2020 05 26A.Pdf

AGENDA

BUSINESS

1. Opening

2. Attendance/Apologies/Leave of Absence

3. Public Question Time

4. Petitions

5. Deputations

6. Applications for Leave of Absence

7. Confirmation of Minutes

7.1 Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 April 2020 7.2 Special Meeting of Council 15 May 2020 7.3 Special Meeting of Council 21 May 2020

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

9. Committee Reports

9.1 Development Committee 19 May 2020 9.2 Community and Resources Committee 18 May 2020

10. Council Reports

10.1 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances – April 2020 10.2 Register of Petitions as at 28 April 2020 10.3 Register of Notices of Motion as at 20 May 2020 10.4 Register of Delegations Exercised – 1 July 2019 – 31 March 2020 10.5 National Redress Scheme – Participation of Western Australian Local Governments 10.6 State Administrative Tribunal Matters Policy – Review and Adoption 10.7 Proposed New ‘Hardship Policy” – Adoption 10.8 Endowment Lands Act 1920 – Review 10.9 Information Technology Services (IT) Status Update Report

11. Urgent Business

Nil

12. Motions of Which Notice has been Given

12.1 Cr McKerracher – South City Beach Kiosk 12.2 Cr Timmermanis – Proposed Works to Median Strip Configuration on Brookdale Street – Oceanic Drive Intersection Under Delegation 1.2.13 Private Works on, over or Under Public Places 12.3 Mayor Shannon – Abbotsford Verge Landscaping 12.4 Mayor Shannon – Artificial Hockey Turf – Lake Monger Powis St Carpark 12.5 Mayor Shannon – COVID-19 Pandemic Response – Second Wave

13. Confidential Reports

13.1 Ocean Gardens (Inc) – Appointment of Director 13.2 Town of Cambridge Infrastructure – Wembley Sports Park Latent Construction Defects – Progress Report No: 6 13.3 Town of Cambridge Building and Infrastructure – City Beach Surf Club Latent Construction Defects – Progress Report 13.4 Licence Agreement for Road Reserve – GPA Pty Ltd – Progress Report No: 3 13.5 Town Community and Sporting Lease Premises – COVID-19 Relief Financial Assistance 13.6 COVID-19 – Progress Report No.4 (Report to Follow)

14. Closure

Visitors are reminded that mobile phones should be turned off during Council meetings COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Questions Taken 'on notice' at 28 April 2020 Council Meeting

Mr Graham Hornel, 91 Empire Avenue, City Beac

(Received by on line submission dated Sunday 26 April 2020 @ 12:51PM AWST; Receipt No QT100214)

Re: Code of Conduct

Statement As posted on the Town website, the Code of Conduct was adopted by the then Council on 27 August, 2019. At Item 2.2, it states that this key document is to be reviewed and presented to Council for re-adoption no more than three months after each Ordinary Council Election.

Question 1: Given the particular current relevance and significance of this Code that details the behaviours and responsibilities of all parties to which it pertains, can the CEO clearly explain why it appears that no review was undertaken within the three months stipulated?

Response: The review has been delayed due to the proposed changes to the Local Government Act 1995, which will require a Code of Conduct for Elected Members and a separate one for Employees.

The review will be undertaken once the regulations have been amended to allow this to happen.

In addition, there have been other priorities, such as COVID-19 matters, which require more attention.

Question 2: If this indeed due to another oversight, administrative, or printer’s error, can the CEO now confirm both the reason and exactly when the required review will happen?

Response: Your sarcasm is noted, however, refer to response in Q1 above.

(Received by on line submission dated Sunday 26 April 2020 @ 1:20PM AWST; Receipt No QT100215)

Re: CEO Performance Indicators: August 2019 – June 2020

Statement

As stated in the CEO Performance Indicators for the period August, 2019 - June, 2020 the first Key Results Area is: “Deliver high-quality, responsive services to the community.” Similarly, Public Question Time Policy Item 1.2(a) clearly states that those who ask questions pertaining to our Town, “will receive responses to them”.

Question 3: Will the CEO confirm that both his KRA1 and PQT Policy 1.2(a) are as presented above, apply and are ongoing?

Response: Confirmed.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 1 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Question 4: Can the CEO explain clearly as to why PQT Policy Item 3.1 states that those whose questions are submitted online to OCMs “will have their questions considered at that Meeting”, when the auto-response to such questions states that these will “be presented to the Meeting.”?

Response: The wording on the Town’s webpage has been changed to reflect the Council Policy 1.1.13 – ‘Managing Public Question Time at Council Meetings’.

Question 5: In explaining this difference, can the CEO also clearly explain why the words “considered” and “presented” continue to be used - when all such questions are taken on notice and thus, neither actually “considered” or “presented” at OCMs?

Response: Refer to response in Q4 above.

(Received by on line submission dated Monday 27 April 2020 @ 10:45AM AWST; Receipt No QT100217)

Re: Breach of s5.53(2)(G) of the Local Government Act

Statement

Instead of providing a full and proper response to my follow-up question on his Breach of s5.53(2)(G) of the Local Government Act, as submitted to the 24 March, 2020 OCM, the CEO again avoided giving a reasonable response by referring me to what was yet another inadequate earlier response. Had he fully complied with PQT Policy 1.1.13, I would not have needed to submit a follow-up question requesting a complete response.

Question 6: Does the CEO admit that, as is clearly shown in OCM Minutes - particularly in the case concerning the Mayor’s protracted recalcitrance to comply with Street Trees Policy 5.1.3 - he has often adopted the tactic that evades providing Ratepayers with complete responses to questions that are potentially awkward or embarrassing, by deliberately referring questioners back to earlier incomplete responses?

Response: Full responses have been provided to questions asked. As previously advised, the CEO has NOT committed any breach as alleged by you. It is considered that your persistent reference to the matter is tantamount to harassment and bullying. Furthermore, it is considered defamatory, as NO breach has been committed.

Question 7: Given his Breach of s5.53(2)(G) of the Act will the CEO now fully confirm both that the ultimate accountability and responsibility for the printing of our Town’s 2018-19 Annual Report was his as CEO?

Response: As previously advised, the CEO has NOT committed any breach as alleged by you. It is considered that your persistent reference to the matter is tantamount to harassment and bullying. Furthermore, it is considered defamatory, as NO breach has been committed.

Question 8: Towards concluding this Breach-related matter - and as requested at two successive OCMs - will the CEO now fully explain the exact circumstances of the “printing error” that he earlier claimed was responsible for the omission of a key report, as the Act requires be included?

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 2 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Response: Previous responses have been sent. It is considered that your persistent reference to the matter is tantamount to harassment and bullying.

