.00 $8.50 $10.00 6 pm – 12 $22.00 $24.00 $12.50 $14.00 am (b) Private Function – 2 hr preparation 8 am – 6 pm $40.00 $45.00 $26.50 $30.00 6 pm – 12am $40.00 $45.00 $26.50 $30.00 (c) Commercial Use Involves: (i) Sale or transfer of goods for N/A $60.00 profit ($400 (ii) Activities occurring four or for 8 hr more times per week use) Additional preparation time charged at half the relevant hourly hire fee.
1997/98 1998/99 BOND CHARGES – HALLS AND COMMUNITY CENTRES Proposed
Non Profit/Community Organisations/Activities
(a) Committee Meetings only or group meetings or $150 $150 activities for pensioner groups, playgroups, schools, charitable groups, churches, sporting clubs, lodges and others.
(b) Funcitons conducted by Community $150 $150 groups (NO ALCOHOL)
* (c) Functions conducted by Community $250 to $250 to groups (WITH ALCOHOL) $500 $500
Community Activities $150 $150 Classes – Dance, Drama, Keep Fit, Yoga, Self Defence etc Other than performances (See Commercial/Private Hiring) Commercial/Private Hiring * Seminars Film screening, Drama performances for $250 to $250 to private benefit or profit making. $500 $500
* Private functions, Weddings Parties (WITH ALCOHOL) $500 to $500 to $1,000 $1,000 Seasonal Bookings (Duration of three days or more) $1,000 $1,000 Fee includes setting up time
Noise Bond $150 $150
* Bond at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer within the parameters identified.
129 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
COMMENTS:
The above report outlines the fees for the use of the Town’s Halls and Community Centres in the 1998/1999 Budget. Rates have been increased to reflect current market standards and retain comparability with other similar venues. One major difference for the coming years is that a distinction has been drawn in the area of Commercial use.
Some of the Town’s facilities are being utilised for purely commercial purposes with the activities being of little or no community value.
A separate commercial rate of $60.00 per hour (Flat rate of $400 for one eight hour period) has therefore been proposed to resolve this anomaly whereby in the past these practices have been categorised as “Community Activities”.
One large scale and frequent hirer of the Floreat venue has benefited in the past from the “Community Activities” classification. It is proposed that this regular commercial use be considered at the full commercial rate. In recognition of the length of time the current arrangements have applied to this hirer however, it is proposed that a 12 month moratorium on the re-classification be instituted, and the hirer be advised that the revised rate will apply from 1 July 1999.
It is therefore recommended that the fees and charges for the halls as proposed and detailed be adopted effective from 1 July 1998.
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That the fees and charges for halls and community centres for 1998/1999 detailed in the relevant report be adopted, effective from 1 July 1998.
Carried
130 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.75
REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES – WORKS BONDS (File Reference: FIN0014)
BACKGROUND:
Each financial year, the Council must review and establish the fees and charges to be levied. The most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget, so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items.
This report addresses the fees and charges levied for Work Bonds.
DETAILS:
These charges mainly relate to the charging of works bonds to protect the Council against any damage to footpaths or other assets as a result of construction works. The following comments are made in relation to the changes in this fee schedule:-
It is not proposed to amend the Works Bonds during this fee review.
A schedule of the proposed bonds is detailed below.
1997/98 1998/99
(i) Residential Premises: Value of Development $0 - $4,000 Nil Nil $4,001 - $40,000 $300 $300 $40,001 upwards $400 $400 Residential developments of three or 1%of the project 1%of the project more units contract value contract value
Residential demolitions $500 $500 Relocation of buildings $500 $500 (ii) Commercial Developments: Value of Work Partitioning work $300 $300 Construction Work: $0 - $30,000 $300 $300 Construction Work: $30,001 upwards 1% of the project 1% of the project All commercial developments valued in value value excess of $1,000,000 Assessed individually Assessed individually Commercial demolitions $800 $800
131 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
(iii) Crossover & Verge paving Deposits $200 $200 (iv) Parks & Reserves Access Bonds: Access for social purposes (weddings, $150 $150 parties, etc.) Access for commercial or development $500 $500 purposes
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That the fees and charges for Work Bonds as detailed in the relevant report, be adopted effective from 1 July 1998.
Carried
132 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.76
REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - SPORTS GROUNDS AND RESERVES (File Reference: CMS0027)
BACKGROUND:
Each financial year Council must establish the fees and charges to be levied at its facilities. The most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items.
DETAILS:
Historically, it has been proposed to apply at least a general increase of each charge by a factor consistent with CPI (Consumer Price Index) which is negligible for the year ended 31 March 1998. Accordingly, as there has been no significant change in the CPI it is proposed that the 1998/99 fees remain unchanged.
The Town of Cambridge will be undertaking a Sports Strategy Study during the 1998/99 financial year. The Study will provide a basis for decision making in providing a quality and equitable sports service within the community through the provision of facilities, funding and assistance. The Project Brief for the strategy is due to be reviewed however, it is anticipated that a review of fees and charges for the use of Council Reserves will be included in the Study.
Any recommendations arising from the Study will be incorporated into the review of fees and charges undertaken for the 1999/2000 financial year.
The proposed fees for 1998/99 are outlined below:
1997/1998 1998/99 Proposed 1. Enclosed Grounds (i) ie Perry Lakes Stadium, Warm Up Track, charge per day $500 $500 charge per half day $250 $250
Or 33% (International events 15%) of gate receipts less gatekeeping and flood lighting costs), when admission is charged by the hirer; whichever is the greater.
133 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
ii) Perry Lakes Arena additional charges $300 $300 Athletic Track
(iii) Athletics Training Licence Annual licence for athletes to utilise Perry Lakes Stadium at any time other than when the venue is hired or undergoing maintenance $70 $70 (iv) School Training Fees (minimum charge) per training session $30 $30
( JUNIORS 50% OFF RELEVANT CHARGES)
2. Sundry Reserves (i) With facilities charge per day $135 $135 charge per half day $70 $70
(ii) Without facilities charge per day $80 $80 charge per half day $50 $50
( JUNIORS 50% OFF RELEVANT CHARGES)
3. Turf Wickets
Casual Hire $370 $370
4. Social Rooms
Charge for other than home clubs $40 $40
5. Liquor Permits
Charge per day $17 $17
6. Dog Training Classes
Charge per six month season $185 $185
7. Wedding Licences
(i) Booking Fee (Photographs) $17 $17
(ii) Ceremony (50 people or less. If greater than 50 fee at discretion of Chief Executive Officer) $52 $52
134 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
8. Commercial Rates
Light Commercial Use First two hours (per hour) $165 $165 Second two hours (per hour) $77 $77 Thereafter (per hour) $33 $33 Minimum Charge $165 $165 Maximum Charge per day $540 $540
Heavy Commercial Use First two hours (per hour) $295 $295 Second two hours (per hour) $175 $175 Thereafter (per hour) $98 $98 Minimum Charge $295 $295 Maximum Charger per day $1,135 $1,135
9. Special Events Special events at any of Council’s venues will be at the discretion of Council
10. Season Charges
(i) Base season charge per player $48 $48
(ii) Special circumstances
(a) Juniors (17 years and under or full time Base Base x 0.25 students to 20 years playing in junior competition): x0.25
(b) Training or matchplay only Seniors Base x 0.6 Base x 0.6 Juniors Base x 0.6 Base x 0.6 x x0.25 0.25
(c) No changeroom facilities: Base x Base x 0.75 0.75
(d) Social rooms: (when not under a lease Base x 1.1 Base x 1.1 agreement)
(e) Turf cricket wickets: Base x 3.5 Base x 3.5
11. City Beach Tennis Courts (Hard Courts) Per Hour (8.00am – 10.00pm) $7.00 $7.00 Use of Lights Per hour $2.00 $2.00 New Fee Structure – at all times
The Chief Executive Officer is authorised to negotiate all the above charges if considered unsuitable.
135 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
COMMENTS:
The above report recommends no changes being proposed for the use of the Town’s Sports Grounds and Reserves during the 1998/99 Budget period pending the outcome of the Sports Strategy review to be conducted during the forthcoming year.
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That the fees and charges for sportsgrounds and reserves for 1998/99 detailed in the relevant report be adopted, effective from 1 July 1998.
Carried
136 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.77
FLOREAT SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - LEASE (File Reference: PRO0074)
BACKGROUND:
The Floreat Surf Life Saving Club is housed in a purpose built Club Room facility constructed by the former City of Perth in 1981, for which it has never held a lease. As a sporting body providing an essential voluntary community service, the Club wishes to finalise a lease agreement and secure a fixed term tenancy on the building, enabling it to pursue long term plans for growth and financial direction.
In July 1992, the former City of Perth General Purposes Committee meeting received an information report on the City of Perth and Floreat Surf Life Saving Clubs. This report outlined the Council's expenditure in order to fund the Surf Life Saving Clubs’ operations, the Clubs’ financial and membership status and community service. It also provided examples of other municipalities' relations with their Surf Life Saving Clubs.
The former Perth City Council, at its November 1992 meeting approved the lease of the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Clubhouse for a five year term with a five year option, at an annual rental of $1.00. The Council was to pay the club's building insurance and all outgoings.
A previous report was considered by Council at its meeting held on 25 July 1995 for the lease of the club facility to Floreat Surf Life Saving Club but at that time Council deferred making a decision pending a review being undertaken of all lease agreements for sporting clubs associated with recreation facilities.
A Community Needs Study is currently being undertaken by Council and approval has been granted for the Administration to proceed to develop the Cambridge Sports Strategy. The consultation process for the development of the sport’s strategy is expected to commence early in the 1998/99 financial year.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Administration is in the process of developing a pricing policy that will act as a guide when Council is considering entering into future leases with sporting clubs within the Town.
137 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
The policy has not been completed and a Council Workshop is due to be held shortly to further review the pricing policy.
In accordance with the Draft Pricing Policy, the Surf Life Saving Clubs would continue to operate under a peppercorn rental. In this instance it is recommended that Council proceed to finalise lease negotiations with the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club.
DETAILS:
The Floreat Surf Life Saving Club has requested a Lease Agreement with the Council for the Floreat Surf Life Saving Clubhouse on similar terms to the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club.
Membership Status
The Club's Membership figures are as follows:
• 80 Junior members • 120 registered affiliated members.
Club Comparisons
Like the Floreat and City of Perth Surf Life Saving Clubs, many of the metropolitan Surf Life Saving Clubs occupy Council owned properties. Scarborough, Trigg, Sorrento, Mullaloo and Quinns Mindarie Surf Life Saving Clubs all operate under rent free leases and are responsible for internal maintenance. Some have contributed to extensions of their premises. The clubs receive all hire revenue and at the discretion of their Councils, may receive donations for equipment or service.
Lease
It is recommended that the Council enter into a lease agreement with the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club for the lease of the building, commencing from the date of Council approval and to expire on 30 November 2002 to coincide with the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club lease.
At this time the Cambridge Sports Strategy would have been completed and should Council wish to consider options regarding amalgamation of facilities for clubs or make changes to the lease agreements, then the Council would be in a position to do so. 138 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Like the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club, the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club has never paid rent. The Council currently pays for all outgoings, including water, insurance and other services as well as electrical, plumbing and structural maintenance. In return, the life saving clubs provide an essential community service.
It is recommended that to ensure the continuance of this service and the future viability of the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club, the Council continues to assume responsibility for the external maintenance of the building due to its harsh environment and continues to pay the outgoings such as rates, taxes, electricity and insurance.
Committee Meeting 15 June 1998
During discussion, Cr Smith queried the condition of the lease granted to the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club requiring that the Town of Cambridge pays the Club an amount of $8,200, and considered that the lease for the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club should be under the same terms.
The Executive Manager Corporate and Customer Services advised that the condition of the City of Perth Life Saving Club’s lease was agreed by the former City of Perth and the Town of Cambridge has a legal contract to continue the payment. However, there will be an opportunity to review the clause when the lease expires in 2002.
It was therefore agreed that it be noted that the payment of $8,200 to the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club was established by the former City of Perth, and at the time of expiry in 2002, the leases of both Clubs will be revisited and the conditions therein renegotiated.
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That:-
(i) in accordance with section 3.58 (5)(d) and regulation 30 (2)(b)(i) of the Local Government Act 1995, Council enters into an agreement with the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club to lease the surf club Building at Floreat under the following terms and conditions:-
Lease Term: date of Council approval to 30 November 2002;
139 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Rental: $1.00 per annum payable on demand;
Maintenance: the Lessee is to be responsible for all internal maintenance of the premises, and any external damage caused by club members or invitees;
Insurance: the Lessee shall be required to take out and hold current for the term of the lease and extension thereof, a policy of insurance for Public Liability for an amount of not less than $5,000,000 for any one event. A copy of the Certificate is to be provided to the Town of Cambridge within 21 days after the commencement of the lease and within 21 days after each anniversary of that date. Building Insurance is to be the responsibility of the Town of Cambridge;
Stamp Duty: the stamp duty assessed on the Lease Agreement is to be paid by the Lessee;
Outgoings: the Council (as lessor) will continue to pay all outgoings, including rates, taxes and all service charges;
Access: the Council (as lessor) may have access to the premises for its own Civic purposes at times required.
(iii) it be noted that the payment of $8,200 to the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club was established by the former City of Perth and which the Town of Cambridge must continue in terms of the lease agreement. At the time of expiry in 2002, the leases of both the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club and the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club will be revisited and the conditions therein renegotiated.
Carried
140 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.78
SALE OF PROPERTY – 258 SELBY STREET, FLOREAT. (File Reference:PRO0042)
BACKGROUND:
The former City of Perth approved at a Council meeting held on 18 August 1975 to adopt the Selby Street/Grantham Street Intersection treatment.
The land is portion of Swan Location 388 and being part of lot 590 on plan3185 (sheet1) and being the whole of the land contained in Certificate of Title Volume 1508 Folio 899.
Since 1977, the former City of Perth rented the premises itself. Records indicate, because of location, traffic noise and accessibility to the site there has been difficulty in attracting long term tenants at a reasonable rental. The building itself has required constant maintenance and if left vacant for any length of time has been subjected to vandalism.
DETAILS:
In 1992, the premises was placed with a Managing Agent, to rent on the open market. Since 1992, the former City and more recently the Town have continued to carry out minor maintenance repairs. In 1996, it became necessary for the Town to connect the premise to the main sewer system at a cost of $2,000.
The house, whilst rented returns to the Town an income of $130 per week or $6,760 per annum, less costs associated with the property in rates, taxes and management fees is approximately $1,600.
The building is in poor condition and requires major repairs, such as interior and exterior painting, gutter replacement, plumbing upgrade and some site works to remove sand from along the Grantham Street Side.
The Town does not have any further plans to widen the road at the southern side of the Selby/Grantham Street intersection. Enquires have been made with the Ministry for Planning and advice received acknowledges that there are no land restrictions on lot 590 on the corner of Selby and Grantham Street, Floreat under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme.
141 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
The house is currently vacant and now would be an opportune time to dispose of the property. This would allow any prospective purchasers an opportunity to inspect the property without inconveniencing tenants.
The land is zoned ‘Residential R20’ under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1. The site comprises an area of 963 square metres, and thus has the potential for the development of two grouped dwellings under this code. This aspect alone may assist the Town to attract a potential developer and achieve a reasonable return for the sale of the site. Due to the location and condition of the existing building it is not recommended in this instance that Council develops this block itself, but allows another interested party to carry any risk. It may be that a prospective purchaser may wish to buy the land and house to restore.
In accordance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Council may choose to dispose of land using the following methods;
Section 3.58(2)(a) to the highest bidder at public auction;
Section 3.58(2)(b) to the person who at public tender called by the local government makes what is, in the opinion of the local government, the most acceptable tender, whether or not it is the highest tender;
Section 3.58(3)(a) & (b) A local government can dispose of property other than under section 3.58(2) if, before agreeing to dispose of the property;
It gives statewide public notice of the proposed disposition, (i) describing the property concerned, (ii) giving details of the proposed disposition and (iii) inviting submissions to be made to the local government not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given and;
It considers any submissions made before making a decision.
As the Town has not received any interest in the purchase of this site by adjoining owners or any other party it is recommended that Council disregard this method of disposition at this time.
When considering disposing of land, consideration needs to be given to the fees that would be incurred by the Town in relation to the method of sale.
142 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
The commission and fees charged by a real estate agent for the sale of property is determined by the sale price in relation to a structured scale of fees recommended by the Real Estate Institute of WA. These charges are used as a guide only, and if necessary an agent can negotiate a fee with the vendor at his or her discretion.
Therefore prior to proceeding with the disposal of the site, it is recommended quotes be sought and an assessment made on the most effective method of disposing of the site and if the fees applied can be negotiated. This would enable the Town to maximise a return from the sale of the land.
On receipt of the quotes it is recommended the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to select the method of disposal of land in accordance with section 3.58 (2) of the Local Government Act.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Proceeds from the sale of land be transferred to the Area Improvements Reserve.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Nil
It is therefore recommended that:-
(i) the disposal of 258 Selby Street, Floreat and being the whole of the land contained in Certificate of Title Volume 1508 Folio 899 by public auction be approved in accordance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995;
(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to appoint an auctioneer and make all necessary arrangements to effect clause (i) above.
Committee Meeting 15 June 1998
During discussion, Members agreed that the item relating to the disposal of 258 Selby Street, Floreat be referred to the Technical Services Committee for consideration.
143 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That the item relating to the disposal of 258 Selby Street, Floreat be referred to the Technical Services Committee for consideration in relation to any future requirements for road widening particularly in relation to the recently completed Roads Management Study.
Carried
144 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.79
WEMBLEY GOLF COMPLEX – ATTENDANCE (File Reference: PRO0075)
BACKGROUND:
The Wembley Golf Complex Advisory Group meet on a regular basis to review the operations of the golf complex. At its recent meeting on 9 June 1998, the group agreed to provide the Council with an update on the attendance figures for information.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Nil
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:
Nil
DETAILS:
Statistics are recorded on attendance figures on a monthly basis. Comparisons are also available for total attendance since 19984/85. Several charts have been produced which outline the attendance figures since 1984/85 and also a further detailed breakdown for each month in the current financial year. Copies of these charts are attached.
Chart 1 – Annual Attendance Figures since 1984/85 (note this information is current as at May 1998 therefore the 1997/98 figures will be higher at 30 June 1998).
Chart 2 - Total Rounds on a monthly basis for the last three years. This includes the total of 9 holes and 18 holes.
Chart 3 Driving Range – Total Driving Range on a monthly basis for the last three years.
Chart 4 - Attendance Figures 1997/98 on a monthly basis divided into separate categories i.e. Total Rounds, 9 Holes, 18 Holes and Driving Range.
145 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Table 1 - Actual figures for attendance over the last three years. The table also includes projected annual figures for 1997/98.
These charts demonstrate that attendance at the Wembley Golf Complex has been static for several years except last year when the Tuart Course was partially closed during redevelopment. The Golf Complex is now attracting approximately 180,000 per annum which is considered optimal for the course.
It has been reported that there has been a general decline in golf over recent years and the opening of additional courses in Perth has also had an impact on the available market of golfers.
The Wembley Golf Complex has performed well to maintain its annual attendance figures and this can be partly attributed to the redevelopment works undertaken on the Tuart Course. If these works had not been completed it is expected that attendance would have declined. It should be noted that the attendance in 1996/97 was approximately 7% lower than in 1995/96 due to the partial closure of the course during the redevelopment works.
It is expected that the attendance will remain constant at the complex at approximately 180,000 per annum with approximately 115,000 playing 9 Holes and 65,000 playing 18 Holes. In addition to actual rounds played, the number of people using the Driving Range has increased every year and it is projected to result in 53,000 buckets of balls being hired for the 1997/98 year.
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That the report relating to attendance at the Wembley Golf Complex be received.
Carried
146 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.80
STANDING ORDERS PROCEDURES RELATING TO DEPUTATIONS AT COMMITTEE MEETINGS: POLICY (File Reference: ADM0083/POL0003)
BACKGROUND:
At the meeting of the Development and Environmental Development Committee held on 21 April 1998, the Administration was requested to prepare a policy relating to deputations at Committee meetings.
DETAILS:
It is proposed that the following policy be introduced to complement Standing Orders procedures relating to deputations:-
Deputations: Committee Meetings
Objectives
To provide the opportunity for residents and ratepayers to address the Council’s Standing Committees in support of particular issues.
Policy Statement
1. A request for a deputation to a Committee is to be submitted in writing to the CEO who shall forward the written request to the Presiding Member of the relevant Committee.
2. If the request is approved, confirmation of the deputation will be provided to the applicant.
3. If possible, applicants be advised to limit their deputation to the provision of additional information to that which is contained in the Committee report.
4. Requests received after the production of the relevant Committee agenda, shall be at the discretion of the Presiding Member during the meeting.
147 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
5. No more than two persons from each deputation may address the Committee although others, if in attendance, may respond to specific questions from the Members.
6. No deputation is to address the Committee for a period greater than five minutes.
7. Any matter, which is the subject of a deputation is not to be decided by that Committee until the deputation has completed its presentation. Council Meeting 26 May 1998
At the Council meeting held on 26 May 1998, this matter was referred back to Committee for further consideration. It was also noted that interested Members should attend or submit suggestions on this matter to the next Committee meeting.
FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 26 May 1998)
During discussion at the May 1998 Council meeting, Members suggested a number of changes to the content of the policy. It was agreed that further discussion was required in order to incorporate all proposed amendments. Suggestions raised at the Council meeting included:-
1. Various ways in which a request for a deputation may be approved, either by the Presiding Member or the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the Presiding Member.
2. The request should contain the reason(s) the deputation is sought.
3. Applicants to limit the deputation to the provision of additional information to that contained in the Committee report.
4. Requests received after the Committee Agenda is produced to be at the discretion of the Presiding Member but shall not be unreasonably denied.
5. Time period limited to five minutes, unless additional time is specifically granted by the Presiding Member either prior to or during the address.
These suggestions have been incorporated in an amended policy as detailed in the recommendation below.