(Received by on line submission dated Monday 27 April 2020 @ 11:59AM AWST; Receipt No QT100218)

Re: “Post Newspaper Article – Remarks Made by Councillor Timmermanis

Statement

As reported in the 24 issue of the ‘POST’, particularly critical, offensive remarks attacking the Minister for Local Government, were made by Councillor Timmermanis and echoed by the Mayor. These offensive remarks are in serious breach of the Council Member Conduct requirements in Code of Conduct items 10.1(a) (i) and (iv). The remarks attributed to both Elected Members are also in direct contravention of Code item 11.7(b).

Question 9: Unless both now deny making these very offensive remarks about Minister Templeman - or claim that they have been misquoted - will both Elected Members separately admit to not only making the above breaches, but also of the Behaviour Principles contained in Code item 3.2(d) and (h)?

Response: This question was rejected by the Presiding Member on the grounds it contains offensive, defamatory, adverse reflections and is not relevant to ordinary business of the Town or the function of the Council – pursuant to cl 6.1(d) of the Council Policy No: 1.1.13 ‘Managing Public Question Time at Council Meetings’.

As such the question and response will not be included into the Council minutes.

Question 10: Given that it is widely known that Cr. Timmermanis has been an unsuccessful nominee for Liberal Party Pre-Selection, does he openly admit that his offensive attacks on the Minister and on the City of Fremantle, were directly based on his political affiliations and beliefs?

As such the question and response will not be included into the Council minutes.

Question 11: Will both EMs separately explain how, in any way, their obvious breaches of a number of Code of Conduct items, fully comply with item 2.10(a) of the Local Government Act and were actually “representing the interests of electors, ratepayers and residents” of our Town?

As such the question and response will not be included into the Council minutes.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 3 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Question 12: Having avoided providing a full and proper response to my question about her previous attacks on and criticisms of the Minister, per the question that I submitted to the 23 July, 2019 OCM, does the Mayor now admit and recognise that these were also in breach of the Town’s Code of Conduct?

As such the question and response will not be included into the Council minutes.

Question 13: If, as many Ratepayers strongly feel that he should, the Minister takes legal action for the apparent defamation caused by the reported remarks by these two EMs, will the CEO confirm that each will bear the full cost of all legal matters involved - and not Ratepayers?

As such the question and response will not be included into the Council minutes.

Question 14: Given the realities that the offensive attacks on the Minister have caused our Town considerable reputational damage, that many Ratepayers are understandably very offended by these - and that the majority of his fellow Elected Members are believed to not be in support of his attacks on either the Minister or on JDAP Members recently- will Cr. Timmermanis now do the decent thing in the best interests of our Town and its Ratepayers and immediately resign?

As such the question and response will not be included into the Council minutes.

(Received by on line submission dated Monday 27 April 2020 @ 12:12PM AWST; Receipt No QT100219)

Re: Special Council Meeting of April 9 2020

Statement

As moved by Cr. Timmermanis at the April 9, 2020 Special Council Meeting and as then approved by Council, the CEO was directed to implement staff cuts of at least 20%.

Question 15: Towards the most effective and visible way of displaying solidarity with and support for the many hard-working staff members whom the CEO will cut, will he now agree to taking a 20% reduction in his very generous salary for at least the next six months?

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 4 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Response: This question was rejected by the Presiding Member on the grounds it is not relevant to ordinary business of the Town or the function of the Council – pursuant to cl 6.1(d) of the Council Policy No: 1.1.13 ‘Managing Public Question Time at Council Meetings’. As such the question and response will not be included into the Council minutes.

Question 16: In direct and commendable support of such an undertaking from the CEO, will both the Mayor and all Elected Members now confirm that they also agree to taking a 20% six month reduction in their similarly generous fees that they receive from Ratepayers?

Response: This question was rejected by the Presiding Member on the grounds it is untrue not relevant to ordinary business of the Town or the function of the Council – pursuant to cl 5.1 of the Council Policy No: 1.1.13 ‘Managing Public Question Time at Council Meetings’.

As such the question and response will not be included into the Council minutes.

Ms Pauline O’Connor, 1 Talgarth Way, City Beach (Received by on line submission dated Monday 27 April 2020 @ 9:52AM AWST; Receipt No QT100216)

Re: DV20.32 – Review of Council Policy – Local Planning Policy 1.5

Statement

Mr Giorgi, I refer to DV20.32 REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.5 ‘RESPONSE TO STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MATTERS AND REPORTS TO THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANELS' a report that you wrote for the March Council Meeting. In the summary report you refer to the corner of Cambridge Street and Brookdale Street, Floreat. No such intersection exists in the Town of Cambridge.

Question 1: Why have you referred to the intersection as corner Cambridge Street and Brookdale Street, Floreat, which is in the Coast Ward?

Response: This question was not accepted by the Presiding Member on the grounds it is not relevant to ordinary business of the Town or the function of the Council – pursuant to cl 5.1 of the Council Policy No: 1.1.13 ‘Managing Public Question Time at Council Meetings’.

As you were a former Town of Cambridge Councillor for many years you will be aware that the intersection is Oceanic Drive (a continuation of Cambridge Street) and Brookdale Street.

As such the question and response will not be included into the Council minutes.

Question 2: Has Oceanic Drive East been renamed Cambridge Street, if so when was this section of Oceanic Drive renamed?

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 5 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Also refer to response in Question 1 above.

As such the question and response will not be included into the Council minutes.

(Received by on line submission dated Monday 27 April 2020 @ 4:11PM AWST; Receipt No QT100220)

Re: Agenda Item CR20.53 – Recreational Cycle Facility Assessment

Statement

I refer to the Consultant’s report on Agenda item CR20.53 RECREATIONAL CYCLE FACILITY ASSESSMENT. Reference is made to the Wembley Golf Course as a popular site. It is also stated in the report Tenure: Crown Land Manager: Town of Cambridge (Wembley Golf Course).

Question 3: Which part of the Wembley Golf Course, if any, is Crown Land?

Your comments are regarded as correspondence. The Town will research the matter and reply when this has been carried out.

As such the question and response will not be included into the Council minutes.

Ms M Anklesaria, Chair, Cambridge Coastcare (Received by email dated Thursday 16 April 2020 @ 5:50PM AWST)

Re: Consideration by Community and Resources Committee

Statement

To whom it may concern I have recently been advised that some local governments are redeploying their staff from business operations that have closed due to COVID19 restrictions. These redeployment activities (on a temporary basis until ‘normal’ business activities resume) include revegetation activities in natural (parks and coastal) areas, that may normally have been undertaken by contractors or volunteers. This approach not only ensures planting activities continue without the potential re-allocation of funds to contractors but also helps to maintain adequate funding for annual weed spraying in these same natural areas.