148 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That the following policy relating to deputations at Committee meetings, be adopted:-
DEPUTATIONS: COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Objectives
To provide the opportunity for residents and ratepayers to address the Council’s Standing Committees in support of particular issues.
Policy Statement
1. A request, including the reason(s), for a deputation to a Committee is to be submitted in writing to the CEO who shall forward the written request to the Presiding Member of the relevant Committee.
2. If the request is approved, confirmation of the deputation will be provided to the applicant prior to the Committee meeting if possible.
3. If possible, applicants be advised to limit their deputation to the provision of additional information to that which is contained in the Committee report.
4. Requests received after the production of the relevant Committee agenda, shall be at the discretion of the Presiding Member during the meeting but shall not be unreasonably denied.
5. No more than two persons from each deputation may address the Committee although others, if in attendance, may respond to specific questions from the Members.
6. No deputation is to address the Committee for a period greater than five minutes unless additional time is specifically granted by the Presiding Member either prior to or during the address.
6. Any matter, which is the subject of a deputation is not to be decided by that Committee until the deputation has completed its presentation.
149 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
8. This policy does not limit the right of a person to ask a question in Question Time, in accordance with Section 5.24 of the Local Government Act 1995.
Carried
150 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.81
INSURANCE RENEWAL – 1998/99 (File Reference: FIN0091)
BACKGROUND:
Council is required to renew its insurance policies prior to their expiry on 30 June 1998. The Town has already submitted the public liability, professional indemnity and workers compensation insurance policies, held with WAMA, which were approved for renewal at the May 1988 Council meeting. The remainder of the Council’s general insurance policies are dealt with by Council’s Insurance Brokers, Marsh and McLennan. They have now completed their negotiations with the respective underwriters for renewal of the Town’s insurance portfolio for the 1998/99 financial year.
In addition a renewal of the Town’s Directors and Officers Liability Insurance policy is due for the 1998/99 financial year. The Municipal Insurance Broking Service (MIBS) which is part of WAMA’s services, is once again offering a policy specifically tailored for Local Government. The quote is yet to be received but is expected to be similar to last year’s premium paid of $4,982.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Nil
DETAILS:
Council’s Insurance Brokers Marsh & McLennan have presented a renewal report for the Town for 1998/99 which includes details of Council’s general insurance policies, excluding Workers Compensation, Public Liability, Professional Indemnity and Directors and Officers Liability Insurance. A copy of this report can be provided to Councillors on request.
Councils’ current insurance underwriters are SGIO who were approached along with the following underwriters to quote on Council’s Insurance portfolio as detailed below:
• American International Group • AMP General • Commercial Union • GIO Australia 151 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
• MMI Insurance • NZI Insurance • Royal and Sun Alliance • Zurich Insurance Australia
The brokers have stated that the insurance market is continuing to remain a buyers market with capital available for underwriting insurance risks on a global basis being more than ample to cover client risks. Given this, premiums have increased marginally from last year’s premium of $94,007. This has mainly been due to an increase in asset values of both the Town’s buildings by $11 million and plant and equipment by $0.8 million.
The brokers have recommended that the Town re-insure with SGIO as they continue to be the only insurance company to offer a “package” arrangement of insurances for local authorities although the premium is some $6,000 more than dividing the portfolio up with other insurers. The other insurance companies had a mixture of more expensive and cheaper premiums for each class of insurance policy in comparison to SGIO. In order to obtain the cheapest premium, Council would have to select individual policies between insurers offering the lowest premiums. The downside of this option, although giving a saving in premium dollars, would be negotiating the payout of claims as each insurer would have its own requirements and conditions in dealing with claims. Furthermore, insurance companies tend to be more flexible in dealing with customer claims when they are the main insurer for all classes of insurance, as their risks exposure is spread across all policies held. The SGIO package carries a premium of $99,112 an increase of $5,105 or 5.4% on last year.
A summary of the insurance renewal terms are outlined below:-
(a) SGIO to continue as insurer
Insurance Class Underwriter 1997/98 1998/99 Industrial Special Risks (Property)* SGIO $50,819 $53,467 Motor Vehicle SGIO $31,457 $32,751 Electronic Equipment SGIO $2,946 $3,596 Monetary/Fidelity Guarantee SGIO $1,150 $1,150 Contract Works SGIO $779 $769 Personal Risks SGIO $2,548 $2,783 Personal Accident – Voluntary Workers AIG $500 $500 Engineering (Machinery Breakdown) SGIO $3,320 $3,320 Multiple Risks SGIO $488 $776 TOTAL $94,007 $99,112
152 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
* Premium based on Perry Lakes grand stand, entry buildings, toilets only being insured for 50% of its value on indemnity value basis.
(b) A mixture of different insurers in order obtain cheapest overall premium
Insurance Class Underwriter 1998/99 Industrial Special Risks (Property)* NZI *$56,758 Motor Vehicle AMP $24,022 Electronic Equipment NZI $3,391 Monetary/Fidelity Guarantee NZI $2,380 Contract Works MMI $1,330 Personal Risks NZI, CIGNA, AMP $2,500 Personal Accident – Voluntary Workers AIG $500 Engineering (Machinery Breakdown) NZI $2,720 Multiple Risks NZI $895 TOTAL $94,496
* Premium based on Perry Lakes grandstand, entry buildings and toilets being insured for an agreed value.
Perry Lakes Stadium
The Perry Lakes Stadium is the largest single asset owned by the Town. The Town has some $68 million worth of buildings insured of which the Perry Lakes Stadium represents $27 million. This is as follows:-
Building Value 50% Reduction Net Value Insured Grandstand $18,844,679 -$9,422,340 $9,422,339 Entry Buildings $447,741 -$223,871 $223,870 Conveniences ( x 7) $1,690,341 -$845,171 $845,170 Scoreboard $168,156 -$84,078 $84,078 Freestanding Stage Area $212,602 -$106,301 $106,301 Clubhouse Rugby Union $1,057,187 0 $1,057,187 Rugby Grandstand $101,299 0 $101,299 Stadium – Amateur Basketball Assoc. $4,607,198 0 $4,607,198 $27,129,203 -$10,681,761 $16,447,442
The insurance premium being paid in respect of the stadium complex is in the vicinity of $20,000. The complex is not being used to its full capacity. The only facilities being used on a regular basis are the basketball stadium, athletics track and warm up track. In addition the Town’s tenants use and occupy the rugby union main building and Sir Thomas Meagher Pavillion.
153 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
In light of obtaining a possible reduction in insurance premiums paid, the building valuations supplied in respect of the Perry Lakes Stadium complex have been reviewed We have therefore sought a premium based on 50% self insurance on those assets in the above table. The athletics stand of $18,844,679 comprises the whole of the stadium’s seating and the main grandstand, Sir Thomas Meagher Pavilion. The Sir Thomas Meagher Pavilion and the pavilion’s seating has been valued at $9,244,410.
It has also been established that:-
• the scoreboard insured at $168,156 is no longer operational.
• the complex has seven toilet blocks which have been insured for an aggregate sum of $1,690,341. Only three toilet blocks are still operational, the remaining four blocks having had their water and sewerage connections disconnected. The three toilet blocks, one at the Northern and Southern end of the complex and one next to the rugby union warm up track have been collectively valued at $724,432.
• The rugby union association have taken out their own insurance policy in respect of the rugby main building and rugby grandstand for a sum of $1.5 million.
• The entries insured for $447,741 will not be replaced if destroyed.
The building valuation for Perry Lakes Stadium could potentially reduced by some $12,340,561 representing :
Scoreboard $ 168,156 Four toilet blocks $ 965,909 Rugby main building $ 1,057,187 Rugby grandstand $ 101,299 Stadium’s seating $ 9,600,269 Entries $ 447,741
Total $12,340,561
The Council has therefore some options to consider in reducing the Town’s Industrial Special Risks or property insurance premium. These are as follows:
154 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
1) Insure the whole complex for $25,970,717 which represents the total complex value of $27,129,203 less the Rugby Union Clubhouse $1,057,187 and Rugby Union Grandstand of $101,299 which have been insured by the Rugby Union Association. This would attract an additional premium of $9,518 from SGIO, increasing the total property premium to $59,591. The total premium payable would be $105,236.
2) Only insure the complex for $15 million on replacement value as follows:-
Building Value Insured Building Amount Grandstand $18,844,679 Sir Thomas Meagher $9,244,410 Entry Buildings $447,741 No 0 Conveniences (x 7) $1,690,341 3 conveniences $724,432 Scoreboard $168,156 No 0 Free Standing Stage Area $212,602 Yes $212,602 Clubhouse Rugby Union $1,057,187 Yes, by Rugby Union 0 Rugby Union Grandstand $101,299 Yes, by Rugby Union 0 Stadium Basketball $4,607,198 Yes $4,607,198 Total $27,129,230 $14,788,642
The Council would therefore act as self insurers for the remaining assets of $12 million, of which the main asset is the stadium seating of $9,600,269 ($18,844,679 - $9,244,410). The Town if taking this option would pay $50,073 in property insurance, a decrease of $3,394 from $53,467. The total premium payable would be $95,718. However, the Town would need to take out debris removal insurance for the uninsured buildings of $12,340,561 ($27,129,203 - $14,788,642) at a cost of approximately $500 to $1,000.
3) Insure the complex on the basis of indemnity value on a 50% co-insurance basis. Indemnity value is the value of the building at the time of loss. That is the replacement cost less depreciation of the building gives its indemnity value. It can also be the fair market value of the building. For example, a building is destroyed, the replacement value is $5 million. The building is 20 years old and depreciation over that time was $4 million. Then the indemnity value is $1 million. Fair market value however could be less than $1 million and the Council could receive less if this was the case. SGIO’s premium of $53,467 is based on Perry Lakes Complex (excluding the basketball stadium) being insured on indemnity value.
155 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
This option is not recommended as Sir Thomas Meagher Pavilion could experience a partial loss which would need to be repaired as the stadium is being leased by tenants. The exposure could be significant given that the Council would pay replacement cost to reinstate the loss but only receive insurance compensation on indemnity value.
4) Insure the complex (excluding the basketball stadium) on the basis of agreed value subject to a 50% co-insurance basis. This is where the insurer and the Town agree to insure the complex for a specific amount such as $10 million. In the event of a total loss the Town would, as co-insurer, receive $10 million. In the event of a partial loss however, the insurer and the Town would contribute 50% each to replace the asset. Both NZI and MMI have made proposals on agreed value. NZI was the cheapest at $56,785.
The Town recommends that either Option 1 or Option 2 be considered.
Option 1 covers all possible contingencies but costs an additional premium of $9,500 in comparison to Option 2. However, Option 2 could leave the Town exposed to substantial financial costs if a partial loss were to be experienced in the uninsured areas and the Council decided to replace or repair the damage incurred. If the Council decided to remove the affected structure then debris removal insurance would cover these costs.
Option 3 or 4 are not viable in view of Sir Thomas Meagher Pavilion being leased and the exposure with it not being fully insured in case of partial loss.
Councillors and Officers Liability Insurance
Insurance for this purpose is considered necessary as the protection provided to Councillors under the previous Local Government Act were removed with the introduction of the new Local Government Act on 1 July 1996.
Quotes for this class of insurance have yet to be obtained. Our current insurer is GIO which had a premium of $4,982 last year. The Municipal Insurance Broking Service (MIBS) have indicated that this is not likely to change for this year. This is currently being reviewed.
Review of Uninsured Risks
Each year the Brokers undertake a review of uninsured risks. The review recommended that Council considered the following:- 156 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
1. Employment Practices Liability (EPL)
This policy provides additional cover to the Councillors and Officers Liability Policy and for a limit of indemnity of $1,000,000 a premium of $2,875 will be charged.
2. Journey Protection
Changes to the Workers Compensation legislation has left employees without cover for injuries suffered during work related journeys. In response to this change many employers have taken out this insurance for the benefit of employees.
At this time it is not proposed that Council take out this but to consider implementing the insurance at the time of negotiating workplace agreements or enterprise bargaining. The premium for this class of insurance is $1,300.
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That:-
(i) the following insurance portfolio for 1998/99 be endorsed:-
Insurance Class Underwriter 1997/98 1998/99 Industrial Special Risks (Property) SGIO *$50,819 $51,073 Motor Vehicle SGIO $31,457 $32,751 Electronic Equipment SGIO $2,946 $3,596 Monetary/Fidelity Guarantee SGIO $1,150 $1,150 Contract Works SGIO $779 $769 Personal Risks SGIO $2,548 $2,783 Personal Accident – Voluntary Workers AIG $500 $500 Engineering (Machinery Breakdown) SGIO $3,320 $3,320 Multiple Risks SGIO $488 $776 TOTAL $94,007 $96,718
Note: This is based on Option 2 for Perry Lakes Stadium
157 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to accept the Councillors and Officers Liability Insurance renewal.
Carried
158 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
CCS98.82
LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOUSE EQUITY (File Reference:ADM0022)
BACKGROUND:
Council, at it’s meeting held on 28 October 1997, considered an item with respect to division of ten units in the equity of Local Government House held by the City of Perth. The proposal at that time was for those units to be distributed on the basis of revenue of the City of Perth and the three Towns so that each of the Towns were given one unit with the City of Perth to retain seven of its ten units.
In considering the matter Council decided:
That the Council advise the Western Australian Municipal Association (WAMA) the Town’s preferred option for distribution of equity in Local Government House would be on the basis of an equal share of 2.5 units for each of the four Councils affected.
DETAILS:
It is understood the Towns of Vincent and Victoria Park all resolved in similar fashion to the Town of Cambridge. Correspondence has now been received from the Western Australian Municipal Association to advise that the Trustees of Local Government House have resolved that a more reasonable compromise to the distribution of the ten units of equity held by the City of Perth should be in the following manner:
City of Perth 4 units Town of Cambridge 2 units Town of Victoria Park 2 units Town Of Vincent 2 Units TOTAL 10 Units
The previous resolution of the Council if accepted by all parties would have seen the Town of Cambridge obtain 2.5 units of City of Perth’s equity. Each unit has a value of approximately $1,471.15 and the .5 of a unit which is still in dispute has only a nominal value of $735. It is recommended that the Council advise the Western Australian Municipal Association that it is prepared to accept the
159 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
compromised distribution of City of Perth‘s units of equity in Local Government House.
The Trustees of Local Government House have indicated that they are keen to encourage all Councils to support Local Government House on a relatively equal basis. Councils with a revenue similar to that of the Town of Cambridge currently hold eight units of equity which was valued at 30 June 1997 at 8 x $1,471.15 = $11,769.20. The Trustees propose that the Town accepts two units from the City of Perth at the value of $1,471.15 per unit and purchase an additional six units for a total contribution of$8,826.90. The Western Australian Municipal Association advise that current market valuations indicate that the capital value of the property has increased by more than 100%. While the Town of Cambridge may receive an increase in valuation of the equity over time, that equity is unlikely to be realised to the Town in the short term and it is recommended that the Council decline WAMA’s offer to purchase six additional units of equity in Local Government House.
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That:-
(i) the Western Australian Municipal Association be advised that the Town is prepared to accept two units of the equity held by the City of Perth in Local Government House;
(ii) the Western Australian Municipal Association be advised that the Town is not prepared to increase its equity in Local Government House to eight units as suggested by the Trustees.
Carried
160 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
The following information was submitted to the Corporate and Customer Services Committee meeting held on 15 June 1998 and is provided for Council’s information.
8. REPORTS FROM DELEGATES: COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS
8.1 Wembley Golf Complex Advisory Committee
This matter was dealt with at Item CCS98.79.
8.2 Ocean Gardens (Inc) Board of Management
This matter was dealt with at Item 10.2
8.3 Western Suburbs Community Policing Committee
Nothing further to report since last month.
8.4 Disabilities Services Committee
Nothing further to report since last month.
8.5 Beach Users Group
Cr Smith reported that the next meeting will be held on Monday 31 August 1998.
8.6 Wembley Scouts Hall Working Group
The Executive Manager Corporate and Customer Services reported that there is a report relating to the condition of the Wembley Scout Hall that will be considered by the Development and Environmental Services Committee on Tuesday 16 June 1998. Members were also advised that further information is being sought from the Scouts with regard to the current use of the hall.
161 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
9. GENERAL BUSINESS
9.1 Change of Meeting Time
Members resolved that the meeting time for the Corporate and Customer Services Committee be amended to 5.30pm.
9.2 New Library
Cr Smith requested that a report be submitted to the next meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee to be held on 20 July 1998, relating to the progress of the Library Development project.
9.3 Policy and Administration Committee Items
Cr Smith queried why the item relating to the National General Assembly was not included in the Corporate and Customer Services Committee Agenda. The Administration Officer (Committees) advised that further details, including costings, were due to be available at the beginning of July 1998 and upon receipt an item would be submitted to the July 1998 Committee.
9.4 Land at corner of Jersey Street and Salvado Road
Cr Smith queried whether the adjustment of the local government boundaries would affect the ownership of the land.
The Chief Executive Officer advised that the land was owned freehold by the Town and that a boundary adjustment will not necessarily result in a change in the ownership of the land.
10. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS
The Committee agreed that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the remaining business in accordance with the appropriate clause of Section 5.2.3 of the Local Government Act 1995.
162 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIRMAN…………………………………………………...
10.1 MINDARIE/TAMALA PARK LAND
Resolved that it be recommended to the Council that:-
(i) the introduction of a Private Members Bill into State Parliament to amend the City of Perth Restructuring Act 1993 to insert a section which would provide for the Towns of Cambridge, Vincent and Victoria Park to each receive a quarter share of the City of Perth’s ownership of Lot 17 Mindarie/Tamala Park land be pursued with the Member for Churchlands, Dr Elizabeth Constable MLA;
(ii) the Towns of Victoria Park and Vincent be advised of Council’s decision and requested to vigorously support the Town’s objective in obtaining an equitable share in the ownership of the Mindarie/Tamala Park land.
10.2 OCEAN GARDENS (INC) RETIREMENT VILLAGE
Committee Meeting 15 June 1998
The Town’s legal advisor, Mr Denis McLeod of McLeod and Company, addressed and advised the Committee in regard to Ocean Gardens (lnc).
Resolved that it be recommended to the Council that following an explanation given by the Town’s Solicitor, Mr Denis McLeod of McLeod and Co, in respect to Ocean Gardens (Inc) the Council gives consideration to the Committee recommendation in regard to future legal proceedings.
11. 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 9.10pm.
163 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
The report of the Development and Environmental Services Committee meeting held on 16 June 1998 was submitted as under:-
1. ATTENDANCE
Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving
Members:
Cr David Berry (Presiding Member) 5.31pm 7.10pm
Deputy Mayor, Cr Kerry Smith 6.10pm 7.10pm Cr Graham Burkett, JP 5.34pm 7.10pm Cr Corinne MacRae 5.31pm 7.10pm Cr Ian Steele (Deputy) 5.31pm 7.10pm
Observers:
Nil.
Officers:
Ian Birch, Executive Manager Development and Environmental Services Philip St John, Manager Planning Services Lee Rowley, Manager Building and Environmental Services Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Committees)
Adjournments: Nil
Time meeting closed: 7.10pm
2. APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE
His Worship the Mayor, Ross Willcock, JP Cr Marlene Anderton
148 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Resolved that the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development and Environmental Services Committee held on 19 May 1998, and contained in the May Council Notice Paper be confirmed.
4. QUESTION TIME
Nil
5. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS
Nil
6. DECLARATIONS OF MEMBERS INTERESTS
Nil
7. REPORTS
149 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.106
LOT 5 (NO. 10) AND LOT 4 (NO. 12) ABBOTSFORD STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED USE OF RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES FOR VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE, CONSULTING AND THERAPEUTIC ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NIOLA PRIVATE HOSPITAL (File Reference: PRO0060)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 9DA-98 LANDOWNER: E J Bevan and C S Coyne APPLICANT: Greg Rowe and Associates Pty Ltd ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R60
RECENT HISTORY:
17 February 1998: Development and Environmental Services Committee deferred consideration of the non-compliances associated with the operations of the Niola Hospital until the April 1998 Council meeting.
28 April 1998: Council at its meeting held on 28 April 1998, resolved that:- (i) the Administration prepare a report to the next meeting of the Development and Environmental Services Committee to be held on Tuesday 19 May 1998 outlining how the Council might grant permission to allow Niola Hospital to continue to use 10 and 12 Abbotsford Street and that such permission should be specific in terms of activities and areas used; (ii) the owners of Niola Hospital be advised that they must remove the transportable buildings located in the main hospital grounds facing Cambridge Street and put forward a proposal for consideration at the meeting of the Development and Environmental Services Committee to be held on Tuesday 19 May 1998 for the removal of these buildings.
26 May 1998: Council, at its meeting held on 26 May 1998, resolved that; (i) to initiate an amendment to the Town Planning Scheme No 1 as detailed in Schedule 2, as described in the report, to introduce an additional uses provision to specific lots at Lots 5 and 4 (Nos 10 and 12) Abbotsford Street, West Leederville,
150 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
(ii) the Administration seeks legal advice of the suggested drafting of the Scheme Provisions and that this be presented to the Development and Environmental Services Committee in June 1998; (iii) The current use be allowed to continue without prosecution while the Council deals with the application for a Scheme Amendment which would properly and legitimately cover the use of the land.
This report is prepared to fulfil Clause (ii) of Council’s May 1998 resolution above.
COMMENT:
Recommended Scheme Provisions The draft Scheme provisions have been submitted to Council’s solicitors to be checked for drafting in accordance with the May 1998 resolution of the Council. The solicitors have supplied a redraft of this text in order to improve its clarity and legal effectiveness, without making any change to the tenor or substance of the planning content of the amendment text.
It is therefore recommended that the draft amendment text be modified in accordance with the legal advice received and a formal amendment be initiated to the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme.
Determination of the development application for the land A motion to formally refuse the previous application lodged for the site was considered and lost at the May 1998 Committee and Council meetings. This application would now be deemed to be refused under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme.