Question: Has the Town of Cambridge considered undertaking this approach during the COVID19 restriction period?

Response: The use of the Town using redeployed employees has been considered and may form part of the Town’s Action and Implementation Plan, if required.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 6

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

7. REPORTS

Items to be determined by Committee

DV20.46 Lot 345 (No.59) Oban Road, City Beach – Additions to Existing Single Dwelling (S31 Reconsideration) 3 DV20.47 Lot 284 (No.31) Aruma Way, City Beach – Proposed Retaining Walls, Fill, Privacy Screen and Pool Safety Fencing Additions to Existing Single House (Amendment to DA19/0081) 9

Items to be determined by Council

DV20.48 Lot 533 (No.9) Kalari Drive, City Beach – Porch Roof 16 DV20.49 Lot 788 (No.7) Peebles Road, Floreat – Proposed Carport 21 DV20.50 Lot 2 (No.4) The Boulevard, Floreat – Alterations/Additions including Double Garage to Existing Single House 30 DV20.51 Lot 90 (No.26) Tranmore Way, City Beach – Carport 38 DV20.52 Town of Cambridge Draft Local Planning Strategy – Outcomes of Formal Advertising and Submission to WAPC 44 DV20.53 Appointment of Senior Counsel – Judicial Review to the Supreme Court of Western Australia – JDAP Decision concerning Abbotsford Hospital West Leederville 59 DV20.54 Building Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority – April 2020 65 DV20.55 Delegated Decisions and Notifications – April 2020 68

8. CLOSURE

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 I

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON 19 MAY 2020.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

Prior to commencement of this electronic meeting, Council Members and other attendee connections by electronic means were tested and confirmed.

The Presiding Member declared the electronic meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.02 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Present: Time of Time of Entering Leaving

Members:

Cr Ian Everett (Presiding Member) (In Person) 6.02 pm 6.52 pm Mayor Keri Shannon (In Person) 6.02 pm 6.52 pm Cr Alaine Haddon-Casey (Electronically) 6.08 pm 6.52 pm Cr Kate McKerracher (In Person) 6.02 pm 6.52 pm Cr James Nelson (Electronically) 6.02 pm 6.52 pm

Observers:

Nil

Officers:

Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Brett Cammell, Manager Strategic Planning Jennifer Heyes, Manager Statutory Planning Lee Gyomorei, Coordinator Governance & Office of CEO Denise Ribbands, Senior Governance Officer

Members of the Public:

6 persons

Media:

Ben Dickinson, Post Newspaper (Attended electronically)

Adjournments: Nil

Time meeting closed: 6.52 pm

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Apology – Mr John Giorgi, JP

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 1 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item DV20.46 – Bianca Sandri, applicant Item DV20.47 – Krista Makin, owner Item DV20.50 – Brendan Reed, applicant and Matt Stuart, owner

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Mayor Shannon

That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 21 April 2020 as contained in the April 2020 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

6. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Item DV20.52 Cr Everett – Impartiality Interest Cr McKerracher – Impartiality Interest Item DV20.53 Cr Everett – Financial Interest Mayor Shannon – Impartiality Interest

7. REPORTS

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 2 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DV20.46 LOT 345 (NO. 59) OBAN ROAD, CITY BEACH – ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE DWELLING [S31 RECONSIDERATION]

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is for Council to reconsider a development application for additions to an existing single dwelling that was refused by the Development Committee at its 17 March 2020 meeting.

SUMMARY:

An application for development approval to construct additions to the existing single dwellings was refused by the Development Committee in March 2020.

The application was refusal because of the impact of a proposed garage parapet wall and the reduced rear and side setbacks of a pool house and a work out building.

In response to the refusal, the Applicant lodged an appeal with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

As part of the SAT process, the Applicant has submitted amended plans to address the reasons for refusal. The plans include the additions to the existing garage being set back 1m from the eastern lot boundary, the removal of a proposed pool house from the plans, the construction of a proposed pergola (unroofed cover) adjacent to an existing swimming pool, and the construction of a proposed work out room at the rear of an existing bedroom.

The SAT has invited the Council to reconsider the proposal in accordance with Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.

It is considered that the amended plans satisfy the applicable design principles and accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved.

AUTHORITY/DISCRETION:

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.

adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made

by Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects  a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Information For the Council/Committee to note.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 3 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DELEGATION:

In accordance with Part 12 of the Town's Delegation Register, the Council is required to determine the application for the following reason:

• Reconsideration of applications pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, where the application was originally determined by resolution of Council.

BACKGROUND:

Address: Lot 345 (No.59) Oban Road, City Beach Report Date: 13 May 2020 File Reference: DA19/0301 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development, Marlaine Lavery Reporting Officer: Manager Statutory Planning, Jennifer Heyes Contributing Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning, Andrew Bratley Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachments: 1. Location Plan (1 page) 2. Development Plans (10 pages) 3. Site Photos (2 pages) 4. Annotated Site Plan (1 page)

Applicant: State of Kin Pty Ltd Owner: Mr T Childs and Mrs J Childs Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: P1: City Beach Development Description: Additions to Existing Single Dwelling Development Value: $500,000 Existing Land Use: Dwelling – Single Proposed Land Use: Dwelling - Single Land Area: 947m2 Heritage Listing: Nil Application Date: 16 October 2019

DETAILS:

Site Context

The subject property and those nearby contain single dwellings. The topography of the land falls slightly towards the west. The finished ground level on the subject property is approximately 1m lower than the property to the east.

The dwelling on the subject property is a Category 4 on the Town’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) due to the building having some aesthetic value and for its association with the prominent architect Iwan Nickolow. A Category 4 under the MHI means:

“Little significance. Contributes to the understanding of the history of the Town of Cambridge. Photographically record prior to major development or demolition. Recognise and interpret the site if possible.”

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 4 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Application History

In October 2019, an application was made for various proposed additions to the existing single dwelling on the subject property. This application was refused by the Development Committee in March 2020 and is now the subject of an appeal to SAT.

The main issues were with regard to a garage, a work out building and a pool house being proposed to be built up to the lot boundaries, resulting in the separation between buildings, and the original open nature of the City Beach precinct’s layout, not being maintained.

During the mediation process amended plans were submitted to the Town on 16 April 2020 (refer to attachment 2 for these amended plans).

The amended plans show the additions to the garage no longer being proposed to be built up to the eastern lot boundary, instead they are proposed to be set back 1m from the eastern lot boundary.

A pool house is also no longer proposed to be built up to the southern (rear) lot boundary. Instead a work out room is proposed to be constructed at the rear of an existing bedroom in the south-western portion of the site, 3.7m from the rear lot boundary.