CONCLUSION:
The main issues associated with this proposal, being whether the existing uses on these lots should be permitted to remain and the most appropriate statutory method of doing this, were resolved at the May 1998 meeting of the Council. This further decision is necessary only to formally initiate the required Town Planning Scheme amendment including the recommended changes to the drafting of the amendment text as advised by Council’s solicitors.
Committee Meeting 16 June 1998
During discussion, as the votes of Members present were equally divided, the Presiding Member requested that he be recorded as voting against the motion,
151 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
then, as Presiding Member exercised his casting vote in favour of the motion to enable this item be submitted to Council as an approval.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That:-
(i) in accordance with Regulations 13 and 25 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, the Town Planning Scheme No 1 be amended by adding the following text to Schedule 2 – Additional Uses;
No. Land Particulars Additional Uses Development Standards/ Conditions 1 Lot 5 (No 10) and Administrative Offices, 1: The additional uses shall be Lot 4 (No 12) Training, Treatment, carried out within and confined Abbotsford Street, Staff Accommodation to the existing buildings on site. West Leederville and Storage; all of those uses being associated 2: In the event that: with existing Hospital (a) any of the buildings is located on Lots 1, 181 removed, destroyed or damaged and 50, Nos 61-69, to the extent that the Cambridge Street, West replacement cost would on Leederville independent expert assessment be 75% or more of the value of the building immediately prior to removal destruction or damage; or (b) any of the buildings is not used for any lawful purpose including the additional uses for 6 consecutive months or more; or (c) any of the buildings ceases to be occupied by and in connection with the Hospital referred to in the Additional Uses column then the land is not thereafter to be used for any purpose other than a purpose approved by the Council and in accordance with the Zoning Table.
3: Notwithstanding the permitted additional uses, no area shown on the approved plans (approved by the Council on 23 June 1998 and dated accordingly) as ‘Amenities’, ‘Store’, ‘Kitchen’, ‘Kitchenette’ ‘Hallway’ or ‘Verandah’ is to be
152 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
used for any purpose other than that annotated on the approved plans.
4: The additional uses prescribed herein relate only to activities associated with existing Hospital referred to in the Additional Uses column, and no part of the land is to be used for any purposes which are independent of the hospital.
5: A total of 4 vehicle parking bays shall be provided at the rear of the building on Lot 5.
(ii) the applicants be required to:-
(a) submit the necessary Town Planning Scheme amendment processing fee and documentation to enable the formal initiation of this amendment;
(b) meet all costs associated with the advertising and public notification of this amendment.
During discussion, Cr Berry spoke against the motion.
Extension of time to speak
Moved by Cr McConnell, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with Clause 3.3.10 of the Standing Orders, Cr Berry be permitted to continue speaking.
Carried
Discussion ensued.
153 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
The motion was then put and carried.
Members requested that the vote of all those present be recorded.
For: Crs Anderton, Burkett, O’Connor, Smith and Steele Against: Crs Berry, MacRae and McConnell
His Worship the Mayor returned to the meeting at 6.40pm and resumed the Chair as Presiding Member.
154 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.107
LOT 1 (UNIT 1, NO.181-185) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED HOME OCCUPATION (HOME OFFICE FOR HOME MAINTENANCE SERVICE) (File Reference: PRO0109)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 67HO LANDOWNER: G and J Leighton APPLICANT: N Hayward ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Medical
COMPLIANCE:
The proposal complies with the provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 relating to permitted number of persons employed and vehicle size (Policy 3.4).
DETAILS:
The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to use a room of a unit located at Lot 1, No.1/181-185 Cambridge Street, Wembley as a home office for a Home Maintenance Service. The applicant has applied with the assistance of a Government Enterprise Scheme.
Content of Submission
The owner of the building (21 units) has signed the application form implying support for the proposal.
COMMENT:
Under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, a home occupation is classified as an ‘AA ‘use within the Medical zone. The Council therefore, is permitted discretion to approve the application. The landowner has consented to this proposal and does not have any objections.
The majority of business conducted is through telecommunication or away from the premises. The applicant has indicated that there will be no work undertaken at the site and that the commercial vehicle will park on the site. It is considered
155 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
that the use is unobtrusive and will not result in any negative effect on the amenity of the neighbours and surrounding residential area. Based on the information above, it is recommended that the Council supports the application and grants conditional approval.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with the provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme the Council APPROVES the application submitted by N Hayward for a Home Occupation (Home Office for Home Maintenance Service) on Lot 1 (Unit 1,No.181-185) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on plans received and dated 22 May 1998, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) approval being limited to the scope of operations as described in the application for planning approval;
(ii) compliance with the provisions of the Council’s Town Planning Scheme No.1.
Footnote:
If, in the case of a planning approval granted for a Home Occupation, a notice served under Clause 55(3) (offences) is not complied with, the Council may, without further notice to the owner or occupier, revoke its planning approval. The planning approval is limited to the information submitted by the applicant.
Carried
156 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.108
LOT 226 (NO.83) EMPIRE AVENUE, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS AND FRONT FENCE (File Reference: PRO0345)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 293BA-98 LANDOWNER: T and J Lanigan APPLICANT: As above ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5
COMPLIANCE:
Non-compliance Required Proposed -Solid wall height within 6.0 metres of front boundary (Local 1.2 metres 2 metres Law 43)
- Fence height 1.8 metres 3.5 metres maximum
DETAILS:
Lot Area: 946 square metres
An application has been received for proposed retaining walls and front fence at Lot 226 (No.83) Empire Avenue, City Beach. The plans submitted indicate a front and side retaining wall, with the front retaining wall having a 1.5 metres high fence with brick piers and wrought iron. The lot currently has an existing retaining wall on the front boundary. The subject lot is bounded by single residential dwellings.
The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary the front retaining wall height from 1.2 metres to 2 metres and the total wall height from 1.8 metres to 3.5 metres. The Council is required to consider the impact of the variation on the character of the streetscape and the locality in general.
CONTENT OF SUBMISSIONS:
The adjoining landowners have signed the plans and stated that they have no objection to the proposed retaining walls and fence.
157 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
The owner has verbally stated that he would like the side and front retaining walls to be considered independently by Council because the side wall complies with Council regulations, unlike the front wall. The owner has submitted photographs in support of his application.
COMMENT:
Side Retaining Wall
The applicant proposes to have a side retaining wall 9 metres in length, 1.8 metres high and setback from the front boundary 17 metres. A 1.8 metres high fence is proposed to go on top of the retaining wall. Currently, a 1 metre high retaining wall and 1 metre high fence retain the side boundary and which has deteriorated. The owner has advised that the new retaining wall and fence would be 3.6 metres high from the natural ground level on his lot. The adjoining property would have a fence height of 1.8 metres from ground level.
Local Law No.19 (Fencing) Clause 2(a) & (b) states that no wall shall exceed 3.6 metres in height and a wall higher than 2.4 metres requires Council approval. In this instance, the high fence is on the proponents’ side and will have little impact on the neighbour. Additionally, the adjoining owners have stated they have no objection to the proposal. Therefore, the retaining wall is supported.
Wall Height (front retaining wall and fence)
Local Law 43, Clause 4 (4) states that the wall heights within 6 metres of the front boundary are to be no greater than 1.2 metres in height without Council approval. Fencing above this height should be predominantly open view. The applicant proposes to have a front boundary retaining wall ranging in height from 0.9 metres to 2 metres. On top of the retaining wall, a 1.5 metres high fence with brick piers and open wrought iron is proposed. The owner has indicated that the levels on the adjoining property (No.85 Empire Avenue –east) would not allow for a lower retaining wall on the dividing boundary as the land has been built up against the existing retaining wall. The total length of the wall is 19 metres and the maximum wall height is 3.5 metres.
The applicant has advised that the existing retaining wall has a height of 1 metre at the north-east corner and 0.6 metres at the north-west corner of the lot. Portions of the wall have a maximum height of 1.2 metres.
158 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
The Council has strictly enforced the requirements of Local Law 43 and variations are only permitted in special circumstances. The intent of the wall height restriction is to create and maintain the open streetscape character of the locality. In part, the proposal contravenes the requirements and the height variation is considered to have a detrimental impact on the streetscape and thus is unacceptable for the following reasons:-
• The existing front retaining wall provides adequate retaining for the lot. The proposed retaining wall is needed to make the front portion of the lot completely level;
• There are alternative designs for the front retaining that could comply with Council regulations, however the front of the lot would no be the same level;
• The maximum wall height of 3.5 metres is considered to be excessive when located on the front boundary;
• The retaining wall could set a precedent for that portion of Empire Avenue.
The owner has indicated that a minimum wall height of 1.8 metres is required to make the site level. He has also asked if the Council would consider alternative designs to the front retaining by having the wall stepped-back and infilling with vegetation. This option would soften the impact of the wall, but would still not be in compliance with Council regulations and would have a negative impact on the streetscape and amenity. Therefore, the front retaining wall and fence is not supported.
CONCLUSION:
The side retaining wall is supported on the grounds that it will not adversely impact on the adjoining property. The front retaining wall and fence does not comply with Council regulations and it is recommended that the Council not support this part of the application.
It is therefore recommended that:-
(i) in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, Local Law 43 and Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and matters required to be considered under these provisions generally, and having particular regard to:-
159 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
(a) the retaining wall and front fence not complying with Clause 4 (4) of Local Law 43;
the Council REFUSES the application submitted by T and J Lanigan for retaining walls and front fence at Lot 226 (No.83) Empire Avenue,City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 28 May 1998.
(ii) the applicant be advised that the Council is prepared to approve an amended building licence application subject to the following modification;
(a) the front retaining wall and fence having a maximum height of 1.2 metres for the solid wall and a total height of 1.8 metres for the open fence.
(iii) the Chief Executive Officer be granted delegated authority to approve building licence plans modified in accordance with (ii) above.
Council Meeting 23 June 1998
During discussion, the Mayor advised Members that the applicants have submitted a request that this matter be deferred from consideration by the Council to enable further discussions to be undertaken.
Motion to refer back
Moved by Cr Burkett, seconded by Cr Steele
That the item relating to Lot 226 (No. 83) Empire Avenue, City Beach – Proposed Retaining Walls and Front Fence, be referred back to the Development and Environmental Services Committee for further consideration.
Carried
160 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.109
LOT 490 (NO. 11) ORANA CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED PATIO (File Reference: PRO0037)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 197BA-98 LANDOWNER: M and M Lennon APPLICANT: Owner ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5
COMPLIANCE:
Non - compliance Required Proposed Side setback 1.5 metres 1 metre (R-Codes)
Policy No.20 (iv) states that approval may be granted to dwelling additions where they do not comply with the side or rear setbacks, but are in-line with the existing dwelling and where the adjoining landowner does not have any objections. In this particular application, the adjoining landowner has objected to the proposal.
Clause 39 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 permits the Council to approve a non-complying application (by an Absolute Majority) where the proposal is consistent with:-
• the orderly and proper planning of the locality; • the conservation of the amenity of the locality; • the intent of the Precinct Planning Policy; and • would not have any adverse impact on the occupiers, the inhabitants of the locality or the likely future development of the locality.
DETAILS:
An application has been received for approval to roof an existing pergola (under construction) situated on the side (west) and rear (south) of an existing single dwelling at No. 11 Orana Crescent, City Beach. The applicant received building approval for a pergola (which does not require planning approval as it is not a
161 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
building according to the R-Codes) in May 1998. The existing pergola supports are in-line with the existing side and rear walls of the dwelling.
The roofing of the pergola now constitutes a patio, which is subject to the setbacks under the R-Codes. The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary the side setback to 1 metre from the side boundary (west).
CONTENTS OF SUBMISSIONS:
The adjoining landowner (west) at No.13 Orana Crescent has submitted an objection to the proposal which follows a strong objections given previously concerning a dividing fences issue between the properties. The submission includes photos taken from No.13 Orana Crescent, City Beach
The objection is as follows (summarised):-
• the western portion of the proposed patio appears to be an accessway and therefore the reduced side setback is not necessary;
• the existing boundary fence is 3.5 metres above ground level and the proposed patio will contribute to greater bulk along this boundary (the roof being proposed at 5 metres above ground level);
• the angle of the roofline with highly reflective polycarbonate sheeting will reflect an unacceptable amount of glare to the outside living area of the property making it unbearable to utilise this area; and
• the reduced side setback will accentuate the obtrusive view of the existing boundary wall.
Having regard to the above matters, the neighbour submits that the Council should not be varying the R Code requirements.
COMMENT:
As mentioned above, the owner has received building approval to construct a pergola (attached to the dwelling) which complied with the Building Code and is now under construction. The owner now proposes to roof the pergola, which effectively changes the classification of the structure to a patio and it is now subject to the setback requirements under the R-Codes.
162 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
The existing side wall of the dwelling and the columns to the pergola are set back 1.0 metre from the side boundary. The setback requirements for a patio apply to the columns only as this constitutes a ‘wall’ under the R-Codes and setback requirements do not apply to the roof which may protrude within 450 millimetres of the side boundary.
The adjoining neighbour has objected to the proposal on the grounds that it will contribute to overwhelming development bulk on the property and that glare from the roof will make their outdoor patio area unusable.
As the structure is a small addition to the dwelling (8 metres along this boundary) and is not a solid wall, it is unlikely to contribute to significant bulk that would detrimentally impact on the adjoining property. There is a significant difference in the levels between the properties supported by existing retaining walls. The existing pergola has been constructed at the same level as the dwelling.
The proposed roofing material of polycarbonate sheeting will allow most light to pass through the roof rather than reflect and glare is not expected to be a problem for the adjoining neighbours. In addition, the height of the roof is above the height of the neighbour’s yard.
CONCLUSION:
In considering the above matters, it is recommended that the Council support the proposed setback variation, as it is unlikely that the structure will have any detrimental impact on the adjoining property or the locality in general.
An absolute majority of the Council is required as the applicant proposes a variation to the Residential Planning Codes.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application submitted by M and M Lennon for a patio at Lot 490 (No. 11) Orana Crescent, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 15 April 1998.
During discussion, Cr McConnell said that a letter submitted to the Council by the adjoining neighbour highlighted concerns about the application.
163 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Motion to refer back
Moved by Cr McConnell, seconded by Cr Steele
That the item relating to Lot 490 (No. 11) Orana Crescent, City Beach – Proposed Patio be referred back to the Development and Environmental Services Committee for further consideration.
Carried
164 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.110
LOT 61 (NO. 77) WOOLWICH STREET CORNER HOLYROOD STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED GARAGE AND STORAGE LOFT (File Reference: PRO952)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 280BA-98 LANDOWNER: G and L Toy APPLICANT: Owners ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R40
COMPLIANCE:
Non – compliance Required Proposed Secondary Street Setback 1.5 metres nil and 1.4 metres (R-Codes)
Clause 1.5.8 (c) of the Residential Planning Codes (R-Codes) permits a structure to be constructed up to 1.5 metres of the secondary street provided that adequate sight lines are maintained.
Notification of the proposal to adjoining landowners is required where variations to setbacks are proposed.
DETAILS:
Lot Area: 443 square metres Open Space: 56 per cent
An application has been received for approval to demolish an existing single garage and construct a double garage and overhead storage loft at Lot 61 (No.77) Woolwich Street corner Holyrood Street, West Leederville. The garage has a nil setback to the secondary street (Holyrood Street) and a 5.6 metre setback to the primary street (Woolwich Street). The overhead loft is set back 1.4 metres from the secondary street. The applicant will utilise the existing crossover and driveway access to the garage.
165 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary the secondary street setback (refer to Compliance). In assessing the discretion sought, consideration should be given to the impact of the setback variations on adjoining properties, the character of the streetscape and the locality in general.
Applicant’s Grounds For Request
The applicant has submitted the following comments in support of the application (summarised):
• I wish to protect the family car and business van in a lockable garage with direct access to the home. The vehicles are currently parking in the double driveway and I wish to increase security due to vandalism, graffiti and tampering;
• I wish to use the loft to store tools and equipment presently stored in the existing garage;
• the existing crossover and brick paved driveway are to be retained and the new garage will occupy the same area up to the fence and the 1.2 metre passage between it and the house; and
• if the proposed garage has to be setback from Holyrood Street it will not be able to accommodate two cars.
Content of Submission
Adjoining landowners on both side boundaries have sighted the plans and do not have any objections to the proposal.
COMMENTS:
The applicant proposes a nil setback from the secondary street boundary for the garage and a 1.4 metre setback for the overhead storage loft, however, the R- Codes require a 1.5 metre setback to a secondary street. The proposal may be supported on the following grounds:-
• a high screen wall exists along most of the length of the secondary street boundary and as such, a garage wall of similar height will not significantly alter the existing streetscape;
166 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
• given the compact nature of development in this part of West Leederville, it is not uncommon to have buildings constructed to secondary street boundaries;
• mature trees in the Holyrood Street verge dominate the streetscape and will provide dense screening of the development from the Holyrood Street view;
• the adjoining property (rear) has a garage built up to the secondary street boundary; and
• the height and design of the storage loft is comparable to the height of the existing dwelling.
CONCLUSION:
In view of the above comments, it is recommended that the Council supports the application for garage and overhead storage loft. The absence of a secondary street setback does not impinge on the amenity of the adjoining lots and is not detrimental to the existing streetscape. An Absolute Majority of the Council is required as the applicant proposes a variation to the R-Codes.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for a Preliminary Building Licence submitted by the owners, G and L Toy, for a garage and overhead storage loft at Lot 61 (No.77) Woolwich Street corner Holyrood Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 26 May 1998.
Carried BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY
167 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.111
LOT 822 (NO. 122) SALVADO ROAD, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS (THREE STOREY) (File Reference: PRO0487)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 15DA-98 LANDOWNER: Hornslow Pty Ltd APPLICANT: J Corp ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R40
COMPLIANCE:
Non-compliance Required Proposed Both Side s/b (R –Codes) - ground level 1.5 metres Nil
- upper level 2 metres Nil Plot Ratio (R-Codes) 0.5 0.56 Open Space (R-Codes) 50% 48%
In considering the non compliances of this particular application the following provisions of the R Codes apply:-
• Clause 1.5.7 provides for a general discretion to vary setback requirements, having regard to the neighbouring development, potential future development and the amenity of the immediate locality.
• Clause 1.5.8 (f) enables the required setback from a side boundary for any wall to be reduced to nil provided generally that the length of any such wall exceeding 4 metres in height is not more than one quarter of the length of any common boundary. This is subject to the consideration of the potential impact on the amenity of the adjoining property.
• Table 1 of the R-Codes has a minimum open space requirement of 50% and a maximum plot ratio of 0.5:1.0.
168 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DETAILS:
Lot Area 834 square metres Floor Area 468 square metres Total Open Space 398 square metres Plot Ratio 0.56:1
An application has been received for approval to erect two grouped dwellings (three storey), behind an existing house at Lot 822, No.122 Salvado Road, Wembley. Plans submitted consist of a two rear grouped dwellings that are identical in design with a ground floor with a lounge/dining area, kitchen, study, store and double garage with access off the rear right of way. The first floor has three bedrooms and balcony and the third storey has a studio. Extensive parapet walls are proposed on either side of the lot. An existing dwelling is to be retained at the front of the lot. A 1.0 metre wide pedestrian access way is proposed to connect the rear lots with Salvado Road.
The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary the western and eastern side setbacks, plot ratio and open space (refer to Compliance).
The adjoining properties contain a mix of uses. No.120 Salvado Road contains two grouped dwellings and No.124 contains the McAuley House for aged care. The adjoining Local Authority contains the Subi Centro site.
Content Of Submissions
The adjoining landowners have signed the plans and provided correspondence stating that they do not have any objections to the proposed setback variations. However both neighbours have given detailed submissions to their conditional approvals, relating mainly to fencing.
COMMENT:
In assessing the discretions sought, consideration should be given to the impact of the setback variations on adjoining properties, the character of the streetscape and the locality in general.
The issues relating to the proposed variations are discussed below:-
169 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Setback Variations (Both Sides)
The R-Codes require a 1.5 metres setback at the ground level and 2 metres on the upper levels for both sides. The applicant proposes a 24.5 metres in length parapet wall on both side boundaries, with an average wall height of 4.6 metres. The maximum height of the parapet walls is 6.3 metres.
These variations being sought are considered unacceptable from a planning point of view. The parapet walls run along almost half the length of the lot and have a minimum height of 3.3 metres and an average height of 4.6 metres. Clause 1.5.8 (f) of the R-Codes states that walls with a nil setback and an average wall height greater than 3 metres should not have a wall length exceeding 25% of the boundary. The length and height of the parapet walls are considered to be excessive and when located on both sides of the lot, have a negative impact on the adjoining properties. The adjoining property owners has viewed the plans and indicated that they have no objection to the proposed setbacks. Notwithstanding the neighbour consent and in view of the above matters, the variations to side setbacks are not supported.
Plot Ratio
The applicant proposes a plot ratio of 0.56:1, equating to an additional 50.4 square metres of floorspace. Where a variance to plot ratio is sought, the Council should consider the bulk and scale of the dwelling and its impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, the streetscape and the subject lot. The design and configuration of the buildings increases the bulk of the development which is inconsistent with the surrounding area. The impact of the increased plot ratio in relation to the second and third storey will have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties due to the sheer size of the parapet walls and overshadowing that will occur over the rear of the existing front dwelling. Plot Ratio variations are not generally granted when major R-Code concessions are requested. Therefore the variation to plot ratio is not supported.
Open Space Variation
The open space figure of 48% equates to a deficiency of 19 square metres over the entire lot. In this particular instance, the variation to open space is considered unacceptable given that there are major R-Code concessions being sought. Furthermore, the front courtyard areas for the two dwellings and the rear courtyard of the existing front dwelling will be overshadowed, since they are located south of the dwelling. As such, the variation to open space is not supported.