Proposal

By way of summary the following is proposed:

• Additions to an existing garage are proposed to be set back 1m in lieu of 1.1m from the eastern lot boundary. • An alfresco area is proposed to be set back 1.4m in lieu of 1.6m from the eastern lot boundary. • A work out room and a front verandah are proposed to be set back 1.4m in lieu of 1.5m from the western lot boundary. • A low landscape wall of between 0.5m and 0.81m in height is proposed within the street setback area (an average height of approximately 0.7m above natural ground level). • A work out room is proposed to be set back 3.7m in lieu of 6m from the southern lot boundary. • A pergola is proposed to be set back 3m in lieu of 6m from the southern lot boundary.

CONSULTATION:

Public Consultation

The original application was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Town's Local Planning Policy 1.2 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals. No submissions were received.

Considering that there were no submissions received previously and no new variations are being proposed, the amended plans were not advertised.

Referral to Heritage Consultant

The Town previously sought comment from a Heritage Consultant due to the property being included on the MHI. In response, the Town was advised that “the proposal is a modern interpretation of the original design without being a faithful reproduction and promotes a good outcome”.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 5 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Due to the property being included on the Town’s MHI, if Council resolves to approve the application it is recommended that a condition be included requiring photographs of the existing building be taken prior to any work commencing. The photographs are to then be provided to the Town for its records.

STATUTORY ASSESSMENT:

State Planning Policy 7.3 - Residential Design Codes Volume 1

5.1.3 Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply Requirement Proposed Alfresco wall – Eastern lot 1.6m 1.4m boundary Garage – Eastern lot 1.1m 1m boundary Work Out Room and Front 1.5m 1.4m Verandah – West lot boundary Work Out Room – South Lot 6m 3.7m Boundary Pergola – South Lot Boundary 6m 3m Design Principles (of R-Codes): P3.1 Buildings set back from lot boundaries or adjacent buildings on the same lot so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.

Design Principles Assessment

Garage, Verandah and Alfresco

The verandah and garage additions are proposed to be set back 0.1m closer to the side lot boundaries than what is permitted. Whereas the alfresco is proposed to be set back 0.2m closer to the side lot boundary than what is permitted. All of these reduced setbacks are considered to be minor and therefore preserve the open appearance of the local area.

The setback variations for the alfresco and the garage are to solid dividing fencing along the eastern lot boundary which is approximately 2.7m high above the finished ground level on the subject property, whereas solid dividing fencing of approximately 1.8m in height exists along the western lot boundary. This fencing reduces the impacts of building bulk and overshadowing onto the adjoining properties.

The reduced setbacks do not cause any overlooking into the adjoining properties and no undue amount of overshadowing to the adjoining east and west lots. The setbacks being proposed as part of the amended plans will also maintain the traditional separation between buildings, which will preserve the open nature of the local area.

The proposal will not encroach within the street setback area and therefore maintains the traditional street setbacks.

The development has been designed to preserve existing landscaping within the street setback area which results in the green leafy character of the immediate area being maintained.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 6 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

For the above reasons, the proposed setbacks of the alfresco, the garage and the verandah are considered to meet the associated design principles.

Pergola and Work-Out Room

The work out room is proposed to be set back 0.1m closer to the western lot boundary than what is permitted. This is considered to be minor.

A 15m2 portion of the work out room is proposed to be set back less than 6m from the southern (rear) lot boundary which is not considered significant when considering that outbuildings which are taller and could have a larger floor compared to the proposed addition, are permitted to be located within rear setback areas.

A 29m2 portion of the pergola is proposed to be set back less than 6m from the southern (rear) lot boundary, however, the pergola will be unroofed and be unenclosed on all sides apart from where it is attached to the dwelling. Therefore the open appearance of the structure will not result in building bulk having an adverse impact on the adjoining properties.

The proposed location of the pergola and work-out room makes more effective use of space for the outdoor living area as they are to be located adjacent to an existing swimming pool allowing for existing landscaping along the rear lot boundary to remain. Landscaping and solid dividing fencing along the rear boundary will assist with minimising the impacts of building bulk to the southern adjoining property.

Solid dividing fencing of approximately 1.8m in height which exists along the western lot boundary will assist with minimising the impacts of building bulk to the western adjoining property.

The reduced setbacks do not cause any overlooking into the adjoining properties and no undue amount of overshadowing to the adjoining south and west lots.

For the above reasons, the proposed setbacks of the pergola and work-out room are considered to meet the associated design principles.

CONCLUSION:

The applicant seeks Council’s reconsideration of a proposed pergola, verandah, alfresco and a work out room, as well as proposed additions to an existing garage.

The proposed lot boundary setbacks are considered to satisfy the associated design principles.

The proposed reduced side lot boundary setbacks of the garage, alfresco, verandah and work out room are considered minor and therefore will maintain the traditional separation between buildings, which will preserve the open nature of the local area.

The relatively small extent to which the work out room will encroach into the rear setback area, as well as the open appearance of the proposed pergola, will result in building bulk not having an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding properties.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the application be approved.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Costs may be incurred by the Town if the applicant proceeds to a hearing.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 7 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS:

• Metropolitan Region Scheme • Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 • Local Planning Scheme No. 1 • State Planning Policy 7.3 - Residential Design Codes Volume 1 • Local Planning Policies

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The recommendations of this Report are consistent with the following aspects of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018 - 2028:-

Our Neighbourhoods

Goal 4: Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected, and planning is responsive to residents Strategy 4.3: Ensure new development is harmonious with established residences and respects our existing 'sense of place' and our unique character Strategy 4.4: Enhance and respect our existing streetscapes, setbacks and green spaces.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and Local Planning Policy 1.2 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals.

COMMITTEE DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Haddon-Casey

That, pursuant to s.31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 and in accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and the authority delegated to the Town under the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme, Council APPROVES the application for additions to the existing single dwelling at Lot 345 (No. 59) Oban Road, City Beach, as shown on the attached plans stamped received 16 April 2020, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the approved plans, subject to any modifications required as a consequence of any conditions of this approval;

2. The proposed pergola around the swimming pool shall not be roofed with water impermeable (solid) material.

3. All stormwater shall be contained and disposed of on-site at all times, to the satisfaction of the Town.

4. In accordance with the Town’s Municipal Heritage Inventory, photographs of the existing building are to be taken prior to any work commencing due to the building being a Category 4. The photographs are to be provided to the Town prior to the building permit being lodged.