170 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
CONCLUSION:
In this instance, the plans submitted indicate two substantial dwellings that contain excessive parapet walls that will have a negative impact on both adjoining properties. The retention of the existing dwelling is encouraged, however, when the proposed development is as overbearing as in this case, it cannot be supported. The overall scale is excessive given the design and configuration of the dwellings, which is further exacerbated by the side setbacks. Therefore the proposal is not supported.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 and matters required to be considered under these provisions generally, and having particular regard to:-
(i) the side setbacks not complying with the R-Codes Clause1.5;
(ii) the plot ratio not complying with Table 1 of the R-Codes;
(iii) the open space requirement not complying with the R-Codes.
the Council REFUSES the application for planning approval, submitted by J Corp for a proposed two grouped dwellings at Lot 822 (No.122) Salvado Road, Wembley, as shown on plans dated 28 May 1998.
Carried
171 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.112
LOT 1 (NO.10) RUISLIP STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING (TWO STOREY) (File Reference: PRO0969)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 269BA-98 LANDOWNER: EH and EJ Lawson APPLICANT: Owner ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R40
COMPLIANCE:
The proposed dwelling complies with the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 and the Residential Planning Codes. However, the purpose of this item is to discuss compliance to the Council’s Policy No. 150 “Removal of Street Trees for Property Development” and Policy No. 151 “Streets - Planting, Pruning and Removal”. The Council has received advice from the consultant tree surgeon that the existing position of the crossover will undermine the health of an existing mature street tree adjacent to the subject lot.
According to Clause 32 of the Scheme, the erection of a boundary fence requires the approval of the Council. In this particular application, it is proposed to construct a solid fence 1.8 metres in height along portion of the front boundary and within the front setback area.
DETAILS:
Lot Area: 443 square metres Plot Ratio: 0.46:1 Open Space: 50 per cent
An application has been received to construct a two-storey residence at Lot 1 (No.10) Ruislip Street, West Leederville. The plans indicate a bedroom, study, kitchen, meals/living area, rear garage and workshop and front garage on the ground floor and bedroom and activities room on the upper floor. The applicant proposes to construct an “L-shaped” 1.8 metre high solid wall along 5.5 metres
172 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
of the front boundary (in the middle of the boundary) and 3.5 metres within the front setback area.
Access to the rear garage is via Warwick Street and the rear right of way. Access to the front garage is via Ruislip Street and an existing street tree (Jacaranda) is located in the verge area. It is proposed to construct the crossover within 0.7 metres of the base of the tree.
The advice from the Council’s consultant Tree Surgeon with regard to this application is as follows:-
“On-site inspection has shown that 0.7 metres would be far too close to construct a crossover. Root loss, compaction of air pores in the soil and future root degradation through loss of water, oxygen and the ability to dispose carbon dioxide would result in the trees future decline. In general rootzone works should be kept to within the following guidelines:
(a) minimal disturbance inside the dripline (b) hand excavation; (c) hand compaction; and (d) selective hand pruning of disturbed roots.
In this instance, due to the tree’s size and relatively small property frontage, arboricultural advice has set the minimum distance for rootzone works 1.8 to 2 metres from the base of the tree. If hand excavation realises any major roots, the situation may need reassessing. It is therefore important that this initial work is carried out by a competent Tree surgeon. Consideration should be given to placing the crossover on the eastern side, if possible, where there is more room for excavation.”
The applicant has been notified of this advice, but is not willing to redesign the dwelling to accommodate the garage and crossover to the eastern side of the lot.
With regard to this application, the Council should consider the location of the crossover and its impact on the amenity of the street tree and the streetscape in general.
APPLICANT’S GROUNDS FOR REQUEST:
The owner has submitted the following comments in support of their application (summarised):
173 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
“1. Crossover and Proximity to Tree
We requested the crossover to be level with the western boundary of the lot to maximise the distance from the tree, approximately 1.3 metres. We were told this was not permitted, as No.12 Ruislip Street may construct a crossover adjacent to ours in the future and two contiguous crossovers would be unsightly. There is little change for the crossover at No.12 as it has been recently extended. There appears to be no formal Council policy on this matter, and there are examples of joined crossovers and crossovers against boundaries in West Leederville.
We dispute the advice that the crossover cannot be constructed within 2 metres of the tree. We have advice from a silviculturist who indicates that the tree will not be harmed by a crossover less than a metres from the tree. There are also many examples of Jacaranda trees in Ruislip Street and Pangbourne Street that are close to crossovers, footpaths, and roads, in some cases surrounded by paving or within half a metres of the road. They are clearly not affected by the proximity of paving.
We find this tree particularly attractive and it influenced our decision to buy the property and we will maintain it in a healthy condition. Our architect has put a great deal of time into designing a house to suit this particular site as well as to fit in with the unique character of West Leederville. We are not prepared to “turn the house around” and to put the crossover on the eastern side of the block as has been suggested by Council officer.
2. Front Screen Wall
We requested approval of the wall to create a courtyard in front of the main bedroom. We have been told that the Council will not approve screen walls of this type, which is surprising as there are many larger walls throughout the district. No. 5 Ruislip and No.2 Ruislip Street already have high screen walls and as such, a wall at our property (No.10 Ruislip) would not harm the streetscape. We are prepared under protest however, to delete the screen wall if this is our only source of delay to approval of the plan.”
The advice from a Forestry Consultant engaged by the owner is as follows (summarised):-
“My view is that the location of the crossover will not result serious detriment of the health of the tree based on the following observations and factors:-
174 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
• the tree is in sound health and has been heavily pruned in the past and not suffered from this. The soil type in this area dries from the surface at the end of winter and the topmost layers are very dry and the tree survives by tapping into to the underground acquifer.
• the tree is not suffering any moisture street which indicates that the tree has a very extensive and deep root system. The Jacaranda tree is known for its robust nature and is often planted near buildings, footpaths driveways and roads (eg. Canning Highway avenue) as experienced horticulturalists know that they will get their roots down to the watertable;
• there are many healthy examples of Jacaranda trees within 1 metres or less of driveways, footpaths or bitumen roads in Ruislip Street;
• a driveway would impede the tree’s growth or cause its mortality by (a) cutting roots during excavation; (b) compacting the soil by heavy traffic, rendering it less permeable, (c) preventing the recharge of the ground water surface sealing. It is my professional view that none of these events is likely in this situation. There will be no significant excavation, only light traffic use (10 vehicle crossings per day), surface sealing will be insignificant compared to the verge are remaining and may even be an advantage, by concentrating water at the roots of the tree; My opinion, based on 35 years experience as a forester and an adviser to the Main Roads on tree issues, is that the Council need have no concerns about the impact on the jacaranda tree if the crossover is located approximately 0.8 to 1.3 metres from the trunk of the tree.”
COMMENT:
The issues pertaining to this application are discussed below:-
Street Tree
Advice from the Council’s consultant Tree Surgeon is sought where proposed crossovers are located close to street trees and the long-term health of the tree is questioned during the assessment process.
Clause (i) of the Council’s Policy No.150 (Removal of Street Trees for Development) states that “wherever possible, a proposed building be redesigned to avoid the necessity of removing or damaging street trees”. The objective of the Policy is to prevent the unnecessary removal of, or damage to, street trees as a result of building developments. Clause (iii)(c) of the Policy No.151 (Removal of
175 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Street Trees) states that requests from ratepayers for removal of a street tree will be considered on the following merits:-
“ (a) safety, health and condition of tree; (b) reasons highlight by the ratepayer; (c) value of tree in streetscape/landscape; (d) potential for significant nuisance or damage to property; and (e) history of requests and associated actions in the street.”
In this particular instance, the street tree is considered a valuable component of the existing streetscape along this portion of Ruislip Street. The existing trees form a clear and consistent avenue of street trees, which are mature and large, of consistent size, shape and form and of the same species. As such, the trees form a dominant and integral component of the local streetscape character.
Space is available on the eastern side of the lot to position the crossover so that it meets the 2 metre clearance requirement suggested by the Tree Surgeon. However, the owner is unwilling to redesign the dwelling to accommodate the garage on the eastern side of the lot. While it is acknowledged that the narrow lot frontages throughout West Leederville may cause conflict between street trees and crossover locations, in this instance there is clear scope for compromise and compliance with the Council’s Policy objectives. Redesign of the dwelling to accommodate the garage on the eastern side does not appear to involve a complete redesign of the dwelling only modification to the front portion of the dwelling. (The owner is unable to have a double garage at the rear, as two mature trees have been planted in the right of way).
The concern regarding the tree revolves around the damage of the existing root system that may be severely disturbed when the crossover is constructed. The crossover base is often made with a bobcat and roots and other impediments are simply bulldozed out of the way. The Council’s Tree Surgeon has suggested that any crossover be hand-dug, to avoid any disturbance.
Front Wall
The construction of high solid front fences has not been supported by the Council in the past, as this erodes the open streetscape character of a locality which is a key objective of the urban design of a local area. The owner proposes to construct a wall that is 1.8 metres in height and occupies 50 per cent of the frontage of the lot. The wall will present a blank facade to the street, especially as the wall is an “L-shape” constructed along the driveway to within 0.9 metres
176 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
of the front dwelling wall. This will actually worsen the impact of the wall by cutting off any possibility of a view of the dwelling from the street.
The owner states that there are existing solid front fences on nearby properties and that a solid fence at their property will not impact on the streetscape. The circumstances under which the adjoining fences were constructed are not known, although it is known that at least one fence was constructed many years ago. If solid fences were permitted on every property along a street, then the character of the West Leederville will be severely impacted as the display of character homes will be replaced with a continuous line of blank facades. Open streetscapes are a key characteristic of West Leederville. The owner has had the benefit of designing a dwelling from the beginning on a vacant lot and it is felt that a courtyard from the main bedroom could be designed in a location that will not cause a detrimental impact on the streetscape. Landscaping is also an effective method of ‘privatising’ front setback areas.
It is recommended that if Council requests modified plans to be submitted, then any front fence details must be 50 per cent open view.
CONCLUSION:
In view of the above Council policy, it is recommended that the Council refuse the application for a single dwelling at No.10 Ruislip Street, West Leederville, as the proposed location of the crossover would cause serious decline of an existing street tree.
However, it is recommended that the Council supports an amended plan which indicates the proposed crossover on the eastern side of the lot and that construction of the crossover be undertaken according to the instructions indicated in the Tree Surgeon’s advice to the Council dated 28 May 1998. It is also recommended that the amended plan indicate an open view front fence.
It is recommended that in accordance with the provisions of Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council REFUSES the application for a Preliminary Building Licence submitted by the owner, E H and E J Lawson for a single residential dwelling (two storey) at Lot 1 (No. 10) Ruislip Street, West Leederville as shown on plans dated 19 and 27 May 1998 for the following reason:-
(i) the location of the crossover to the development will cause damage to the adjacent street tree and is not in compliance with the Council’s Policy
177 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
No.150 and No.151 relating to the preservation and/or removal of street trees.
Committee Meeting 16 June 1998
During discussion, Members were advised that the matter of the street tree has been further considered by Administration in consultation with the Town’s Aboricultural Consultant and a compromise solution has been put forward.
It was therefore agreed that the application for a new residence be approved subject to the conditions in relation to the vehicle crossover, as put forward by the Administration. Furthermore, it was agreed that the front fence should remain open view (50 per cent).
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council APPROVES the application for a Preliminary Building Licence submitted by the owner, E H and E J Lawson for a single residential dwelling (two storey) at Lot 1 (No. 10) Ruislip Street, West Leederville as shown on plans dated 19 and 27 May 1998 subject to:-
(i) (a) the edge of the crossover, on the western side of the street tree, being at least 1.2 metres from the edge of the tree trunk;
(b) the resident paying $160.00 which will cover the cost of pruning, branch removal and administrative costs in accordance with Council Policy;
(ii) the front fence remaining open view (50 per cent).
Carried
Cr Burkett left the meeting at 6.42pm
178 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.113
LOT 49 (NO.35) WOOLWICH STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED TWO SINGLE DWELLINGS (TWO STOREYS) (File Reference: PRO1089)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 267BA-98 LANDOWNER: A Dean APPLICANT: As Above ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R40
COMPLIANCE:
Non-compliance Required Proposed Plot Ratio (Policy) 0.5:1 0.62:1 Side Setbacks – Second 1.5 metres 1 metre Storey (R-Codes) Front Setback - Carport 6 metres 3.6 metres
DETAILS:
Lot Area: 587 square metres Floor Area: 382 square metres Open Space 55% Plot Ratio: 0.62:1.0
An application has been received for two single residential dwellings (two storey) at Lot 49, (No.35) Woolwich Street, West Leederville. The amended plans submitted indicate two, identical two storey dwellings each having a single carport, kitchen, dining/lounge and family room on the ground floor and three bedrooms and sitting area on the upper floor. The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary plot ratio, side setbacks and the front setbacks for the carports and front fencing.
In assessing the discretions sought, consideration should be given to the impact on the adjoining property, the character of the streetscape and the locality in general.
179 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Subdivision approval was recommended to the WAPC by Council on 28 May 1998 for two lots, under delegated authority, as the proposal complied with the R- Codes.
CONTENT OF SUBMISSIONS
The adjoining landowners (31 and 39 Woolwich Street) have both signed the plans stating they have no objection to the development.
The applicant has submitted amended plans addressing issues raised by Council Officers. The applicant has given further consideration to the amenity and setbacks on the adjoining properties by reducing the length of the ground floor and changing the design of the front fence, as outlined below.
COMMENT:
The issues relating to the proposed variations are discussed below:-
Plot Ratio
The applicant proposes a plot ratio of 0.62:1, equating to an additional 68.5 square metres of floorspace for the two dwellings. Where a variance to plot ratio is sought, the Council should consider the bulk and scale of the dwelling and its impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, the streetscape and the subject lot. The character of the area contains a range of housing with no distinct singular style.
The design and position of the two dwellings has resulted in the bulk of the building being focused away from the front boundary. The two dwellings have a nil setback at the centre dividing boundary which has reduced the width of the dwelling and therefore, the impact on adjoining owners. The low roof height and pitch has also reduced the impact on the adjoining properties from overshadowing. The plot ratio variation is not considered to be excessive as the openspace requirement has been met and the bulk of the dwelling has been orientated away from the front. Therefore, the variation to plot ratio is supported.
Side Setback Variation
The proposed second storey side walls of both dwellings have their corners setback a minimum of 1 metre from the side boundaries. The walls are angled away from the side boundaries and are in two separate portions, without major openings facing the sides.
180 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN…………………………………………………… The adjoining owners have stated that they have no objection to the variation. The design of the second storey has resulted in minimal overlooking onto adjoining properties.
Given the narrow width of the proposed lots, orientation of the windows for the second storey being perpendicular to the side boundary and the adjoining owners having no objection to the proposal, the side setback variations are supported.
Front Setback
The plan indicates two single carports set back 3.6 metres from the front boundary and connected to both dwellings. The R-Codes require a 6 metres setback in the R40 zone. Clause 1.5.7 of the R-Codes require adjoining owners’ comments for reduced front setbacks of carports. Council has generally supported open sided carports in front setback areas.
This particular portion of Woolwich Street is characterised by minimal setbacks from the front boundary of carports/garages and dwellings. It is considered that a reduced front setback of 3.6 metres for the open sided carports can be supported as this is consistent with existing developments within the street and the main dwellings have been setback 6.8 metres from the front boundary. Council generally supports open carports in front setback areas, provided there are no doors on the carports. As such, it is recommended that the variation to the front carport setbacks be supported.
Front Fencing
An open, visually permeable, front boundary fence is proposed to have a maximum height of 2 metres. The general practice of Council is to allow a maximum wall height for boundary fencing at 1.8 metres. The fence is supported, provided the maximum wall height is no greater than 1.8 metres.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed variations to plot ratio, front and side setbacks and front fencing are supported given the small size of the blocks. The R-Codes allow for Council’s discretion where the variations are not likely to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining lots or the streetscape character of the locality. The proposed variations are considered acceptable, and it is recommended that the Council support the application.
An Absolute Majority of the Council is required as the applicant proposes variations to the R-Code provisions.
181 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application submitted by A Dean, for two single dwellings (two storey) at Lot 49 (No.35) Woolwich Street, West Leederville, as shown on amended plans dated 3 June 1998, subject to the following condition:-
(i) maximum wall height for the front boundary fence to be 1.8 metres;
(ii) the carport being maintained in an open view condition, without doors, and no screening material being attached to any part of the carports.
During discussion, Cr McConnell said that the application should not be supported as the proposed variations to the R-Code provisions are too large.
The original motion was then put and carried BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY
Members requested that the vote of all those present be recorded.
For: The Mayor, Crs Anderton, Berry, MacRae and Steele Against: Crs McConnell, O’Connor and Smith
Cr Burkett returned to the meeting at 6.44pm.
182 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.114
LOT 201 (NO.273B) SALVADO ROAD, CORNER LISSADELL STREET, FLOREAT – PROPOSED SINGLE DWELLING (SINGLE STOREY) (File Reference: PRO0470)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 291BA-98 LANDOWNER: P and C Gouvignon APPLICANT: as above ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R15
COMPLIANCE:
Non-compliance Required Proposed Rear Setback (Average) (R- 6 metres (average) 5 metres (average) Codes)
The R-Codes allow the side and rear setbacks to be interchanged (Clause 1.5.6). In this instance the side and rear setbacks have been interchanged and the rear setback area is located to the north of the lot.
DETAILS:
Lot Area: 481 square metres Floor Area: 230 square metres Open Space 52% Plot Ratio: 0.40:1.0
An application has been received for a single residential dwelling at Lot 201 (No.273B) Salvado Road, corner Lissadell Street, Floreat. The plans submitted indicate a single storey dwelling with three bedrooms, study, family and lounge room, kitchen, two bathrooms and double garage. The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary the rear setback average.
In assessing the discretion sought, consideration should be given to the impact on the adjoining property, the character of the streetscape and the locality in general.
183 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
The subdivision was approved at the R20 coding with the subject lot being created and approved prior to the gazettal of Town Planning Scheme No.1.
COMMENT:
The issue relating to the proposed variation is discussed below:-
Rear Setback (Average)
The dwelling does not comply with the rear setback (average) required under the R- Codes (Table 1). At the code of R15, a 6 metres rear setback (average) is required. The rear setback has been interchanged with the side setback (north). The rear setback (average) is deficient in 15 square metres of open space which equates to a rear setback (average) of 5 metres. The rear setback (average) is considered to be acceptable because the R-Code requirements on corner lots limit the amount of useable lot space, caused by the lot width being relatively narrow and requiring a 6.0 metre front setback (average) (Lissadell Street). In this instance, the additions have been set back from the side boundary (south), close to the minimum distance required for setback compliance, which has resulted in the maximum amount of useable open space for the rear setback area (north). Furthermore the front setback is in compliance with the front setback (average). Therefore, the variation to the rear setback (average) is supported.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed variation to the rear setback is supported given the small size of the block and its location on a corner. Minor setback variations on corner lots are acceptable due to the deficiency in useable lot space caused by the lot fronting a secondary street. The proposed variation is considered acceptable, and it is recommended that the Council support the application.
An Absolute Majority of the Council is required as the applicant proposes a variation to the R-Codes.
184 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for a Preliminary Building Licence submitted by P and C Gouvignon, for a single dwelling at Lot 201 (No.273B) Salvado Road, Corner Lissadell Street, Floreat, as shown on plans dated 28 May 1998.
Carried BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY
185 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.115
LOT 558 (NO.350) SALVADO ROAD, FLOREAT - PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS (TWO STOREY)TO EXISTING RESIDENCE (File Reference: PRO0463)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 284BA-98 LANDOWNER: C Stonehouse APPLICANT: As Above ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5
COMPLIANCE:
Non-compliance Required Proposed Front setback (Town 9 metres 7 metres - Planning Scheme No.1 – Carport Clause 20(1)(b) Side Setback - west (R- 1 metre Nil – Parapet for Codes) Carport Side Setback – east (R- 1.5 metres 1.25 metres Codes)
DETAILS:
Lot Area: 809 square metres Floor Area: 300 square metres Open Space: 62 per cent Plot Ratio 0.37:1.0
An application has been received for additions and alterations (two storey) to an existing residential dwelling at Lot 558 (No.350) Salvado Road, Floreat. The plans submitted indicate an existing dwelling with additions and alterations including a family room/meals area, a second storey with three bedrooms, laundry and double carport. The subject lot is bounded by single residential dwellings.
The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary the front and side setback from 9 metres to 7 metres from the front boundary and 1 metre to nil for the
186 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
side setback (west) for the parapet wall of the carport. A variation is also sought for the side setback (east) of the additions from 1.5 metres to 1.25 metres. The Council is required to consider the impact of the setback variations on the character of the streetscape and the locality in general.
CONTENT OF SUBMISSIONS:
The adjoining landowners at No.348 and 352 Salvado Road have no objection to the proposed setback variations and parapet wall. COMMENT:
Front and Side Setback Variations (Carport)
The applicant proposes to redesign the front facade of the dwelling and to attach a double carport, with parapet wall. The proposed setback is 7 metres for the double carport. The dwelling is set back a minimum of 9.12 metres from the primary street boundary. Town Planning Scheme No.1, Clause 20(1)(b), requires all buildings and garages in Floreat to be set back 9 metres from the front boundary and does not allow the front building setback to be ‘averaged’. The Council has relaxed the front setback requirements for open sided carports, without doors. The intent of the setback distance is to create and maintain the open streetscape character of the locality.
The proposed carport parapet wall will be solid and have a minimum height of 2.8 metres, which contravenes the requirements, and in this case, a setback variation for the carport cannot be supported. The carport is capable of being open sided and having a side setback of 1 metre. This would require minor relocation of the carport in front of the dwelling and a reduction in width of the verandah. It is recommended that the carport has open sides and the side setback (west) be at 1 metre.