Standard Advice Notes to be included by the Administration.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 8 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DV20.47 LOT 284 (NO. 31) ARUMA WAY, CITY BEACH – PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS, FILL, PRIVACY SCREEN AND POOL SAFETY FENCING ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (AMENDMENT TO DA19/0081)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application to amend the previous approval DA19/0081, to increase the height and extent of previously approved retaining walls, fill, privacy screen and pool safety fencing additions to the existing single house.

SUMMARY:

The previous approval was for retaining and fill in the rear south-west corner of the site where the land naturally slopes down towards the reserve at the rear. Due to the fill having a finished ground level that is more than 0.5m above the natural ground level, the previous approval also included extensive visual privacy screening on the west elevation to restrict overlooking into the adjoining western property. The approved works have not been carried out on-site.

The current application proposes additional retaining and fill in the rear south-west corner of the site to accommodate a proposed new below ground swimming pool, which will result in the bulk of the retaining and privacy screen on the west elevation being located closer to the western boundary than the previous approval. The application also results in an increased height and extent of the retaining and fill on the south elevation abutting the reserve, and new pool safety fencing within the 6m rear setback area.

It is considered that the presence and increased height of the retaining walls and privacy screening within the 6m rear setback area will not reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining western property, which has natural ground levels at the rear of the site that are 5.6m to 9.1m lower than the maximum height of the proposed privacy screening.

It is also considered that the proposal will not be compatible with the surrounding locality, as the retaining walls and fill do not respond to the natural slope of the land and will be significantly higher than the reserve levels.

If approved, it is considered that the increased height and extent of the retaining walls and pool safety fencing, when viewed from the reserve, will change the character of the locality, and as such will set an undesirable perceived precedent for future similar development in the area.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 9 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

AUTHORITY/DISCRETION:

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.

adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made

DELEGATION:

The application is presented to Council due to the height and extent of the retaining walls, fill, privacy screen and pool safety fencing proposed in the 6m rear setback area adjoining a public reserve. In this instance, it is not considered appropriate for the Administration's delegation to be exercised.

BACKGROUND:

Address: Lot 284 (No. 31) Aruma Way, City Beach Report Date: 24 April 2020 File Reference: DA20/0011 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development, Marlaine Lavery Reporting Officer: Manager Statutory Planning, Jennifer Heyes Contributing Officer: Senior Statutory Planning Officer, Steven Laming Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachments: 1. Aerial Plan (1 page) 2. Previous Development Plans (DA19/0081) Dated 28 August 2019 3. Development Plans (4 pages) 4. Site Photos (8 pages) 5. Applicant’s 3D Renders (4 pages) 6. Applicant’s Comments (13 pages)

Applicant: Gregory Makin Owner: Gregory Makin Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: P1: City Beach Development Description: Retaining Walls, Fill, Privacy Screen and Pool Safety Fencing Additions to Existing Single House (Amendment to DA19/0081) Development Value: $45,000 Existing Land Use: Single House Proposed Land Use: N/A – works associated with existing use Land Area: 835m2 Heritage Listing: No Application Date: 14 January 2020 Application Process Days: 126 days (applicant agreed to extend application timeframe)

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 10 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DETAILS:

Site Context

The site has a density coding of R12.5, is located within the City Beach Planning Precinct and is bound by Maloney Park reserve at the rear.

The site is currently occupied by a two-storey single house and the locality consists of single houses.

The site features a natural slope down of approximately 1m from the north-east corner to the north-west corner at the front of the lot. The site is mostly flat through the centre to the rear boundary, however, there is a steep slope concentrated in the south-west corner of the lot, where the topography slopes down approximately 4m from the centre-left area of the site to the reserve levels in the south-west rear corner. The steep sloped area is currently occupied by plants and shrubs.

There are existing retaining walls along the rear boundary of the site, abutting the reserve, which have a maximum height of 1.2m above the natural ground levels within the site, and a maximum height of 2.5m above the reserve levels. Where the land naturally slopes down in the south-west corner of the site, the existing retaining walls have a maximum height of 0.33m.

Site History

On 28 August 2019 the Town approved development application DA19/0081 for retaining walls, fill and privacy screen additions to the existing single house (refer Attachment 2).

That approval was for retaining and fill in the south-west corner of the site where the land naturally slopes down to the reserve, in order to increase the area of flat surface in the open space at the rear of the dwelling.

The retaining wall on the west elevation was approved with a minimum setback of 1.2m from the west boundary, and, due to the wall angling away from the boundary, a maximum setback of 6m. The land at the bottom of the retaining wall, between the wall and the western boundary, was to be levelled and landscaped with various shrubs, plants and trees.

As the retaining wall and fill had a finished ground level that was more than 0.5m above the natural ground level, the approval also included extensive privacy screening above the retaining on the western elevation, which was required to restrict overlooking into the adjoining western property.

Application History

In response to the Town’s advice that the application would be refused under delegation, amended plans were submitted post-advertising showing the south-west corner of the retaining walls, to the perimeter of the proposed pool, are angled so as to truncate away from the reserve. It is these latest plans which are being presented to Council as part of this Report (refer Attachment 3).

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 11 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Proposal

The application proposes to amend the previous approval by increasing the height and extent of the retaining walls, fill, privacy screen and pool safety fencing within the 6m rear setback area, in order to accommodate a proposed new below ground pool. The difference in the height and extent of the retaining walls, fill, privacy screen and safety fencing between the previous approval and subject proposal is detailed as follows:

Element Previous Approval (DA19/0081) Subject Proposal South Elevation (adjoining the public reserve) Retaining wall 1m 3m (truncated pool wall) maximum height above natural ground levels. Maximum overall 2m 2.1m height to the top of the safety fencing, as measured from the natural ground level within the site. Retaining wall 2.7m 4.02m (truncated pool wall) maximum height above reserve levels. Maximum overall 3.7m 3.03 height to top of safety fencing, as measured from reserve levels. New retaining wall 3.2m 4.7m total length. New retaining wall 1.3m 1.1m – 3.6m setback from the south boundary. West Elevation (adjoining the neighbouring property) Retaining wall 1.7m 2.5m maximum height above the natural ground levels. Maximum overall 3.3m 4.1m height to the top of the privacy screen, as measured from the natural ground levels. New retaining wall 1.2m - 6m 2.1m – 4.5m setback from west boundary.

As detailed above, the proposal results in an increase in most of the height and length dimensions of the proposed retaining walls, privacy screening and pool safety fencing in the 6m rear setback area.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 12 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

CONSULTATION:

Public Consultation

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Town's Local Planning Policy 1.2 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals.

No submissions were received during the public consultation period.

APPLICANT'S COMMENTS:

The applicant has provided comments in support of those aspects of the application that do not meet the relevant deemed-to-comply requirements. These comments are attached to this Report (refer Attachment 5).

STATUTORY ASSESSMENT:

State Planning Policy 7.3 - Residential Design Codes Volume 1

5.1.3 Lot Boundary Setback Deemed-to-comply Requirement Proposed Rear setback (south) 6m 1.1m – 3.6m

Design Principles (of R-Codes):

"Buildings setback from lot boundaries or adjacent buildings on the same lot so as to:

• Reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open space on the site and adjoining properties; and • Minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.”

In addition, the following considerations of cl.67 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 are applicable:

“(m) the compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including, but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development;

(n) the amenity of the locality including the following — (i) environmental impacts of the development; (ii) the character of the locality; (iii) social impacts of the development.”

Design Principles Assessment

A retaining wall with a maximum height that is more than 0.5m above the natural ground level is classified as a building under the R-Codes. The retaining walls and privacy screening, within the 6m rear setback, on the west elevation will have a maximum overall height of 4.1m to the top of the privacy screen, as measured from the natural ground level directly beneath the retaining wall.

Whilst the retaining walls, fill and privacy screening will be setback minimum 2.1m from the west boundary, which meets the deemed-to-comply side boundary setback, it is considered that the presence and increased height of the retaining walls and privacy screening within the 6m rear setback area will not reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining western

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 13 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 property. The impact of building bulk on the adjoining western property is exacerbated by the natural ground levels at the rear of the adjoining site being 5.6m to 9.1m lower than the maximum height of the proposed privacy screening.

Having due regard to the matters listed in cl.67 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the following is also considered relevant.

When viewed from the adjoining reserve at the rear, the retaining walls have a maximum height, above the reserve levels, of 4.02m to the truncated wall to the perimeter of the proposed pool.

It is considered that the proposal will not be compatible with the surrounding development and will not meet the desired future character of the City Beach Precinct, as the retaining walls and fill will not respond to the natural topography in the south-west corner of the site and will have a visual bulk impact on the south elevation when view from the adjoining reserve.

Whilst it is acknowledged that there are examples of high walls and fill within the rear setback area of other properties that abut reserves in the locality, these examples may not be approved and even if approved do not necessarily meet the desired future character of the City Beach Precinct.

If approved, it is considered that the increased height and extent of the retaining and fill, when viewed from the reserve, will have an adverse impact on the character of the locality, which generally consists of finished ground levels that respond to the natural ground levels, and as such will set an undesirable perceived precedent for future similar development in the area.

The applicant’s desire for increased formalised outdoor living area is acknowledged, however the existing approval does provide additional area, whilst not significantly impacting on the natural topography at the rear of the site. It is considered that the proposed additional retaining and fill will have a detrimental impact on the amenity and unduly change the character of the immediate locality.

The proposed non-complying application is therefore not supported.

CONCLUSION:

It is considered that proposed height and extent of the retaining walls and privacy screen within the 6m rear setback area, on the west elevation, will not reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining western property.

It is also considered that the proposed height and extent of the retaining walls fencing on the south elevation will not be compatible with the surrounding development and will not be consistent with the desired future character of the City Beach Precinct, as the retaining and associated fill does not respond the natural ground levels at the rear of the site. If approved, it is considered that the proposal will set an undesirable perceived precedent for future development in the locality.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that the application be refused.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Costs may be incurred by the Town if the landowner requests a review of the determination from the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 14 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS:

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The recommendations of this Report are consistent with the following aspects of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018 - 2028:-

Our Neighbourhoods

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

COMMITTEE DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Haddon-Casey

That, in accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and the authority delegated to the Town under the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme, Committee REFUSES the application to amend DA19/0081 for Retaining Walls, Fill, Privacy Screen and Pool Safety Fencing Additions to the Existing Single House at Lot 284 (No. 31) Aruma Way, City Beach as shown on the attached plans stamped received 4 May 2020 and 7 May 2020 for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not satisfy clause 67(m) and (n) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, or the policy objectives of Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Streetscape, as the height and extent of the retaining walls, fill, privacy screen and pool safety fencing additions in the rear setback area would not be compatible with the surrounding development in the R12.5 zone and the desired future character of the City Beach Precinct, and therefore does not represent orderly and proper planning; and

2. The proposal does not satisfy the design principles of Part 5.1.3 Lot Boundary Setbacks of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia as the proposed reduced rear lot boundary setback would result in a building bulk impact that is incompatible with the R12.5 zone and would have an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the locality.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 15 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DV20.48 LOT 533 (NO. 9) KALARI DRIVE, CITY BEACH – PORCH ROOF

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for a proposed porch roof.

SUMMARY:

The proposed porch roof is located within the primary street setback area and therefore the application does not comply with cl26 of Local Planning Scheme No.1.

The proposed porch roof will be located on an existing raised porch area, located north of the existing single dwelling fronting Kalari Drive.

A 5.4m² portion of the porch roof (2.8% of the front setback area) is proposed to encroach into the primary street setback area.

The immediate locality of the Kalari Drive streetscape is uniquely characterised whereby six of the seven southern facing properties are corner properties, with some not affording primary street setbacks from Kalari Drive. The two immediate adjacent properties north of the subject site are also corner lots. There are several examples of structures including carports and garages located in the front and secondary street setbacks.

The area of the porch roof within the primary street setback is not significant, being set back a minimum of 5.7m and will be partially screened by the resident’s existing landscaping and the retained mature street tree on the Kalari Drive verge in order to preserve the original open nature and green leafy character of the City Beach Precinct. Therefore in this instance, the porch roof will not be inconsistent with the prevailing development and its impact on the character of the locality and established streetscape is considered negligible in accordance with the Streetscape Policy Objectives.

As such, it is considered the proposal satisfies the Policy Objectives, the Desired Future Character Descriptions and cl1 of Local Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape and accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

AUTHORITY/DISCRETION:

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.

adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 16 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DELEGATION:

In accordance with cl.9.1.2 of the Town's Delegation Register, the Council is required to determine the application for the following reason:

• The determination of a development application under Cl. 34 (2) of Local Planning Scheme No. 1.

BACKGROUND:

Address: Lot 533 (No. 9) Kalari Drive, City Beach Report Date: 13 May 2020 File Reference: DA20/0046 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development, Marlaine Lavery Reporting Officer: Manager Statutory Planning, Jennifer Heyes Contributing Officer: Statutory Planning Officer, Mackenzie Walmsley Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachments: 1. Aerial Plan (1 page) 2. Development Plans (2 pages) 3. Annotated Development Plan (1 page) 4. Site Photos (2 pages)

Applicant: Great Aussie Patios Owner: Don Weerakody and Hemali Weerakody Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: P1: City Beach Development Description: Patio Development Value: $8300 Existing Land Use: Dwelling (Single) Proposed Land Use: N/A – works associated with existing use Land Area: 842m2 Heritage Listing: No Application Date: 3 March 2020 Application Process Days: 84 days

DETAILS:

Site History

The site is located in the City Beach Planning Precinct and is currently occupied by a single dwelling. The dwelling was approved by the City of Perth Council in 1966, with minor additions and a carport approved consequently in 1972 and 1975.