Side Setback (East)
The owner proposes to extend the rear of the dwelling on the ground floor, which includes the continuation of the side wall from the existing dwelling and maintaining the existing setback on the east boundary. The variation sought for a wall of 15 metres length is the reduction in the side setback from 1.5 metres to 1.25 metres. Council Policy No.20 (iv) allows for extensions to existing dwellings to maintain the existing setback, provided the adjoining owners have no objection. The proposed wall has two minor openings for the kitchen and will not have a negative impact on the adjoining property due to the relatively small size of the windows. It is acceptable to support side setback variations when the
187 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
proposed setback is continuing on from the existing setback. The adjoining owner has stated that she has no objection to the proposal. Therefore the variation is supported.
CONCLUSION:
In considering the above variations to the front and side setbacks, it is recommended that the Council support the proposed additions and alterations to the existing dwelling on the condition that the carport be open sided and have a side setback of 1 metre. The other side setback for the dwelling is considered acceptable as there is not likely to be any detrimental impacts to the adjoining property and the owner has chosen to retain and upgrade the existing dwelling rather than demolish and redevelop the entire site. Therefore, the proposal is supported, with an amendment.
An Absolute Majority of the Council is required as the applicant proposes a variation to the front and side setbacks as required by the Town Planning Scheme.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
In accordance with the provisions of Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application submitted by the owner C Stonehouse, for additions and alterations (two storey) to an existing dwelling at Lot 558 (No.350) Salvado Road, Floreat, and plans dated 28 May 1998, subject to the carport having open sides and being set back 1 metre from the side boundary (west).
Carried BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY
188 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.116
LOT 1343 (NO.140) ESSEX STREET, CORNER SCADDAN STREET, WEMBLEY – PROPOSED TWO STOREY ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING (File Reference: PRO0715)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 238BA-98 LANDOWNER: J Cornelius APPLICANT: As Above ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R20
COMPLIANCE:
Non-compliance Required Proposed Plot Ratio (Policy) 0.4:1 0.47:1 Rear Setback (Average) (R- 6 metres (average) 5 metres (average) Codes)
DETAILS:
Lot Area: 645 square metres Floor Area: 303 square metres Open Space 53% Plot Ratio: 0.47:1.0
An application has been received for additions to an existing single residential dwelling at Lot 1343, (No.140) Essex Street, Wembley. The plans submitted indicate a two storey addition with two bedrooms, family room and two bathrooms. The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary plot ratio and the rear setback average.
In assessing the discretions sought, consideration should be given to the impact on the adjoining property, the character of the streetscape and the locality in general.
COMMENT:
The issues relating to the proposed variations are discussed below:-
189 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Plot Ratio
Council Policy No.13 requires a plot ratio of 0.4:1.0 for developments at the R20 code. The applicant proposes a plot ratio of 0.47:1, equating to an additional 45 square metres of floorspace. Where a variance to plot ratio is sought, the Council should consider the bulk and scale of the dwelling and its impact on the amenity of adjoining properties, the streetscape and the subject lot. The design does not have a negative impact on the adjoining property as the second storey wall does not contain any openings to the neighbours. The bulk of the building has been massed at the rear of the dwelling to reduce the impact on the front and side of the streets. In these circumstances, the proposal will not have a negative impact on the adjoining property or the streetscape and, therefore, the variation to plot ratio is supported.
Rear Setback
The location of the addition in the rear portion of the lot brings about non- compliance with the rear setback average required under the R-Codes (Table 1). At the code of R20, a 6 metres rear setback (average) is required. The rear setback has been interchanged with the side setback (north). The rear setback (average) is deficient in 15 square metres of open space which equates to a rear setback (average) of 5 metres. The rear setback (average) is considered to be acceptable because the R-Code requirements on corner lots limit the amount of useable lot space, caused by the lot fronting two streets. In this instance, the additions have been set back from the side boundary (south), close to the minimum distance required for setback compliance, which has resulted in the maximum amount of useable open space for the rear setback area (north). Therefore, the variation to the rear setback (average) is supported.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed variations to plot ratio and rear setback are supported given the small size of the block and its location on a corner. The proposed variations are considered acceptable, and it is recommended that the Council support the application.
An Absolute Majority of the Council is required as the applicant proposes a variation to the R-Codes.
190 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application submitted by J Cornelius, for proposed additions to an existing dwelling at Lot 1343 (No.140) Essex Street, Wembley, as shown on plans dated 5 May 1998.
Carried BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY
191 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.117
LOT 377 (NO. 17) OAKDALE STREET CORNER ARBORDALE STREET, FLOREAT - PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING (File Reference: PRO01189)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 241BA-98 LANDOWNER: P and C Roller APPLICANT: GM Extensions Pty Ltd ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5
COMPLIANCE:
Non - compliance Required Proposed Setbacks (TPS) - front (verandah) 9 metres 8.55metres - secondary street 4.5 metres 1.91 metres (ensuite)
Clause 20(1) of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 states the front setback is 9.0 metres and the side setback is 4.5 metres in the Floreat locality. Clause 20(2) goes on to state that those provisions of the Residential Planning Codes (clause 1.5.8(c)) relating to a secondary street setback 1.5 metres do not apply to this locality.
Notification of the proposal to adjoining landowners is required where variations to setbacks are proposed.
DETAILS:
Lot Area: 1,004 square metres Plot Ratio: 0 21:1.0 (approximately) Open Space: 77.6 per cent
An application has been received for approval to construct an ensuite and a front verandah to a single residential dwelling at Lot 377 (No. 17) Oakdale Street corner Arbordale Street, Floreat. The ensuite is located between the dwelling and the secondary street boundary (western side). There is an existing landing along
192 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
portion of the front of the dwelling and the applicant intends to demolish this and replace it with a verandah along the full frontage of the dwelling.
The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary the front and secondary setbacks (refer to Compliance).
In assessing the discretions sought, consideration should be given to the impact of the setback variations on adjoining properties, the character of the streetscape and the locality in general.
CONTENT OF SUBMISSIONS:
The adjoining landowners have sighted the plans and do not have any objections to the proposal.
COMMENT:
The issues relating to this application are discussed below:-
Front Setback Variation
The required setback for the Floreat locality is 9 metres, however, the applicant proposes to construct the verandah to 8.85 metres of the front boundary. The variation to the front setback may be supported on the following grounds:-
• the structure is open and a visual relationship between dwelling and the street is maintained;
• the main wall of the dwelling is setback over 9 metres from the street; and
• the adjoining landowners do not have any objections to the setback variation.
The Council has previously supported minor variations to the front setback (such as porticos, carports) and the verandah is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality or the adjoining properties.
Secondary Street Setback Variation
The required secondary street setback in the Floreat locality is 4.5 metres, however, the applicant proposes a setback of 1.91 metres for the additional ensuite. The ensuite is 2.5 metres in width (from the dwelling) and 4 metres
193 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
long. This setback requirement reflects the provisions of the Council’s longstanding Local Law No.43 and variations are rarely supported, except where they are of a minor nature or where site details are unusual. In this instance, the variation to the secondary street setback may be supported given the existing character of this portion of the Abordale Street streetscape. This portion of Abordale Street between Oakdale Street and Salvado Road is relatively short and is occupied by a number of ‘hard’ structures, constructed up to the street boundary. The lots to the rear and across the street have double garages constructed to the street boundary and within 1.5 metres of the street boundary. In addition, there is a high solid fence along the secondary street boundary on the subject property and two other properties along Abordale Street. Given the existence of these conditions, the construction of the ensuite to 1.9 metres within the secondary street boundary is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the existing streetscape.
CONCLUSION:
In view of the above comments, it is recommended that the Council supports the application for an additional ensuite and front verandah. The variations to front and side setbacks will not have any adverse impacts on the immediate streetscape or the locality in general.
An Absolute Majority of the Council is required as the applicant proposes a variation to the Town Planning Scheme.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application submitted by GM Extensions Pty Ltd on behalf of the owners, P and C Roller, for additions and alterations (verandah and ensuite) at Lot 377 (No.17) Oakdale Street corner Arbordale Street, Floreat, as shown on plans dated 7 May and 14 May 1998.
Carried BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY
194 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.118
LOT 151 (NO. 6) MALONEY WAY, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE RESIDENCE (File Reference: PRO1180)
BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 282BA-98 LANDOWNER: S C and D K Nagpal APPLICANT: Zupanou Building Co. ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential 12.5
COMPLIANCE:
Non - compliance Required Proposed Front setback (TPS) 7.5 metres 5.8 to 6.7 metres - portico 7.5 metres 6.7 to 7.5 metres - dwelling (entry)
Clause 20 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 states the front setback in the City Beach Precinct is 7.5 metres. Additionally Clauses 1.5.5 and 1.5.8 (a) of the Residential Planning Codes (R-Codes), relating to reductions of the front setbacks, do not apply in these circumstances.
Adjoining landowner’s comment is required where variations to setbacks are proposed.
DETAILS:
Lot Area: 913 square metres Plot Ratio: 0.21:1.0 (approximately) Open Space: 80 per cent
An application has been received for approval for additions and alterations to the single residential dwelling at Lot 151 (No. 6) Maloney Way, City Beach. The plans indicate extension of the existing foyer towards the front and the addition of an entry portico adjacent to the extended foyer. The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to reduce the front setback to a minimum of 5.8 metres for the portico and 6.7 metres for the entry foyer.
195 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
COMMENT:
The Town Planning Scheme No.1 requires a setback of 7.5 metres in the City Beach precinct and does not allow the setback to be averaged. This setback requirement reflects the provisions of the Council’s longstanding Local Law No.43 and variations are rarely supported, except where they are of a minor nature or where site details are unusual. In this instance, the proposal may be supported on the grounds that:-
(i) the additions occupy a small proportion of the frontage (less than 6 metres compared to 18 metre boundary) and do not dominate the facade of the dwelling. The portion of the entry foyer that encroaches the setback area is minor (approximately 1 square metre);
(ii) the portico structure is open and a visual relationship between the street and dwelling is maintained;
(iii) the slope of the front boundary reduces any visual impact of a setback reduction; and
(iv) adjoining lots have structures built close to front boundaries, hence, the extensions do not detract from streetscape.
The proposal has been sighted by the adjoining landowners and they do not have any objections. The Council has previously supported minor variations to the front setback (such as porticos, carports) and the extended foyer is not considered to have a negative impact on the amenity of the area.
CONCLUSION:
In considering the above variations to the front setbacks of the extended foyer and adjoining portico, it is recommended that the Council support the proposed alterations and additions. The proposed variations will not have a detrimental impact on the adjoining properties or surrounding areas.
An Absolute Majority of the Council is required as the applicant proposes a variation to the Town Planning Scheme.
196 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application submitted by Zupanou Building Co. on behalf of the owners, S C and D K Nagpal, for additions and alterations (portico and foyer) at Lot 151 (No. 6) Maloney Way, City Beach, as shown on plans dated 28 April 1998.
Carried BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY
197 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.119
LOT 138 (NO. 249) SALVADO ROAD, FLOREAT - PROPOSED TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS (SINGLE STOREY) (File Reference: PRO0463)
BACKGROUND:
BA/DA REFERENCE: 278BA-98 LANDOWNER: Golden Era Homes APPLICANT: Golden Era Homes ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R15
COMPLIANCE:
Non-compliance Required Proposed Setbacks (R-Codes) - dwelling wall (RHS) 1.5 metres 1.48 metres - rear 6 metres 1.48 to 4.1 - garages/store walls (RHS & 1 metre metres LHS) Nil Open Space (R-Codes) 50 per cent 49 per cent Private Open Space (R-Codes) 200 sq. 168.5 sq. metres/du metres/du (150 sq. metres under R20 zoning)
Where a variation to the R-Codes is sought, the Council is required to consider:-
• objectives of the Codes; • effect on the amenity of adjoining owners; • existing and potential future use and development of adjoining lots; and • existing setbacks from the street in the immediate locality.
Adjoining neighbours’ comments are required where there is a variation to a boundary setback.
The application has been assessed against the R15 requirements of the R-Codes, however, the property was previously zoned R20 and it is on this basis that the approval for two strata title lots was granted by the WAPC.
198 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DETAILS:
Lot Area: 999 square metres Plot Ratio: 0.42:1
An application has been received for Council’s approval to construct two grouped dwellings at Lot 138 (No.249) Salvado Road, Floreat. The single storey grouped dwellings are located one behind the other with an accessway along the side boundary.
In assessing the variations to rear and side setbacks, open space and private open space, consideration should be given to the impact of the variations on the adjoining properties, the locality and the future inhabitants of the dwellings.
SITE HISTORY:
28 April 1998 Council refused a preliminary building licence for two grouped dwellings as the proposal did not comply with the minimum lot areas required under the Residential R15 codes and the side setback requirements.
15 May 1998 The Western Australian Planning Commission granted preliminary approval to two strata title lots based on the R20 lot sizes (the application was submitted prior to gazettal of the TPS No.1).
CONTENT OF SUBMISSIONS:
The comments of the adjoining landowners at No.247 and No.251 Salvado Road were sought in the previous application. It is not considered necessary to receive additional comment as the changes to the proposal are minor and will not impose additional impacts on the neighbours.
COMMENT:
The issues relating to the proposed variations are discussed below:-
199 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Open Space
The applicant proposes total open space of 49 per cent, however the R-Code requires 50 per cent open space. The variation equates to approximately 10 square metres which is considered a minor variation to the requirement and unlikely to have any detrimental impact on the future inhabitants of the dwellings or the locality in general as the dwelling meets the front setback requirement.
Private Open Space
The applicant proposes an average of 168.5 square metres of private open space per dwelling and the R-Codes require 200 square metres per dwelling in the R15 zone. The land was previously zoned R20 in which the private open space requirement was 150 square metres per dwelling. As the applicant has met the R20 private open space requirement, the variation sought to the R15 requirements is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the proposal and is considered reasonable given the strata subdivision has been approved. The positioning of the dwellings behind each other, to present a single facade to the street, has meant that a significant proportion of the potential private open space has been taken up by the side accessway.
Rear Setback Variation
The plans indicate the rear grouped dwelling to be setback between 1.4 and 4.1 metres from the rear boundary. Approximately 18 square metres of dwelling does not ‘average’, which equates to 16 per cent of the rear setback area that is required as open space. It is recommended that the rear dwelling be moved 1 metre back from the rear boundary to increase the rear setback area available. This is possible as there is 2 metres between the dwellings which is unlikely to be utilised for outdoor space and will not impact on the amenity of the development as there are no windows on either walls facing each other.
On this basis, it is considered that the variation to the rear setback is acceptable for the following reasons:-
• the minimum setback encroachment (2.48 metres from the rear boundary) does not occur along the whole of the rear boundary (5.5 metres compared to 18.6 metres boundary);
• if the dwelling is set back a further 1 metre, then the area of encroachment is 19 square metres and only 4.5 metres does not ‘average’;
200 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
• the dwelling is single storey and there is sufficient open space between the dwelling and adjoining dwellings to mitigate building bulk;
• the inhabitants of the dwelling will have access to ample open space at the rear of the dwelling for private outdoor recreation (approximately 74 square metres). The R-Codes only requires a courtyard of 24 square metres; and
• if the side and rear setbacks were interchanged, then the a complying dwelling may be constructed up to 1.5 metres from the rear boundary.
The landowner adjoining the rear boundary was not consulted with regard to the setback variation, as under the R-Codes, this boundary may have been constructed with a fully complying side wall, which would have a far greater impact that the proposed wall.
On the above basis, it is recommended that the Council support the variation to rear setback.
Side Setback Variation
The plans indicate a nil setback for both dwelling garages, however, the R-Codes require a 1 metre setback. The adjoining neighbours do not have any objections to the proposed setback. The Council has consistently supported variations to side setbacks for garages where appropriate, and where the adjoining neighbours do not have any objections. In this case, the variation is considered acceptable. The plans indicate a side setback (west) of 1.48 metres for the dwellings and the R-Code requires a 1.5 metres setback. It is recommended that the applicant be required to set back this wall to 1.5 metres from the side boundary.
Finalisation of Strata Approval
It is recommended that the preliminary strata approval granted by the WAPC is finalised and the new Certificates of Title issued before a building licence is granted for this proposal. In this way, the grouped dwelling cannot be constructed without the legal strata titling of the lot.
CONCLUSION:
In view of the above matters, it is recommended that the Council support the proposed variations to rear and side setbacks. open space and private open space. It is unlikely that the proposed variations will cause any detrimental
201 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
impact on the adjoining property, the future inhabitants of the dwellings or the locality in general and as such, are considered acceptable. Furthermore, the adjoining landowners do not have any objections and the arrangement of the development as a front and rear unit also maintains the existing pattern of the street.
An Absolute Majority of the Council is required to approve the application, as the owner is seeking variations to the R-Codes.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 and Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960, the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application submitted by the owner, Golden Era Homes, for two grouped dwelling (single storey) at Lot 138 (No.249) Salvado Road, Floreat as shown on plans dated 22 May 1998 subject to the following conditions:-
(i) the dwelling be set back a minimum distance of 1.5 metres from the western side boundary of the lot;
(ii) the rear dwelling be set back a further 1 metre from the rear boundary of the lot;
(iii) the finalisation of the strata subdivision approval dated 15 May 1998 prior to the issue of a full Building Licence.
Carried BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY
Members requested that the vote of all those present be recorded.
For: The Mayor, Crs Anderton, Berry, Burkett, MacRae and Steele Against: Crs McConnell, O’Connor and Smith
202 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.120
LOT 8, (NO. 13) SOUTHPORT STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED OFFICE (File Reference: PRO0959)
BACKGROUND:
DA/BA REFERENCE: 17A-98 LANDOWNER: Scott Craft Pty Ltd APPLICANT: Mirage Photographic Laboratories ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No 1: Commercial
COMPLIANCE:
Required Proposed Parking bays (TPS) 9 bays 5 bays Land use permissibility Office “AA” (discretionary)
DETAILS:
An application for Planning Approval has been received to develop the currently vacant lot at Lot 8, 13, Southport Street, West Leederville, for a two storey office building. The building is proposed to be constructed to both the side and rear boundaries, and is set back 4.5 metres from the street. The proposal incorporates undercroft parking with a small (45 square metres) office on the ground floor, with the main office area to be located on the first floor of the building.
Previous Approval
This proposal was granted Planning Approval in January 1996 under delegated authority. The application complied with the car parking and development standards in force at that time under the former City of Perth Town Planning Scheme. This approval lapsed in January 1998.
Since this time, the new Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1 has been gazetted, which has changed the required parking standard for office buildings. Furthermore, the detailed drawings show an increase in the floor area of the office over that originally approved.
203 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
COMMENT:
Land use suitability
The use class ‘Office’ is classified as an ‘AA’ (discretionary) use within the Commercial zone under the Town Planning Scheme. The reason for this is to ensure that issues such as compatibility with adjoining land uses, or amenity issues associated with intensity of use, can be addressed in an application for Planning Approval.
In this case the proposed use is supported, in that the site is located within an area where various commercial uses are well established and no adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining properties or the area could be expected.
Adequacy of car parking
The application involves a variation to the car parking standards under the Town Planning Scheme. When previously approved by Council, the car parking for this proposal was calculated on the basis of the parking standard contained within the former Town Planning Scheme for ‘Office’, being one bay per 50 square metres of gross floor area. Under the current Scheme, the ratio is now expressed as one bay per 40 square metres of net floor area. This change in standard, combined with an increase in the floor area of 45 square metres of office space over the application previously approved, has created a situation of non compliance with the Scheme. Furthermore, one of the six bays shown on the previously approved plan is unsuitable for use given its restricted dimensions.
It is considered that the parking shortfall is significant in this case, as the development is located within an area where street parking is limited and already somewhat congested. The higher parking standard in the new Town Planning Scheme more accurately reflects contemporary development standards, and, on this basis, it is not considered appropriate to grant a variation to the standard in this case.
CONCLUSION:
Notwithstanding the previous approval, and accepting that the land use proposed is acceptable on this site, it is recommended that this application be refused on the grounds of non compliance with the required car parking standard under the Town Planning Scheme.
204 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 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, the Council REFUSES the application submitted by Mirage Photographic Laboratories for an Office at Lot 8 (No.13) Southport Street, West Leederville, for the following reason:-
(i) the proposed development does not comply with the vehicle parking standard specified under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1 Planning Policy.
Carried
205 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.121
LOTS 43, 44 AND 45, NO 353 CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED RESTAURANT (File Reference: PRO0544)
BACKGROUND:
DA/BA REFERENCE: 16A-98 LANDOWNER: C and F Stoinis Pty Ltd APPLICANT: Robert Carl Pasqualotto ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No 1: Local Centre
COMPLIANCE:
Required Proposed Parking bays (TPS) 35 bays 25 bays
Land use permissibility Restaurant “AA” (discretionary)
DETAILS:
An application for Planning Approval has been received to use one of the tenancies at the new shopping centre at 353 Cambridge Street, Wembley, as a Restaurant. The proposal is for one of the front tenancies of the centre (currently under construction). When Planning Approval was granted by Council for this development, a portion of this area was designated as a ‘Fast Food Outlet’ and a portion designated as ‘Shop’. The Restaurant offers 128 seats for customers at 32 tables, and normal works areas, serveries, and kitchen / storage facilities.
The proposed Restaurant would utilise the parking bays provided for the overall development. These were provided as a condition of approval and the ratio of bays required was based on the areas of the site designated as ‘Shops’, ‘Offices’ and ‘Fast Food Outlet’ on the original plan presented to the Council.
206 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
COMMENT:
Land use suitability
The use class ‘Restaurant’ is classified as an ‘AA’ (discretionary) use within the Local Centre zone under the Town Planning Scheme. The reason for this is to ensure that issues such as adequacy of car parking, or amenity issues associated with evening use, can be addressed in an application for Planning Approval.
In this case the proposed use is supported, in that the site constitutes a purpose built shopping centre within a designated commercial area. Furthermore, partons using the Restaurant would be able to park within the shopping centre car park, thus ensuring that commercial parking does not encroach on nearby residential streets.
Adequacy of car parking
The application involves a variation to the car parking standards under the Town Planning Scheme. When approved by Council, the car parking for this shopping centre was calculated on the basis of the parking standard contained within the former Town Planning Scheme for ‘Shop’, ‘Office’ and ‘Fast Food Outlet’. This equated to one bay per 15 square metres of gross floor area for ‘Shops’ and one bay per 8 square metre for ‘Fast Food Outlet’. Furthermore, since the gazettal of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1, the method of calculation of car parking bays has changed.