Site Context

The site is situated at the north west corner of the intersection of Kalari Drive (primary street) and Takari Crescent (secondary street). There are instances of a few incursions for dwelling additions and carports where corner properties afford primary street access from Kalari Drive, specifically Nos. 7, 11 and 12 Kalari Drive.

Proposal

The application proposes to construct a porch roof to be situated north and at the front of the existing single dwelling. The application is seeking the following variation to the deemed-to- comply provisions:

• A primary street setback of 5.7m in lieu of the required 7.5m provision.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 17 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

CONSULTATION:

Public Consultation

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Town's Local Planning Policy 1.2 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals.

No submissions were received during the public consultation period.

STATUTORY ASSESSMENT:

Local Planning Scheme No. 1 - Clause 26 - Modification of R-Codes

Clause 26(1)(b) Modification of R-Codes Required Proposed Primary Street Setback (Porch 7.5m 5.7m Roof) Clause 34 - Variations to Site and Development Requirements "(1) … a) an application for planning approval which does not comply with a standard or requirement of this Scheme, where the standard or requirement does not provide for any permitted variation, is called a "non-complying application"; …

(2) Subject to sub clause (3), the Council may refuse or approve a non-complying application with or without conditions".

Assessment

Having due consideration to the Policy Objectives, the Desired Future Character Descriptions and cl1 of Local Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape and the relevant sub-clauses of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the following is considered relevant:

The proposal involves formalising the existing dwelling frontage by constructing a roof over the existing porch area. This established porch is already encroaching within the primary street setback area. A 5.4m² portion of the porch roof will encroach within the primary street setback area, equating to approximately 2.8% of the setback area.

The portion of porch roof that is visible from the street corner intersection is deemed-to- comply, being set back 8m from the street alignment. Whereas, the portion of the porch roof encroaching within the primary street setback area will be predominantly screened from the public realm when looking eastward along Kalari Drive from the existing mature street tree and retained landscaping on-site as demonstrated in the site photos.

In response to clause 67(m) of the deemed provisions, the proposed patio has been designed to integrate with the dwelling as the materials of construction and roof design are in-keeping with the existing dwelling style.

The proposed encroachment is considered to be relatively minor, whereby it is acknowledged that buildings within the primary street setback are generally not supported, however, in this instance as the proposal simply relates to a roof structure to cover the existing porch area the setback is not considered to have an adverse visual amenity impact with respect to clause 67(n) of the deemed provisions.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 18 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

CONCLUSION:

Overall, it is considered that the proposed porch roof is relatively minor in scale and will not have any impact on the future development of this locality. The proposed non-complying application is therefore supported and for the above reasons, is recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Costs may be incurred by the Town if the landowner requests a review of the determination from the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS:

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The recommendations of this Report are consistent with the following aspects of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018 - 2028:-

Our Neighbourhoods

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Haddon-Casey

That, in accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and the authority delegated to the Town under the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme, Council APPROVES the application for a proposed patio at Lot 533 (No. 9) Kalari Drive, City Beach as shown on the attached plans stamped received 1 April 2020, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the approved plans, subject to any modifications required as a consequence of any conditions of this approval;

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 19 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

2. The roof material shall not be zincalume, white or off-white metal sheeting where the roof pitch exceeds five degrees; and

3. All stormwater shall be contained and disposed of on-site for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Town.

Standard Advice Notes to be included by the Administration.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 20 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DV20.49 LOT 788 (NO. 7) PEEBLES ROAD, FLOREAT – PROPOSED CARPORT

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for a carport located within the primary street setback area, which will be in addition to the existing two car enclosed garage on the site.

SUMMARY:

The application is being presented to Council for consideration as the proposed carport is located within the primary street setback area which does not comply with the required 9m setback as prescribed in cl26 of Local Planning Scheme No.1. Furthermore, the carport does not meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes for open space.

The application is also presented to Council for determination as the application does not comply with cl7(c) of Local Law 43 - Buildings on Endowment Lands & Limekilns Estate (Local Law 43) which requires the Council, at its discretion, to permit wooden gables to be incorporated in any building.

The application was advertised for community consultation with no objections being received.

It is considered that the extent of the primary street setback variation, and the open space variation, results in development of the site which is not in keeping with the desired local character to preserve the original open nature and garden quality that the precinct was designed for. Furthermore, the reduced primary street setback is considered to have an adverse impact on the established streetscape which has predominantly maintained the required setback.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused.

AUTHORITY/DISCRETION:

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.

adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 21 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DELEGATION:

In accordance with cl.9.1.2 of the Town's Delegation Register, the Council is required to determine the application for the following reason(s):

• The determination of a development application under Cl. 34 (2) of Local Planning Scheme No. 1.; and

• Clause 2B of Local Law 43 - Buildings on Endowment Lands & Limekilns Estate (Local Law 43) requires Council to determine development applications which do not meet the requirements of Local Law 43.

BACKGROUND:

Address: Lot 788 (No. 7) Peebles Road, Floreat Report Date: 13 May 2020 File Reference: DA20/0014 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development, Marlaine Lavery Reporting Officer: Manager Statutory Planning, Jennifer Heyes Contributing Officer: Senior Statutory Planning Officer, Karen Liddell Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachments: 1. Aerial Plan (1 page) 2. Development Plans (7 pages) 3. Existing Streetscape Analysis (1 page) 4. Site Photos (1 pages) 5. Applicant's Comments (3 pages) Applicant: Dale Alcock Home Improvement Owner: Bridgette and Martin Bennett Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: P3: Floreat Development Description: Carport Development Value: $105,830 Existing Land Use: Dwelling (Single) Proposed Land Use: Extension to Dwelling (Single) Land Area: 837m2 Heritage Listing: No Application Date: 20 January 2020 Application Process Days: 120 days (30 day time extension agreed to by the applicant)

DETAILS:

Site History

The existing dwelling was approved in 2008 via a building permit. This included the front fence.

Site Context

The site is located within the P3: Floreat Planning Precinct in a block bound by Moray Avenue to the west, Grantham Street to the south and Crosby Street to the east.

The subject property and those nearby contain single and two-storey dwellings. The topography of the land is flat.