The car parking required under the current Scheme for a Restaurant is calculated at one bay per 4.5 square metres of retail floor area. This equates to 154 square metres in this case, and thus the requirement is 35 bays.
Of the gross area proposed to be used as a Restaurant in this application (comprising 282 square metres), 121 square metres was approved as ‘Fast Food Outlet’, with the remainder (161 square metres) being approved as ‘Shops’. The requirements for these uses under the former Scheme was based on gross floor area, creating a contribution to the overall parking required for the entire centre for this area of 25 bays. This application therefore technically constitutes a parking shortfall (created by the change in parking standards and the re- arrangement and changes of use) of 10 bays.
207 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
This variation is supported on the following grounds:-
(a) the variation is minor given the overall quantity (77 bays) of parking provided for the centre, (b) it could be reasonably assumed that the peak times of use of the Restaurant would not coincide with peak usage of the adjoining shops or offices, creating additional space within the overall parking for the complex, (c) the degree of technical parking shortfall is reduced by the fact that the development is providing four more bays than were required on the original planning approval (77 bays provided, 73 required by the approval).
Environmental Health Comment
The bin storage area is considered to be in an inappropriate location to enable access by refuse vehicles, and thus this facility is required to be relocated in an area which can be easily serviced by refuse vehicles.
CONCLUSION:
This application is supported on planning grounds subject to standard conditions relating to licensing of food premises.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That Council, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, the application for a Restaurant submitted by Robert Carl Pasqualotto at Lots 43, 44 and 45, No 353 Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on plans received dated 2 June 1998, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) as the premises involves the storage, preparation and / or sale of foods, the applicant shall be required to obtain a further approval from Council’s Environmental Health Services prior to construction. A detailed plan of all food preparation and storage (including refuse) areas is to be submitted;
(ii) no customer seating is to be provided outside at the front of the building without the further approval of Council;
(iii) the patron toilet facilities are to be modified to include a disabled toilet so that it complies with the Disability Services Act;
208 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
(iv) the bin storage area is to be relocated in an area that can be easily serviced by refuse vehicles.
Carried BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY
209 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.122
SUBIACO OVAL DEVELOPMENT – STAGE FOUR TWO TIER GRANDSTAND, FUNCTION/SOCIAL FACILITIES AND ACCESS AND SUPPORT FACILITIES (File Reference: PLA0078)
BACKGROUND:
In February 1996, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) approved Stages 2a, 3a and 3b of the development of Subiaco Oval. Most significantly, was Stage 2 which was the erection of the four lighting towers for use for night football.
The current proposal is for Stage 4 of the development but also incorporates the part of the Oval which was previously approved as Stage 3b and is yet to be developed.
In summary, in 1995 the Western Australian Football Commission (WAFC), prepared a master plan for the development of Subiaco Oval which proposed an upgraded facility of approximately 45-48,000 spectators. The development was planned in the following stages:-
• Stage One – the southern stand (Town and Country stand) – completed • Stage Two – the floodlighting of the ground – completed • Stage 3a – the construction of a new north-west entry podium and facilities on three levels behind the existing two-tiered stand. (this stage is now not planned to occur in the short term). • Stage 3b – the replacement of the existing members stand with a new stand similar in configuration to the existing Town and Country stand. Now proposed to be undertaken as part of Stage 4. • Stage 4 – stands on the northern and southern sides of the Oval to be linked at the eastern end with a new two tiered stand. • Stage 5 – the western end of the Oval to be significantly upgraded including landscaping.
The 1996 approval by the WAPC required that prior to the commencement of night football, the WAFC was to prepare and obtain the approval for a comprehensive management plan for night football. The management plan was approved by the WAPC on the recommendation of the Subiaco Oval Impact Management Committee in March 1997. The plan is to be reviewed annually.
210 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
A report on the first year’s operation of the Management Plan was presented to Council in September 1997. At that meeting, the Council resolved as follows:-
“That with regard to the review of the Subiaco Oval Management Plan in relation to the impacts of night football at Subiaco Oval, the Subiaco Oval Impact Management Committee and the WA Planning Commission be advised as follows:-
(i) Whilst the implementation of the Management Plan has contributed towards the alleviation of certain impact of night football, residents still experience the inconvenience and disturbance caused by crowds attending the football at Subiaco Oval and this inconvenience and disturbance has increased in frequency with the introduction of night football, additional to the usual day games;
(ii) Neighbourhood Noise – It is noted that neighbourhood noise issues exceed normal levels and can exceed accepted levels as defined under the Noise Abatement Regulations. In this regard, the Football Commission should continue to strive to reduce noise impacts on neighbouring residential areas;
Furthermore, as previously raised by this Council, it is not considered that one noise monitoring point within the Town is sufficient to get a broader understanding of noise impacts and a number of additional measurement points should be introduced in the Town of Cambridge;
(iii) Public Transport – Without seeing the report of the Department of Transport, the Council is unable to comment fully on public transport hence, Council maintains its position on joint ticketing (combined ground entrance and public transport fare). It is noted, however, that the level of patronage on public transport is still well below the target level identified in the management strategy (ie 25% and beyond);
(iv) Parking – Throughout the football season, the Council has issued many hundreds of infringements to football patrons parking illegally in our residential streets. This illegal parking causes unacceptable impacts on residents and is contrary to the level of amenity that the Town is seeking to maintain within its residential areas throughout the year. Given this extent of illegal parking, the WAFC needs to do more to inform football patrons of parking restrictions in residential areas.
211 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
The Town will continue to exercise its right to impose parking restrictions to limit the impacts of night football and football in general.
(v) Traffic – The review provides no assessment of traffic conditions in the Town of Cambridge. The impact of football traffic on normal traffic outside the immediate vicinity of the ground is not assessed in this review. Such impact is of great significance to the residents of the Town, particularly for weeknight football. Local traffic impacts on the Town of Cambridge should have been more closely monitored and reported and should be undertaken in the 1998 season.
The Council has noted the use of the peak lane on the Narrows Bridge to accommodate football traffic patrons. This is a disincentive for the use of public transport.
(vi) Public Consultation – After this first year of night football, the Town firmly asserts that this review of impact management should be subject to extensive public consultation. It is only by getting the views of those people directly impacted by football at Subiaco Oval that the future success of impact management can be measured;
(vii) It be noted that the Council has not deviated from its original position on all these issues.”
The operations of night football at Subiaco Oval will again be reviewed by the WAPC through the Subiaco Oval Impact Management Committee following the end of the 1998 football season.
DETAILS:
Stage 4 of the development of Subiaco Oval comprises the completion of the eastern end of the ground. The WAFC have advised that they would like to commence the development of Stage 4 of the Oval at the end of the current football season, subject to funding availability. Previously approved Stage 3b would be included.
The drawings submitted with the Stage 4 development proposal show a five level structure providing the following accommodation:-
• Level One (Roberts Road level) - West Coast Eagles facilities comprising marketing, football administration, membership support (2,000 square metres net area)
212 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
- Service Road and Car Parking, 70 bays (external) on the edge of Kitchener Park and 30 bays undercover - Catering Support Facilities, ground facilities
• Level Two (Concourse Level) - Entries to ground, concessions, toilets, excess concourse ticketing and West Coast Eagles finance and administration offices (5,000 square metres) and function room (500 people seated)
• Level Three (Function Area, Viewing Boxes, Public Seating and Concession) - Seating for 9,654 people
• Level Four (Access, Concourse, Concessions and Toilets
• Level Five (Upper Tier Seating) - Seating for 6,465 people
The WAFC have advised that, completely redeveloped, the ground would accommodate approximately 44,200 people. This capacity is in excess of the current capacity of 41,500. Prior to the construction of all of the new stands, the Oval had a capacity of 54,000.
COMMENT:
The key decisions to establish Subiaco Oval as the home for AFL Football in Perth and the introduction of night football at the ground are now firmly entrenched and there is little that the Council can do to undo these. Nevertheless, in terms of the management of football at the ground, it is considered appropriate that the Council takes the opportunity at this stage to reiterate its submission on public transport, and its position with regard to football parking.
Public Transport
The Town has always argued that more should be done to promote the use of public transport by those attending the football matches.
Advice from the WAFC is that the average public transport utilisation for football matches in 1998 has been 23.1%. This compares with the 1997 average of 21% and 1996 of 18.8%. Individual games vary in percentages due to factors of weather and transport availability. It is fair to say that the WAFC have introduced many measures to boost public transport access to football matches. It is considered, however, that additional strategies should be undertaken to increase
213 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
public transport use. The aim of the management strategies for public transport within the Management Plan for night football are targeted, at least, 25% public transport usage. The Department of Transport have previously indicated that a long term target should be to exceed 30% transport usage.
Having regard to the above, Council should continue to press for the introduction of a joint ticketing arrangement for football ground entry (ie combined ground entrance and public transport fare). This measure is already employed at the Burswood Superdome for major concerts and was used for the recent Elton John/Billy Joel Concert as Subiaco Oval. At that concert, 33% of patrons used public transport. The upcoming rugby union test match at Subiaco Oval on 18 July 1998 will also feature free public transport as part of the ground entry cost.
Parking
The Town continues to issue a large number of infringements to football patrons, parking illegally in our residential streets. The increasing public transport usage, will assist to alleviate parking problems. Further, the Town will continue to exercise its right to impose parking restrictions, to limit the impacts of night football and football in general.
The introduction of new social facilities at the ground, further emphasises the need for the Council to enforce its Residential Parking Scheme as it might be expected that functions will occur on non-football days and that these could extend beyond the normal football hours. On those days, however, it is expected that those attending each function will be able to park close to the ground.
Crowd Control And Anti-Social Behaviour
The increase in numbers as a result of the proposed extensions are not expected to significantly affect crowd control and anti-social behaviour. The Management Strategy for Subiaco Oval deals with this issue and the WA Police Service have, in general, have been satisfied of the outcome of the process and the level of support given by the WAFC. One area of particular importance has been the number of police used outside the grounds to monitor behaviour and ensure public safety.
Noise
The construction of the new stand at the eastern end of the ground will assist in containing noise generated during match times.
214 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Traffic
Council officers have noted particular traffic problems at the unsignalised intersections of McCourt and Cambridge Streets and Southport Street and Railway Parade. In commenting on this current proposal, Council should take the opportunity to bring this to the attention of the WAPC and WAFC, proposing that officers be placed on point duty at these intersections. In the case of Southport/Railway Parade, this should be prior to the match starting and for McCourt/Cambridge Streets this should be both before and after games. This is most particularly a problem for night football.
CONCLUSION:
The proposal to proceed with Stage 4 of the overall Masterplan for the development of Subiaco Oval, does not introduce any new, significant, issues in relation to the use and management of Subiaco Oval. It is considered appropriate, however, that the Council continues to press for the introduction of a joint ground entry/public transport ticketing system to further encourage the use of public transport to the ground.
It is therefore recommended that:-
(i) in response to the application from the West Australian Football Commission to proceed with Stage 4 of the development of Subiaco Oval, the West Australian Planning Commission be advised that whilst the Council has no objection to this particular stage of the development of the ground, the Council submits that any approval granted by the Commission be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) the Football Commission undertaking, as part of its Impact Management Plan, to introduce, in the 1999 Football Season, a combined ground entrance and public transport ticketing system for all AFL football matches at Subiaco Oval;
(b) in the review of the Impact Management Strategy at the end of the 1998 season, the Football Commission agree to introduce into the strategy, the placement of a traffic police officer on point duty at the intersection of Southport Street and Railway Parade, prior to match starting time, and at the intersection of McCourt and Cambridge Street, both before and after matches.
215 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
(ii) in recommending the above condition (i) in relation to ground entry charges, to the WAPC, reference be made to the examples of the Burswood Superdome, the Elton John/Billy Joel Concert at Subiaco Oval and the prospective rugby union test at Subiaco Oval, as outlined in this report.
Committee Meeting 16 June 1998
During discussion, Members agreed that the WAPC be advised that Council objects to this particular stage of the redevelopment of Subiaco Oval on the grounds that it will further erode the residential amenity of West Leederville and Wembley by way of the increase in number of football patrons and increased traffic and parking demands that this will bring.
It was also agreed that any approval granted by WAPC should require that the Football Commission consider further initiatives to encourage the use of public transport, in particular the construction of a Special Events Station.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That:-
(i) in response to the application from the West Australian Football Commission to proceed with Stage 4 of the development of Subiaco Oval, the West Australian Planning Commission be advised that the Council objects to this particular stage of the redevelopment of the ground. The Council has consistently opposed the redevelopment of Subiaco Oval as this has seen the erosion of the residential amenity in West Leederville and Wembley. The increased ground capacity afforded by this new development stage will further erode the amenity of these areas by way of the increase in number of football patrons and increased traffic and parking demands that this will bring. The Council submits that any approval granted by the commission be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) the Football Commission undertaking, as part of its Impact Management Plan to introduce, in the 1999 Football Season, a combined ground entrance and public transport ticketing system for all AFL football matches and major events at Subiaco Oval and to consider further initiatives to encourage the development of a Special Events Station;
216 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
(b) in the review of the Impact Management Strategy at the end of the 1998 season, the Football Commission agree to introduce into the strategy, the placement of a traffic police officer on point duty at the intersection of Southport Street and Railway Parade, prior to match starting time, and at the intersection of McCourt and Cambridge Street, both before and after matches;
(ii) in recommending the above condition (i) in relation to ground entry charges, to the WAPC, reference be made to the examples of the Burswood Superdome, the Elton John/Billy Joel Concert at Subiaco Oval and the prospective rugby union test at Subiaco Oval, as outlined in this report.
Carried
217 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.123
VARIOUS COUNCIL OWNED VACANT LOTS – TRURO PLACE, CITY BEACH (File Reference: PRO 0945 )
BACKGROUND:
A letter has been received from local Real Estate Agents regarding 7 existing vacant residential lots currently owned by the Town in Truro Place, City Beach. The agents suggest that there is considerable demand for smaller residential lots within City Beach and that these lots present an opportunity, owing to their undeveloped state and common ownership, for re-subdivision into 14 smaller lots to cater for this demand.
The purpose of this report is to discuss the planning implications of such a proposal.
COMMENT:
Zoning Of The Land
The land is zoned ‘Residential R12.5’ under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1. This zoning requires a minimum lot area of 700 square metres and an overall average of 800 square metres. The proposal involves a minimum lot size of 438 square metres with an average of 520 square metres, and, as a consequence, the land would have to be rezoned to ‘Residential R20’ to accommodate the subdivision. The 438 square metre lot would have to have a minor adjustment to bring it in line with the 450 square metre minimum required under the R20 code.
A change in zoning would require an amendment to the Council’s Town Planning Scheme. Any amendment is subject to public advertising, usually for a period of 42 days, and Ministerial consent. Advertising usually occurs by letters being sent to nearby property owners, notices in the newspaper and Government Gazette, and by signs on the site itself.
Subdivision configuration
The configuration of the subdivision is based on obtaining the maximum lot yield with minimum development costs. Existing road reserves are used, and the land is simply proposed to be subdivided in a battleaxe configuration and this, in
218 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
itself, is not an inappropriate form of subdivision. The use of shared access driveways would necessitate reciprocal access easements between the lots, however this can be easily arranged at the time of subdivision. In the event, however, that Council agrees to an increase in the density zoning in this area, it may be worthwhile to investigate other subdivision options for the land.
Impacts on the amenity of nearby properties
1. Traffic volumes: As a general standard each residential lot is assumed to generate approximately 8-10 vehicular trips per day (Source: WAPC Residential Road Planning policy). Subdivision of the land at an R20 density could yield a maximum of 8 additional dwellings (including lot 41 which has not been included on the indicative plan) and thus would generate 64-80 additional vehicular movements on Truro Place. This road currently services 30 lots, and thus would have approximately 240 –300 vehicles per day if all existing lots were developed. This equates to an average of 6 additional vehicles per hour (based on a 12 hour day) and a maximum total of 380 vehicles per day. This is well within ordinary limits for a residential street and is considered to be acceptable on planning grounds. Any increase in traffic volumes would also be mitigated by the fact that Truro Place has two exit points, one onto Boscombe Avenue, and the other onto Ocean Court.
2. Impacts on the streetscape: Because of the greater intensity of development in comparison to the existing residences within Truro Place it would not be possible to develop these lots to precisely the same development standards. For example, the existing lots are subject to the specific Scheme requirement of a 7.5 metre front setback without provision for averaging. The R20 code allows a 6 metre front setback with averaging provision, and, given contemporary development within City Beach, there may be pressure to develop the land using the more generous provisions of the R20 code. Furthermore, Council may have to be more accepting of carports or garages within the front setback area than with existing City Beach lots in order to enable development of the properties. A rigid adherence to current development standards would constrain the development of the lots considerably.
This situation is caused by the fact that, given the high value of the land in City Beach, smaller lots tend to be developed with similar housing to the conventional lots. The only way smaller housing, which is more appropriate to the lot size, could be developed on the land is via restrictive covenants, or some restriction on development under the Scheme. This could apply to all, or some of, the new lots. Such a restriction would be quite possible to impose, although it may undermine the value of the properties. In any event, prospective purchasers
219 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
would have to understand that smaller lots will not allow the same extent of development.
A further impact on the streetscape could be expected in the case of the proposed lots fronting the narrow section of road between Truro Place and Ocean Court. One of the lots on the west side of the road will have a secondary street frontage to this road, and thus the setback here could be expected to be reduced to 1.5 metres. This will create an impression and appearance of development which is of a significantly greater intensity than that existing within the area.
3. Financial implications: While financial matters should not be the predominant factor or necessarily be taken into consideration at all when determining planning policy of this kind, in this instance it must be stated that the proposed upgrading of the Residential Code would provide the Town with substantially more income than if left zoned R12.5
The Town has an existing licence agreement with Mr Peter Briggs to utilise Lot 41 and 60 Truro Place, City Beach. The former City of Perth entered into an agreement with Mr Briggs commencing on the 18 March 1991 for the licensee to enter upon the land for the purpose of maintaining the landscaping and reticulation on the said land adjoining his property.
The terms and conditions of the licence allow the licensee to landscape and reticulate the property only. The Town of Cambridge is registered and entitled to be registered as the proprietor of an estate in fee simple in the land.
In consideration for the licence granted, the licensee shall pay to the Town each year during the continuation of this licence a licence fee equal to the annual amount of all municipal rates assessed or charged with respect to the land as vacant land.
The licensee covenants with the Town to maintain the landscape and reticulation in good and substantial repair, order and condition. At completion of the licence the licensee at his own cost is to remove all reticulation and landscaping from the lots.
The Licensee is to hold Public Liability Insurance to the value of $5,000,000 and indemnify the Town against any claims that may arise from the licensee use of the land.
220 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
The Town may at any time give notice in writing to the Licensee, terminating the licence. The licensee at its own cost and expense shall remove the landscaping and reticulation from the land and reinstate the land.
4. Statutory requirements: As the sale of the land would be classified as a “major land transaction”, the Town would need to prepare a plan in accordance with the Local Government Act provisions. Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 defines a major land transaction if the total value of the consideration under the transaction is greater than either $500,000 or 10% of the Council’s fund operating expenditure in the last financial year. (Functions and General Regulation 7).
Before the Council enters into the major land transaction it must prepare a business plan. The business plan is to include an overall assessment of the major land transaction and is to include details of:-
(a) its expected effect on the provision of facilities and services by the local government; (b) its expected effect on other persons providing facilities and services in the district; (c) its expected financial effect on the local government; (d) its expected effect on matters referred to in the local government’s forward plan; (e) the ability of the local government to manage the undertaking or the performance of the transaction; (f) any other matter prescribed for the purposes of this subsection. (relates to joint ventures)
The Act also prescribes a public advertising procedure and public submission period of six weeks. The Council decision to proceed following the public advertising period must be made by an absolute majority.
CONCLUSION:
The proposal would represent a substantially higher density than that existing within this part of City Beach, and would require the land to be rezoned. On the other hand, Council has received numerous comments from a number of City Beach residents concerning the absence of smaller properties more suited to a retired lifestyle within the area.
221 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
The proposal is not unacceptable on planning grounds, although it is fair to say that development of the lots would be noticeably different from that existing within the remainder of the street owing to the more limited building areas available. The differences would be particularly noticeable where lots had more than one street frontage, and in terms of structures within front setback areas. However, the lots are located within a discrete area at one end of a cul-de-sac, rather than in the midst of a conventional development or street block. This means that the change in development standards would be less obtrusive and the development could become something of an enclave, with its own definable character. It would be clearly preferable if more intense development, if it is to occur at all within City Beach, is concentrated within a particular area rather than being randomly developed throughout the area. However, the opportunity does exist to meet a recognised demand to provide smaller lots in City Beach in a relatively short time frame.
It is therefore recommended that:-
(i) the proposal to rezone the Council owned land in Truro Place, City Beach, from Residential R12.5 to Residential R20 be supported;
(ii) the Administration prepare an appropriate amendment to the Town Planning Scheme, and submissions be sought from property consultants / developers to advise Council on the optimum manner to subdivide and market the land.
Committee Meeting 16 June 1998
During discussion, Members considered the need for the creation of some smaller lots within the Coast Ward area. It was agreed that this should be considered on a comprehensive, rather than site by site basis.
Members therefore agreed that the proposal to rezone the Council owned land in Truro Place, City Beach from Residential R12.5 to Residential R20 should not be supported.
Cr MacRae requested that she be recorded as voting against the recommendation of the Committee.
222 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That the Council is not prepared to initiate the rezoning of the (Council owned) land in Truro Place, City Beach from Residential R12.5 to Residential R20 as proposed.
Carried
223 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.124
HEALTH ACT NOTICE - CLOSURE OF WEMBLEY SCOUT HALL, 148 JERSEY STREET, WEMBLEY (File Reference: PRO 0499)
BACKGROUND:
The former City of Perth commissioned Nunez Consultancy to carry out a survey of all Council properties containing asbestos products in their construction. The consultant produced a report on 21 January 1993, which included an assessment of the Wembley Scout Hall. This report gave Wembley Scout Hall and its associated buildings a high health risk rating and recommended that all the asbestos roofs be replaced within 12 months.
A written request was made by the Council to the Wembley Scout Association on 25 March 1996 to complete a Schedule of Works. This schedule included major works, as well as general maintenance and repairs, and electrical maintenance. All works were necessary for the buildings to comply with the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. No work was completed.
At its meeting held on 21 May 1996, the Council resolved to establish a Working Group to investigate the future of the 1st Wembley Scout Hall. The former 1st Wembley Scout Group had a lease over the Scout Hall that expired on 30 November 1992. Since that time the 1st Wembley Scout Group now the Cambridge Scout Group have continued to occupy the premises on a monthly tenancy under the same terms and conditions as previous. The previous conditions provided that the Scout Association were responsible for total maintenance of the building and grounds. The Scout Association disposed of property at the corner of Joseph and Woolwich Street, West Leederville (known as the Leederville Scout Group) for the sum of $237,500 on 15 April 1994.
The Working Group has had a number of meetings to discuss issues relating to the occupancy by the Cambridge Scout Group and identifying a suitable site and details for the possible construction of a new Scout Hall. Some further information has been requested from the Cambridge Scout Group and on receipt of that information a report will be prepared for Council to consider.
In March 1997, the Council was informed that the Scout Association had formed the Cambridge Scouts Group (as a result of amalgamating the Wembley and City Beach Groups). In April 1997, a meeting between representatives of the Scout Association, the Cambridge Scout Group, elected members and Officers of the
224 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Council took place. At that meeting, the Scouts identified a need for a larger facility to satisfy the needs of the new group.
Follow up inspections of the building carried out in March and June 1998 revealed that there had been a further deterioration in the standard of the Wembley Scout Hall buildings.
Legal
A recent report from Corrs Chambers Westgarth reviewed the High Court of Australia judgement regarding the Pyrenees Shire Council versus Day, and Eskimo Amber Pty Ltd versus Pyrenees Shire Council.
This case concerned defects in the construction of a fireplace of a building. A Shire Inspector inspected the fireplace and found construction defects. Th Council warned the tenants not to light fires in the fireplace of the building, but did nothing further. Later, the first tenant transferred the lease to a second tenant. The second tenant lit a fire in the fireplace; the building, as well as the adjacent building, burnt down.
The High Court found that the Shire remained liable in negligence to the neighbour, and, of even more importance for local governments and statutory bodies, that the Shire also owed a duty of care and was liable in negligence to the second tenant.
It is the view of Corrs Chambers Westgarth that this High Court decision will apply to all local government and any other body exercising statutory powers. These bodies may now be found liable for failure to exercise their statutory powers in circumstances where previously they may not have been liable.
Therefore, once a local government has knowledge of a situation which may cause damage or injury, and it commences to exercise statutory powers to effect a remedy of the situation; the High Court decision is such that the local government must ensure that its powers are exercised to the fullest extent necessary in order to in fact bring about a remedy of the situation.
If a local government is proven not to have exercised its statutory powers they may be found liable, and therefore negligent regarding the duty of care.
225 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
COMMENT:
The Administration has identified three areas of concern regarding the structural and public safety issues of the Wembley Scout Buildings:-
Electrical Safety
The main building is over 40 years old and all electrical work appears to be of that age. All electrical wiring and circuits needs to be inspected for compliance with the Public Buildings Regulations and the Australian Standards.
The current level of emergency lighting to these buildings is well below standard, and is not acceptable in terms of the Public Buildings Regulations.
Structural Safety
The Nunez Consultancy Asbestos Survey Report stated that all asbestos roofs to the buildings of the Wembley Scout Hall were structurally unsound, with signs of ‘sheet lifting’, as well as physical damage such as cracking.
Inspection by Council Officers revealed the following additional defects:-
• Defective ceilings in Rovers Den and Main Hall. • Active termite infestation in cupboards in the Rovers Den • Main Hall Storeroom - brick wall had extensive cracking to southern end. • Main Hall – cracking to lintel of interior entrance door indicates possibility of foundation subsidence. • Sections of timber flooring to the Main Hall appear to be unsupported - possible rotted/defective stumps. • Sections of missing, loose and fretted bricks, and fretting mortar joints to the exterior walls of the main hall, particularly the north wall.
Therefore, the structural risks associated with these building relate to potential failure or collapse of sections of the asbestos cement roof, potential collapse of sections of a ceiling. In the longer-term degradation of the mortar joints to external brick walls will impair the structural integrity of the building.
Health Risks
The Nunez Consultancy Asbestos Survey Report stated that all the asbestos roofs to the buildings of the Wembley Scout Hall were extensively weathered with high friability, substantial lichen growth, and some cracking.
226 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
The report stated that the roofs were all of 20% chrysotile asbestos content (White asbestos) and classified their size and risk as follows:-
• Main Roof (500 m²) – High health risk. • Toilet Roof (45 m²) – High health risk • Rover Den Roof (100 m²) – High health risk.
Cracked and loose asbestos cement roofing will release asbestos fibres when agitated (ie by the action of wind on the roof or by vibration through the structure of the building). Released asbestos fibres will enter the interior of the buildings.
CONCLUSION:
There is no doubt that the assessments carried out by the consultant on behalf of the City of Perth were the first step in a planned process to remedy the potential health risks associated with the release of asbestos fibres from Council owned property.
The Town of Cambridge finds itself in a position where it has been made aware of the poor status of the roofs to these building. Additionally, the Administration is also aware of other defects to these buildings, and that as these deficiencies have been left unattended for some years. This is confirmed in the Minutes of the meeting of the 1st Wembley Scout Hall Working Group of 22 August 1996, which records that the Scouts have not spent any funds on maintenance since 1991.
The evidence is quite clear that these buildings as unsafe and not suitable for habitation or use.
To ensure that the Council is not negligent regarding its duty of care and its statutory responsibilities, it is therefore incumbent on the council to exercise its statutory authority and issues closure notices for all the buildings associated with the Wembley Scout Hall.
Additionally, the Council needs to consider the future use of these buildings, and either demolish these buildings, or repair them.
It is therefore recommended that pursuant to the provisions of Sections 135 and 137 of Part V, Division One of the Health Act 1911 (as amended):-
227 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
(i) the buildings comprising the Wembley Scout Hall (Main Hall, Rovers Den and toilet Block) owned by the Town of Cambridge located Lot 2124 of Swan Location 2, Reserve 9396, Henderson Park and known as 148 Jersey Street, Wembley be declared unfit for use or habitation;
(ii) the buildings comprising the Wembley Scout Hall (Main Hall and toilet Block), currently used by the Wembley Scout Group be vacated within sixty days and thereafter not be let or occupied by any person until such time as all the items of repair and maintenance to render the buildings safe to occupy have been satisfactorily completed;
(iii) the building known as the Rovers Den, currently used by the Wembley Scout Group be vacated immediately, and thereafter not be let or occupied by any person until such time as all the items of repair and maintenance have been satisfactorily completed.
Committee Meeting 16 June 1998
During discussion, Members agreed that a report be submitted to a future meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee on the future disposal of the land.
The Administration agreed to discuss this issue with the Scouts Association prior to the next meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, 23 June 1998.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That pursuant to the provisions of Section 135 and 137 of Part V, Division One of the Health Act 1911:-
(i) the buildings comprising the Wembley Scout Hall (Main Hall, Rovers Den and toilet Block) owned by the Town of Cambridge located Lot 2124 of Swan Location 2, Reserve 9396, Henderson Park and known as 148 Jersey Street, Wembley be declared unfit for use or habitation;
(ii) the building comprising the Wembley Scout Hall (Main Hall and toilet block), currently used by the Wembley Scout Group be vacated within sixty days;
(iii) the building known as the Rovers Den, currently used by the Wembley Scout Group be vacated immediately;
228 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
(iv) a report be submitted to a future meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee on the future disposal of the land.
Carried
229 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.125
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT AND TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO 1 NOTICE – 18 JOSEPH STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - ILLEGAL STRUCTURES (File Reference: PRO 0382 & LEG 0041)
BACKGROUND:
On 28 October 1997, the Council adopted a recommendation that legal action be taken against Ashmy Pty Ltd for:-
• failure to comply with a stop work Notice issued under Section 401A of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act; • construction of parts of the building at 18 Joseph Street, West Leederville that were not in accordance with the approved plans; and • failure to comply with the provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme
The above matters were heard in the Perth Court of Petty Sessions on 26 May 1998. Ashmy Pty Ltd pleaded guilty and the company was found guilty on all three charges.
After hearing lengthy submissions in mitigation by legal counsel for Ashmy Pty Ltd, the Magistrate imposed fines of:-
• $5,000.00 on the charge pursuant to Section 401A of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (failure to comply with a stop work notice); • $2,000.00 on the charge pursuant to section 374 (5) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (departure from approved plans); and • $1,000.00 on the charge pursuant to the Section 10 of the Town Planning and Development Act (departure from approved plans).
The defendant was ordered to pay costs of $246.70 on each charge.
The Council’s legal costs in this matter, to-date, are $2,783.00.
230 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
LEGAL
Section 401 of the Local Government Act
This section provides a local authority with the authority to issue notices where illegal construction has taken place, or a building is unsafe. Section 401 also provides for appeal procedures and prescribes procedures where an appeal has been dismissed and a local authority seeks to have the structure removed.
Clause 53 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1 states: “ 53 Notices
(1) A notice required to be given by the Council under section 10(1) of the Act is to be a 28 day notice signed by the Chief Executive Officer and sent by registered post to the owner and to any occupier or lessee of the premises affected by the Notice. (2) The Council may recover expenses under section 10(2) of the Act in any manner in which it is from time to time entitled to recover rates levied by it under the Local Government Act 1995.
Section 10 of the Town Planning and Development Act states:-
“ 10. Responsible authority may remove certain buildings, etc.
(1) The responsible authority may, at any time after giving such notice as may be prescribed by a town planning scheme, and in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
(a) remove, pull down, or alter any building or other work in the area included in the scheme, which has been commenced or continued after the approval of the scheme, and which is such as to contravene the scheme, or in the erection or carrying out of which any provision of the scheme has not been complied with; and
(b) execute any work which it is the duty of any person to execute under the scheme, in any case where it appears to the responsible authority that delay in the execution of the work would prejudice the efficient operation of the scheme.
(2) Any expenses incurred by the responsible authority under this section may be recovered from the person in default in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be provided by the scheme.
231 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
(3) If any question arises whether any building or work contravenes a town planning scheme, or whether any provision of a town planning scheme is not complied with in the erection or carrying out of any such building or work, such question shall be referred to the Minister as arbitrator, and the decision of the Minister shall be final and conclusive.
(4) (a) A person who: (i) contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions of a town planning scheme; or (ii) commences or continues to carry out any development which is required to comply with a town planning scheme otherwise than in accordance with that scheme or otherwise than in accordance with any condition imposed with respect to the development by the responsible authority pursuant to its powers under that scheme, is guilty of an offence.
Penalty: $50 000, and a daily penalty of $5 000. [ (b) deleted]
(5) The provisions of the last preceding subsection do not prejudice or affect the other provisions of this section. “
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Nil
COMMENT:
It is now open to the Council to require that the owner of 18 Joseph Street to make the appropriate changes (and demolition) of the existing structures, so as to render the structures in compliance with the approved plans.
During the hearing of this case, Mr David Nadebaum, as Counsel for the Town, made various submissions in relation to the comment made in mitigation by the defendant’ s solicitor.
The Magistrate agreed with those submissions, which were to the effect that a deterrent penalty was necessary in these matters as it was apparent the defendant has simply departed from the approved plans on the assumption that, if the works could be completed, the building would be allowed to remain as built, even if the matter had to be decided on appeal.
232 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
The Town’s solicitor has been requested to prepare drafts of the appropriate Notices.
It is recommended that Notice in terms of the Town Planning and Development Act and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act be served on Mr M A Congerton, as the property owner, to bring the existing structures into compliance with the approved plans dated 24 March 1997.
The Local Government Act provides recipients of Notices with an appeal right.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That pursuant to Section 401 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and Clause 53 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No 1, a Notice be served on Mr Mark Andrew Congerton of 18 Joseph Street, West Leederville, WA 6007 requiring him, being the owner of a new residence upon the land, being Lot 497 on Plan D87603 Certificate of Title Volume 2030, Folio 588 and known as 18 Joseph Street, West Leederville, upon which is erected a building located within the front setback area (portico) , a boundary brick wall and a garage located on the adjoining property boundary; to:-
(i) alter the said boundary wall so as to comply with the approved plans dated 24 March 1997;
(ii) remove the building located within the front setback area (portico);
(iii) alter the said garage into an open sided carport so as to comply with the approved plans dated 24 March 1997.
Carried
233 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.126
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT NOTICE - ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED ADDITIONS TO DWELLING - 91 ALEXANDER STREET, WEMBLEY (File Reference: PRO 0953)
BACKGROUND:
The Council received a Building Licence application from McAlister and McAlister (1955) Pty Ltd on 3 June 1997 to construct additions to the rear of the existing residence at Lot 1864 (No 91) Alexander Street, Wembley. The plans indicated a proposed new kitchen, living and dining room, bedroom with ensuite bathroom, laundry, verandah and an external spa. The building application fee and works bond was paid in full at the time of application.
The application was assessed by the Administration on 9 June 1997. The plans were found to be in compliance with the Residential Planning Codes, the Town Planning Scheme and relevant Policies and Local Laws. Accordingly, the application could be dealt with under delegated authority. However, the application was deficient in regards to construction details for footings, retaining structures, termite protection methods and the home indemnity insurance certificate had not been supplied. These details and information were required before the plans could be processed or approved.
The Builders, McAlister and McAlister (1955) Pty Ltd were subsequently advised by telephone of these requirements on 10 June 1997, and the application was placed in pending awaiting submission of the required details.
On 18 December 1997, as the application was still awaiting submission of the required details, the builder was contacted and a message was left with the secretary at the builder’s office.
On 20 May 1998, the Council received an application for reimbursement of the works bond, which was paid at the time of application. The applicant also advised that the work had been completed. The builders, McAlister and McAlister (1955) Pty Ltd were subsequently contacted and advised that approval had not been issued to construct the additions, as the required details and information had not been submitted.
An inspection of the property confirmed that the additions have been completed.
234 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
On 22 May 1998, a meeting took place between Mr Tom McAlister from McAlister & McAlister (1955) Pty Ltd and the Administration at the Council offices. Mr McAlister admitted that the building work has been completed and admitted that he did not have a Building Licence. He stated that it was an oversight by his office. Mr McAlister has submitted a letter of explanation to Council – refer to copy of letter tabled.
A formal notice was issued to McAlister and McAlister (1955) Pty Ltd on 8 June 1998.
Legal
Section 401 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 provides a local authority with the authority to issue notices where illegal construction has taken place, or a building is unsafe. Section 401 also provides for appeal procedures and prescribes procedures where an appeal has been dismissed and a local authority seeks to have the structure removed.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Nil
COMMENT:
Numerous Councils have sought legal advice in the past, regarding the issue of Building Licences for projects after construction work has been completed. The result of this advice was that Section 374 of the Act does not permit a Building Licence to be issued retrospectively.
In view of the above, the Council has no alternative but take action under Section 401.1(b). Accordingly, a Notice was served on McAlister and McAlister (1955) Pty Ltd as the builder of the unauthorised additions to the rear of the existing dwelling at 91 Gregory Street, Wembley under delegated authority.
The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 provides recipients of Notices with appeal rights and processes.
Committee Meeting 16 June 1998
During discussion, the Administration agreed to provide information concerning the assessment of this development prior to the next meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 23 June 1998.
235 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 16 June 1998)
• The plans submitted with the application for a Building Licence have been fully assessed and are in compliance with building requirements. The information originally requested by the Council, ie Home Indemnity Insurance Certificate, White Ant Treatment details and Structural Engineering details, has now been provided and satisfies the Town’s requirements;
• The site has been inspected by a Building Surveyor and is in accordance with the plans.
The matter of the issuing of this Notice has been discussed with the Builder. He is aware of his right of appeal and it is the Administration’s understanding that he has already made a submission to the Minister for Local Government.
In response to such an appeal, it is the intention to advise the Minister that the additions have been constructed to the Town’s satisfaction and that the appeal will be supported.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That the serving of a Notice on 8 June 1998 on McAlister and McAlister (1955) Pty Ltd, 17 Pearson Way, Osborne Park, WA 6017 being the builders of additions to the rear of the existing residence at 91 Alexander Street, Wembley, to pull down the said structure, within 35 days of the date of service of the Notice as it has been constructed in contravention of Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (ie structure has been constructed without Council approval and without a building licence) be confirmed.
Carried
236 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.127
BUILDING APPLICATION –50 SIMPER STREET, WEMBLEY (File Reference: PRO 0086 & LEG 0042)
BACKGROUND:
An application for a Building Licence was received on 3 April 1998 for the construction of a partially enclosed patio/exercise area at the rear of the existing residence at 50 Simper Street, Wembley.
The application was incomplete. Accordingly, the applicant, Bond Architecture Pty Ltd was advised in a letter dated 14 April 1998 to provide specific information relating to the application. In that letter, the applicant was also informed that a building licence could not be issued until the existing illegal structure had been removed.
An appeal was lodged on behalf of the applicant (Bond Architecture Pty Ltd) to the Minister for Local Government. The basis of the appeal was that they had interpreted the Council’s letter dated 14 April 1998 as a refusal to issue an building licence, and that the Council had incorrectly classified the building as a Class 1 structure. The content of the Council’s letter of 14 April 1998 is detailed in the second paragraph above.
A response to the appeal was submitted on 28 May 1998.
The Council has taken legal action with regard to the illegal construction of a room at the rear of 50 Simper Street, Wembley. The matter was heard in the Perth Court of Petty Sessions on 30 March 1998. At that time, the property owner pleaded guilty and was fined. His Worship Magistrate Malley made an order that the defendant comply with requirements of the Town’s Notice dated 13 February 1997 within 56 days of the date of the order. The Court order, therefore, required the complete removal of the illegal structure by 26 May 1998.
Following further representations by the applicant and property owner to the Administration, a site meeting took place at 50 Simper Street, Wembley on Friday 15 May 1998. Various matters and details of the proposal were discussed at that meeting, including a proposal by the property owner’s Solicitor and Architect to retain the existing illegal structure and modify it so as to comply with the Council’s requirements.
237 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
The meeting concluded with the applicant’s Solicitor making detailed notes on the Council’s requirements, however, no decision was made by the property owner as to which course of action she intended to take in regard to amendments or compliance of the structure (ie whether to make application for a habitable room - Class 1 building; or an outbuilding - a Class 10 building).
An extension of time in which to comply with the Court’s Order was granted on Monday 18 May 1998 and the applicant’s solicitor was advised that compliance was required by Friday 12 June 1998. The plans dated 2 June 1998 submitted personally by the applicant reflect her intention to alter the structure so as to provide a Class 10 outbuilding, by:-
• altering the footings to comply with the Building Code; • providing a damp-proof membrane under the bottom plate of the timber frame; • removing the glass windows and solid door and replace them with durable open mesh fabric.
COMMENT :
Legal advice has confirmed that that Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 does not permit a Building Licence to be issued retrospectively. The Council may be held liable in any future claim for damages if it issues a retrospective building licence, as the Council would be acting beyond the limits of its authority.
In the amended plans dated 2 June 1998, the applicant proposes to not comply with the order of the Court dated 30 March 1998, but to make minor changes to the structure so that it falls in line with the general concept of a patio (ie a Class 10 building).
Should the Council wish to permit the applicant to retain the structure (rather than demolish the structure as ordered by the Court), the Council needs to fulfil its Duty of Care by ensuring that the structure proposed in this application complies with all relevant legislation.
As mentioned previously, the Council cannot issue a retrospective building licence, however, the Council can require the applicant to alter the structure so that it complies with the structural standards of the Building Code. The alterations proposed in the amended plans dated 2 June 1998 would satisfy these standards.
238 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That:-
(i) with regard to the building licence application dated 3 April 1998 and the plans dated 2 June 1998 submitted by Bond Architecture Pty Ltd on behalf of Ms B Foster for the construction of a partially enclosed patio (Class 10 structure) at the rear of the existing residence at 50 Simper , Wembley the applicant be advised that:-
(a) Section 374 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act does not permit the Council to issue a retrospective building licence;
(b) the structure is to be altered as detailed in plans dated 2 June 1998 so as to comply with the Building Code of Australia;
(c) the Council will acknowledge the existence of the class 10 structure and take no further action once (b) above has been complied with;
(ii) subject to satisfactory compliance with (i) above within 30 days, the Council take no further action regarding the decision of the Court of Petty Session dated 30 March 1998 requiring the addition comprising a partially enclosed room at the rear of the residence at 50 Simper Street, Wembley be demolished.
Carried
239 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.128
BUILDING LICENCES APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (File Reference: ADM0048)
Listed hereunder are the total number of licences issued for the month of May 1998. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of licences issued on the same month of the previous year.
May 1997 May 1998
Building Licences 54 34 Sign Licences 0 0 Preliminary Building 6 4 Licences Demolition Licences 6 4
Value of Construction $3,921,274 $2,586,820
Comparative Year-to-Date figures are as follows:-
July 1996 – July 1997 – May 1997 May 1998
Building Licences 456 421 Sign Licences 2 1 Preliminary Building 43 71 Licences Demolition Licences 57 62
Value of Construction $57,551,115 $30,919,614
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That the Schedule of building licences approved under delegated authority for the month of May 1998, as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received.
Carried
240 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
DES98.129
DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS (File Reference: ADM0048)
DELEGATED DECISIONS
The following items (for the month of May 1998) 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:-
• Home Occupation renewal (Sign writing business): 14 Nanson Street, Wembley • Home Occupation renewal (Aromatherapy): 48 Aruma Way, City Beach • Subdivision: 35 Woolwich Street, West Leederville
NOTIFICATIONS
The following items are notifications of appeals and decisions for Council’s information:
Appeals received
The following appeals against decisions of Council were lodged with the Minister for Planning during May 1998;
1. Property: 114 Kimberley Street, West Leederville Proposal: Proposed single dwelling
2. Property: 43 Barrett Street, Wembley Proposal: Proposed additional grouped dwelling
The following appeal against a decision of Council was lodged with the Town Planning Appeals Tribunal during May 1998;
1. Property: Lot 1, Wollaston Road, Mount Claremont Proposal: Proposed Training and Conference centre
241 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
No appeals against decisions of Council were lodged with the Minister for Local Government during May 1998.
Appeals determined by the Minister for Local Government.
No appeals were determined by the Minister for Local Government during May 1998.
Appeals determined by the Minister for Planning.
THE FOLLOWING APPEALS WERE DETERMINED BY THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING DURING MAY 1998.
Property: Lot 994, No 45 Kenmore Crescent, Floreat Proposal: Conversion of a Carport to a Garage Decision: Upheld Reasons: In making his decision, the Minister has given consideration to a number of examples in the locality where the setback requirements have been reduced, although he acknowledges that a number of these relate to corner lots. The Minister noted that;
“The proposed garage will replace an existing carport structure and the adjoining neighbour has advised that there is no objection to the design and location of the garage. The Town is concerned about the appearance of the locality and in this case the fact that the verge is some 17 metres wide at this point and the lot is located on what is considered as a curve, it is agreed that there will be minimal impact on the appearance of the locality in this particular case”.
The Minister went on to uphold the appeal on the grounds described above.
Implications: The issues described by the Minister in making his decision are all covered by the provisions of the R-Codes and Residential Design Guidelines, and, as such, may be varied by the Council or the Minister using discretion. Given this factor, it is likely that similar appeals may be upheld in future in cases where the Minister considers that the adjoining a amenity and environment is not prejudiced by granting of minor variations to the R-Code standards.
Nevertheless, the decision of the Minister does raise some concern with respect to upholding the principles of development in Floreat. Council has been consistent in its aim to maintain the wide, open streetscape that is fundamental to the ‘Garden City’ principles on which Floreat was founded and subsequently
242 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
developed. Decisions such as this could contribute to a gradual erosion of this character.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That the report relating to delegated decisions and notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period ending 31 May 1998, be received.
Carried
The following information was submitted to the Development and Environmental Services Committee meeting held on 16 June 1998 and is provided for Council’s information.
243 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 CHAIIRMAN……………………………………………………
8. COUNCILLORS INFORMATION/UPDATE
The information sheet detailing progress on issues related to the Development and Environmental Services Committee was circulated for the information of Members.
9. REPORTS FROM DELEGATES: COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS
9.1 Coastal Management Advisory Group
Nothing further to report since last month.
9.2 Western Suburbs District Planning Committee
Nothing further to report since last month.
9.3 Western Suburbs Highway
The next meeting will be held on Thursday 9 July 1998.
10. GENERAL BUSINESS
10.1 Higher Density Zoning in Coast Ward
It was agreed that consideration of this issue be deferred pending completion of the Community Needs Survey.
11. CLOSURE
There being no further business, the Presiding Member thanked those present for their attendance and declared this meeting of Development and Environmental Services Committee closed at 7.10pm.
244 H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
12. MOTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN
The following Notice of Motion has been submitted by Cr Berry
1. That Council:-
(a) encourages the use as structural timbers within the Town of Cambridge of timber from renewable resources in preference to rainforest and old growth forest timbers; (b) attaches a footnote to all building licences advising of Council’s preference;
2. That a clause be included in all future Council tenders for construction timber that advises of Council’s preference for timber from renewable resources to that of rainforest and old growth forest.
3. That Council requests the Government of Western Australia, through the appropriate Minister to:-
(a) review timber royalties, with the object of encouraging the use of renewable resources in preference to rainforest and old growth timbers. (b) examine the feasibility of stamping or otherwise marking all timber sold in the State with its place of origin and whether it is from rainforest or old growth forest.
4. That Council request the Government of Western Australia to include in the public discussion paper ‘Towards the Regional Forest Agreement’ an option which includes the protection of all old growth forests.
Should the Council wish to pursue this Notice of Motion then the Council’s policy relating to the use of Rainforest Timbers in Projects of the Council will have to be amended. Policy 1.4.13 states that rainforest timbers shall not be used in any projects undertaken wholly or jointly by the Council.
Council Meeting 23 June 1998
During discussion, some Members expressed concern regarding the Council’s role in approaching the Government and the lack of opportunity to examine the Regional Forest Agreement discussion paper.
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That the Council’s existing policy relating to the Use of Rainforest Timbers be amended to include the following text:-
1. That Council:-
(a) encourages the use as structural timbers within the Town of Cambridge of timber from renewable resources in preference to rainforest and old growth forest timbers;
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 248
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
(b) attaches a footnote to all building licences advising of Council’s preference;
2. That a clause be included in all future Council tenders for construction timber that advises of Council’s preference for timber from renewable resources to that of rainforest and old growth forest.
3. That Council requests the Government of Western Australia, through the appropriate Minister to:-
(a) review timber royalties, with the object of encouraging the use of renewable resources in preference to rainforest and old growth timbers. (b) examine the feasibility of stamping or otherwise marking all timber sold in the State with its place of origin and whether it is from rainforest or old growth forest.
4. That Council request the Government of Western Australia to include in the public discussion paper ‘Towards the Regional Forest Agreement’ an option which includes the protection of all old growth forests.
Carried
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 249
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
13. REPRESENTATION ON STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC BODIES
13.1
MEMBER – MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL (File Reference: ADM0037)
BACKGROUND:
Vacancy for Member: Mindarie Regional Council
Qualifications: Must be an Elected Member of Local Government
Term: One (1) year
Commences: 1 July 1998
Reason for Vacancy: Term of present member expired
Name of Present Member: Cr Robina McConnell
Meetings: Bi-monthly Location: Rotated through Member Councils Day/Time: Third Thursday each second month, 4.30pm Meeting Fee: $100 per meeting Duration: Up to two hours
Committee Membership: 12 Members i.e.: City of Wanneroo 4 City of Stirling 4 City of Perth 1 Town of Cambridge 1 Town of Victoria Park 1 Town of Vincent 1
Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr MacRae
That:-
(i) the request for the nomination of a Regional Councillor to the Mindarie Regional Council for the period 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999 be received;
(ii) Cr Robina McConnell be nominated as a Regional Councillor to the Mindarie Regional Council and Cr Ian Steele be nominated as the Deputy Member.
Carried
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 250
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
13.2
FOUR MEMBERS – LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE SERVICES BOARD OF MANAGEMENT (File Reference: ORG:0088)
BACKGROUND:
Vacancy for Member: Local Government Insurance Services Board of Management
Qualifications: A business management approach to monitoring and controlling of a major commercial operation such as this (senior business management experience would be a decided advantage).
An ability to understand insurance and risk management concepts and procedures.
Commitment to a co-operative self-management approach to Local Government liability and workers compensation risks.
Term: To 30 June 2001
Commences: Upon appointment
Reason for Vacancy: Expiry of terms of present members
Name of Present Member: Cr Ron Norris (Mosman Park) Cr Laurence Goodman (Perth) Mayor Jan Smith (Northam) Mr Neil Wilson (Geraldton)
Meetings: Monthly Location: Local Government Insurance Services Boardroom 17 Altona Street WEST PERTH Day/Time: Usually 2.30pm on a Thursday Meeting Fee: Director’s fees of $600 per meeting, plus travel expenses (if applicable) Duration: Board Meetings approximately three hours
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 251
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
Terms of Reference: The primary objective of Local Government Insurance Services is to provide stable cost effective civil liability and workers compensation protection in WA local governments through risk sharing and excellence in management.
The Services are owned by Local Government through WAMA, with day to day management undertaken by Jardine Australian Insurance Brokers under contractual arrangements.
The functions of the Board of Management are: • to establish business plans for the Services with ongoing review; • to establish key performance indicators and set achievable targets in consultation with the Scheme Managers; • to monitor the performance of the Scheme Managers against the key performance indicators; • to approve and keep under review, policies for the key operational issues for the Services, such as reinsurance, deductibles, level of contributions, indemnity cover, investments, risk management, rehabilitation etc; • to approve annual budgets; • to approve Annual Reports and Financial Statements; • to consider Actuaries reports and set reserves; • to consider auditors reports; • to approve applications for membership; • to review the findings of Scheme performance reviews and customer satisfaction surveys; • to keep Scheme Rules under review; • to undertake such inquiries and seek such reports and information on the Schemes operations as the Board deems fit.
Committee Membership: Cmnr Rob Rowell - Chairman Mr Tim Shanahan (WAMA) Mr Eric Lumsden (Shire of Swan) Cr Ian Steele (Town of Cambridge) Cr Ken Pech (Shire of Gnowangerup) Mr John Turkington (City of Wanneroo) Mr Ross McLean (Chamber of Commerce & Industry) Mr David West (Independent appointee) Mr Kevin Karlson (Independent appointee) Mr John Chaney (Independent appointee) Cr Laurence Goodman (City of Perth)
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 252
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
Cr Ron Norris (Town of Mosman Park) Mayor Jan Smith (Town of Northam) Mr Neil Wilson (City of Geraldton) + representatives of Scheme Manager (Jardine Australia)
Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Steele
That the request for the nomination of four WAMA Members – Local Government Insurance Services Board of Management be received.
Carried
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 253
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
13.3
WAMA MEMBER – WESTERN AUSTRALIAN GREENHOUSE COUNCIL (File Reference: ORG:0088)
BACKGROUND:
Vacancy for Member: WAMA Member – West Australian Greenhouse Council
Qualifications: Elected Member preferably with an environmental background and a knowledge of greenhouse effects.
Term: Two years
Commences: Upon appointment
Reason for Vacancy: Council recently convened
Name of Interim Member: Cr Ken Pech (Shire of Gnowangerup)
Meetings: Monthly Location: Department of Environmental Protection 141 St Georges Terrace, Perth Day/Time: To be advised Duration: 2 hours Meeting Fee: Sitting fee and expenses paid
Terms of Reference: To advise the Minister for Environment on the following matters:-
(a) Achievement of the objectives and targets within WA of the National Greenhouse Strategy and Framework Convention on Climate Change. (b) Coordination of WA’s contribution to the National greenhouse gas inventory. (c) Provision of advice to the WA Government on climate change matters. (d) Strategies for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the National Greenhouse Strategy and the WA Greenhouse Strategy. (e) Climate change policies and programs in other jurisdictions. (f) Methods of informing and raising awareness about climate change and greenhouse response in the community.
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 254
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
To determine the terms of reference and subsequently recommend the membership of the various technical groups established under the WAGC.
Committee Membership: Representatives from: Department of Environmental Protection Department of Resources Development CALM Western Power Department of Minerals and Energy Treasury Department Office of Energy Agriculture WA Department of Premier and Cabinet Department of Commerce and Trade Ministry for Planning Department of Transport Chamber of Commerce and Industry Chamber of Minerals and Energy RAPI/Curtin Australian Petroleum Production and Explorers Association Australian Gas Association Conservation Council of WA WA Municipal Association Community
Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Anderton
That:-
(i) the request for the nomination of a WAMA Member – WA Greenhouse Council be received;
(ii) Cr Ian Steele be nominated as the WAMA Member to the WA Greenhouse Council.
Carried
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 255
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
14. URGENT BUSINESS
14.1
APPEALS TO THE TOWN PLANNING APPEALS TRIBUNAL (File reference: PRO1005 / PRO0879
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The majority of Town Planning appeals within the Town of Cambridge have been made to the Minister for Planning recently, however, two appeals have been lodged with the Town Planning Appeals Tribunal. The contesting of appeals in the Tribunal can consume considerable resources, in terms of officer time in preparation and attendance, and in use of legal representation. This report is presented to seek clarification on these issues prior to the commencement of these appeals.
DETAILS OF THE APPEALS:
1. Lot 1, Wollaston Road, Mount Claremont: A proposed training and Conference centre was refused planning approval by the Council on 24 March 1998. The appellants have submitted a detailed submission to the Tribunal and will be represented by legal counsel.
2. Lot 1039, 157 Gregory Street, Wembley: A single dwelling for this property was refused a Preliminary Building Licence by the Council on 26 May 1998. No detail of the appellant’s grounds of appeal have been submitted and it is unclear whether they will be represented by legal counsel.
COMMENT:
There are a number of questions to be resolved regarding the manner in which these appeals are to be contested.
Mediation
It is common practice with Tribunal Appeals for the parties to be given the opportunity to mediate a solution to the appeal. Both parties can negotiate a mutually acceptable solution which is then ratified by the Tribunal. In the case of a local authority decision, the normal process involves officers (and sometimes, Councillors) of the Council negotiating a compromise with the appellant. This is then presented to the Council for consideration, and, if adopted, the solution becomes the formal response of the Council.
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 256
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
In these cases, therefore, Council should consider whether it wishes to mediate a possible solution. Mediation is a time consuming process, and should only be undertaken in cases where the Council genuinely considers that there is scope to agree on a negotiated settlement. In the event, that the Council does not consider that any compromise is possible, then mediation should be avoided and the appeal should be directly contested without negotiation.
In making the decision as to whether to mediate, Council should consider whether the decisions made were made on points of principle, or whether it is possible for the proposals involved to be modified to a point where they may be acceptable to the Council. Based on the stated reasons for refusal of these applications, there would not appear to be much scope to negotiate acceptable solutions. To assist Council in determining this issue, copies of the Council minutes relating to these decisions are attached.
Process of mediation
In the event that Council wishes to mediate in these appeals, the process would be as described above. Mediation would be undertaken by the Chief Executive Officer and the Manager Planning Services on behalf of the Council, and the solution (if reached) would be presented to Council for its decision. In the event that the Council does not agree to the negotiated solution, further mediation would occur. If no negotiated agreement can be reached, then the appeal would be determined in the normal manner. Councillors are welcome to participate in the mediation process.
Legal representation
The Tribunal is conducted in a judicial format and it is common (although not essential) for the parties to be represented by legal counsel. The use of professional legal services for Tribunal Appeals can use considerable resources, particularly if the appeal involves a number of sittings of the Tribunal.
Legal argument will tend to focus on the ‘letter’ of Council’s statutory planning provisions and the validity of such provisions to the matter under appeal, rather than the ‘pure planning’ considerations. In both appeals currently before the Council, the decisions were based purely on planning principles. In these circumstances it is considered that the administration could adequately represent the Council’s position at the Tribunal. To assist, however, it is recommended that legal advice be provided in preparation of the Council’s formal written statement of response to the Tribunal.
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith
That:-
(i) Council determine whether its wishes to mediate in the appeals in respect of Lot 1, Wollaston Road, Mount Claremont and Lot 1039, (No. 157) Gregory Street, Wembley;
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 257
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
(ii) in the event that Council does wish to mediate in these appeals, any interested Councillors nominate to participate in the mediation process;
(iii) professional legal services only be used for assistance in preparation of the Council’s formal written statement of response to the Tribunal in respect of these appeals.
During discussion, Members agreed that the relevant clause of the Standing Orders be suspended to allow open discussion on the issues related to this matter.
Suspension of Standing Orders
Moved by Cr Steele, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with Section 3.16.1 of the Standing Orders, the operation of Sub-Clause 3.3.4 of the Standing Orders be suspended to allow open discussion.
Carried
The operation of Sub-Clause 3.3.4 of the Standing Orders was suspended at 7.07pm.
Discussion ensued.
Resumption of Standing Orders
Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Burkett
That in accordance with Section 3.16.1 of the Standing Orders, the operation of Sub-Clause 3.3.4 be resumed.
Carried
The operation of Sub-Clause 3.3.4 of the Standing Orders was resumed at 7.26pm.
Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Anderton
That the Council does not wish to mediate in the appeal in respect of Lot 1, Wollaston Road, Mount Claremont.
Carried
Members requested that the vote of all those present be recorded.
For: The Mayor, Crs Anderton, Berry, Burkett, O’Connor and Smith Against: Crs MacRae, McConnell and Steele
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 258
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Burkett
That the Council does not wish to mediate in the appeal in respect of Lot 309 (No. 157) Gregory Street, Wembley.
Carried
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 259
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
14.2
REVOCATION OF POLLUTION ABATEMENT NOTICE - QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE (File Reference: RES 0041)
BACKGROUND:
As a result of complaints concerning excessive noise emanating from the Quarry Amphitheatre, the City of Perth served a Pollution Abatement Notice (PAN) on the tenant (and occupier), the Perth Theatre Trust. This took place on 14 January 1992.
As a result, Memorials were registered on the titles of the land on which the Quarry Amphitheatre is located.
Legal
Section 66 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 deals with the Registration of Pollution Abatement Notices, and sets out the procedure and processes to register (and revoke) a PAN on the title of a property.
Section 68 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 deals with the restriction of subdivision or amalgamation of land to which a PAN is registered.
COMMENT:
Since the Town of Cambridge was formed on 1 July 1994, no Noise Abatement Notices have been served on the venue. No complaints have been received concerning excessive noise since the current manager has taken over the operation of the Quarry Amphitheatre and prior to that, only two telephone calls expressing concern at the noise levels have been received.
The current management of the Quarry Amphitheatre has shown a good understanding of the need to control the level of sound emanating from the venue and has a ‘hands on’ approach to the management of the Theatre, which would quickly identify any possible excessive noise problems.
It is therefore recommended that the Council revokes the Pollution Abatement Notice currently registered against the title documents of the Quarry Amphitheatre. These Memorials are now hindering the subdivision of the land to excise the Quarry Amphitheatre from the Bold Park reserve.
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 260
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Berry
That:-
(i) pursuant to the provisions of Section 65 (4) (b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, the Pollution Abatement Notice served by the City of Perth on 14 January 1992 on the Perth Theatre Trust, as the occupier of the premises known as the Quarry Amphitheatre, Oceanic Drive, Floreat be revoked;
(ii) pursuant to the provisions of Section 66 (3) of Environmental Protection Act, inform the Department of Environmental Protection, the State Planning Commission and the Registrar of Titles of the revocation of the Pollution Abatement Notice and request that the registration of the Pollution Abatement Notice on the titles of each of Swan locations 571,585, 617, 691,1911 and Perthshire locations Ak, Al and Am being part of the land on Plan 5929 (sheet 1) and being part of the land comprised in Certificate of title Volume 1720, Folio 277 and known as the Quarry Amphitheatre, Oceanic Drive, Floreat, be removed.
During discussion, Members considered the need to retain the Memorials on the new title documents.
Amendment
Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Anderton
That the motion be amended by the addition of a further clause as follows:-
(iii) following completion of the transfer of titles, the Memorial registered on the existing titles be reinstated on the new titles.
Amendment carried
Members requested that the vote of all those present be recorded.
For: Crs Anderton, Burkett, McConnell, O’Connor and Smith Against: The Mayor, Crs Berry, MacRae and Steele
The amended motion was then put and carried.
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 261
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
The motion, as carried, is as follows:-
That:-
(i) pursuant to the provisions of Section 65 (4) (b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, the Pollution Abatement Notice served by the City of Perth on 14 January 1992 on the Perth Theatre Trust, as the occupier of the premises known as the Quarry Amphitheatre, Oceanic Drive, Floreat be revoked;
(ii) pursuant to the provisions of Section 66 (3) of Environmental Protection Act, inform the Department of Environmental Protection, the State Planning Commission and the Registrar of Titles of the revocation of the Pollution Abatement Notice and request that the registration of the Pollution Abatement Notice on the titles of each of Swan locations 571,585, 617, 691,1911 and Perthshire locations Ak, Al and Am being part of the land on Plan 5929 (sheet 1) and being part of the land comprised in Certificate of title Volume 1720, Folio 277 and known as the Quarry Amphitheatre, Oceanic Drive, Floreat, be removed;
(iii) following completion of the transfer of titles, the Memorial registered on the existing titles be reinstated on the new titles.
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 262
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
15. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS
Meeting Behind Closed Doors
Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr McConnell
That the following matters be regarded as confidential as they relate to legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the Town and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting.
Carried
At 7.32pm His Worship the Mayor requested all persons other than Elected Members and Council officers to leave the Council Chamber.
15.1
MINDARIE/TAMALA PARK LAND
Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Smith
That:-
(i) the introduction of a Private Members Bill into State Parliament to amend the City of Perth Restructuring Act 1993 to insert a section which would provide for the Towns of Cambridge, Vincent and Victoria Park to each receive a quarter share of the City of Perth’s ownership of Lot 17 Mindarie/Tamala Park land be pursued with the Member for Churchlands, Dr Elizabeth Constable MLA;
(ii) His Worship the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to meet with other Members of Parliament to brief them on the issues involved in (i) above;
(iii) the Towns of Victoria Park and Vincent be advised of Council’s decision and requested to vigorously support the Town’s objective in obtaining an equitable share in the ownership of the Mindarie/Tamala Park land.
Carried
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 263
COUNCIL MEETING 23 JUNE 1998 MAYOR………………………………………………………..
15.2
OCEAN GARDENS (INC) RETIREMENT VILLAGE
Moved by Cr Burkett, seconded by Cr Anderton
That:-
(i) following an explanation given by the Town’s Solicitor, Mr Denis McLeod of McLeod and Co, in respect to Ocean Gardens (Inc) the Council does not proceed at this stage with legal action against the City of Perth and Ocean Gardens;
(ii) this matter be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations to investigate fully the action of the City of Perth in regard to Ocean Gardens (Inc.);
(iii) an urgent meeting be sought by His Worship the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer with the Premier of Western Australia to advise him of the Town’s actions in this matter.
Carried
16. CLOSURE
There being no further business, His Worship the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting closed at 7.55pm.
H:CEO\MNGMNT\98MINS\C23JUNEM.DOC 264