The site currently contains a relatively modern (2008) single storey dwelling with double garage. The existing streetscape is considered to be a good example of the garden city suburb with few incursions within the primary street setback. Within the immediate locality (between

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 22 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Crosby St and Moray Avenue), there are only two dwellings that have buildings (carports) within the primary street setback area (see Attachment 3 – Existing Streetscape Analysis).

Proposal

The development application proposes the construction of a double width carport in front of the exiting two car garage that will be set back 1.305m from the primary street setback in lieu of 9m.

The carport will occupy an area of approximately 54sqm inclusive of eaves.

The addition of the carport results in the open space requirement of 55% not being met. The open space provided on site is approximately 52%.

CONSULTATION:

Public Consultation

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Town's Local Planning Policy 1.2 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals.

No submissions were received during the public consultation period.

APPLICANT'S COMMENTS:

STATUTORY ASSESSMENT:

Local Planning Scheme No. 1 - Clause 26 - Modification of R-Codes

Clause 26(1)(b) Modification of R-Codes Required Proposed Primary Street Setback 9m 1.305 (Carport) Clause 34 - Variations to Site and Development Requirements "(1) … a) an application for planning approval which does not comply with a standard or requirement of this Scheme, where the standard or requirement does not provide for any permitted variation, is called a "non-complying application"; …

(2) Subject to sub clause (3), the Council may refuse or approve a non-complying application with or without conditions".

Assessment

In considering non-complying proposals, applications are to be assessed against the criteria outlined in Clause 34 of the Scheme, and Council is to have due regard to the matters listed in cl.67 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Furthermore, Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Streetscape contains provisions, Provision 1, which Council may have due regard to when considering a non-complying application under Clause 34 of the Scheme. The following is considered relevant.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 23 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Clause 67 (m) and (n) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 requires due regard is given to the compatibility of the development with its setting including but not limited to the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development; and the amenity of the area including the character of the locality.

The bulk and scale of the proposed double carport is not considered to be compatible with the streetscape within which it is located, and would have a negative impact on amenity in regard to the character of the locality. As outlined below, the existing streetscape predominantly reflects the 9m street setback and maintains the open nature of landscaped front gardens. The applicant already has a double garage which is complaint with the front setback requirement. The addition of extra building bulk in the front setback area to provide supplementary covered car parking is considered to be unnecessary.

LPP3.1 – Provision 1 (a)

The proposed development within the prescribed scheme setback area shall meet the Desired Future Character of the area;

The relevant desired future character set out in Local Planning Policy 3.1 states:

“ Development shall be constructed to maintain the traditional street setbacks and separation between buildings, to preserve the original open nature and gardenesque quality that the precinct was designed for;  New development shall create and enhance open landscaped front gardens within the street setback to maintain the green character of the streetscape and the precinct;  New development shall reduce the impact of parking structures on the existing streetscape by ensuring that such structures are located at the rear and side of properties.”

The predominant streetscape character along Peebles Road comprises of open front yards reflective of the garden city-style suburb, with extensive setback of dwellings from the street and the extent of separation between dwellings being features of the original subdivision.

The Peebles Road average primary street setback reflects the 9m requirement, including the subject site's existing dwelling and garage setback. There are only two other properties within the immediate street block which have carports located within the front setback area (see Attachment 3).

The proposed setback of 1.305m is not considered consistent with the established streetscape context. If supported, it is considered that the street setback variation will be out-of-character with the established and desired future streetscape.

The proposed non-complying application is therefore not supported.

State Planning Policy 7.3 - Residential Design Codes Volume 1 / Local Planning Policies

5.1.4 Open Space Deemed-to-comply Requirement Proposed Open space 55% Approximately 52% (460.35m2) (434.65m2)

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 24 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Design Principles (of R-Codes): P4 Development incorporates suitable open space for its context to: • reflect the existing and/or desired streetscape character or as outlined under the local planning framework; • provide access to natural sunlight for the dwelling; • reduce building bulk on the site, consistent with the expectations of the applicable density code and/or as outlined in the local planning framework; • provide an attractive setting for the buildings, landscape, vegetation and streetscape; • provide opportunities for residents to use space external to the dwelling for outdoor pursuits and access within/around the site; and • provide space for external fixtures and essential facilities.

Design Principles Assessment

Whilst the proposed carport has little to no impact on access to sunlight for the dwelling, use of space external to the dwelling for outdoor pursuits and access about the site and space for external factures and essential facilities; it is considered that it has an undesirable impact on the streetscape, building bulk and setting as outlined below.

It is considered supporting the open space variation will be out-of-character with the established and desired future character as outlined in the local planning framework. The character description for Floreat as outlined in Local Planning Policy 3.1 (LPP3.1), outlines the following relevant Desired Future Character principles to be addressed:

As previously mentioned in the report, the Pebbles Road streetscape predominantly reflects the required 9m street setback which is an essential component to preserving the established character of the area. New development is encouraged to retain open landscaped front gardens to maintain the green character of the streetscape. Support of the proposed carport within the primary street setback area would not be consistent with the desired future character of the area.

The addition of the carport increases the building bulk on site, specifically within the primary street setback area. This is not consistent with LPP3.1 which seeks to maintain features of the original subdivision which included extensive landscaping in the front garden and verge, reflective of the traditional garden suburb-style streetscape qualities.

Therefore, the reduced open space resulting from the proposed carport is not considered to be consistent with the local planning framework which seeks to maintain single dwellings set in a landscaped setting with separation between dwellings and extensive landscaping within the front garden.

The application is considered to not meet the associated design principles.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 25 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Applicant's Comments (refer Attachment 5)

The applicant has made a submission in support of the proposed open space variation which have been summarised below.

The applicant states that the proposed carport will not result in any overshadowing causing loss of natural light to the dwelling, or reduce the area of land available on site for outdoor pursuits. These design principle are not contended.

In regard to the building bulk design principle, the applicant states that the carport will not significantly contribute to building bulk due to the carport being open on all sides, and that most of the front setback area will be maintained as landscaped area. For reasons outlined above, it is not simply a matter of the carport remaining open. The Peebles Road streetscape predominantly reflects the 9m setback requirement and maintains the open-style landscaped setting typical to Floreat. Support of the carport is considered to diminish the integrity of the streetscape which the Town is seeking to maintain. The applicant suggests that the carport is generally consistent with the other criteria set out in the definition of open space requiring a maximum of 10% coverage associated with structures unclosed on two sides. Within the context of the Peebles Road streetscape, the resulting impact of the carport even with open sides, is considered to be inconsistent with the intent of the local planning framework.

Local Law 43 - Buildings on Endowment Lands & Limekilns Estate (Local Law 43)

Clause 7(c) General Regulation Proposed Wooden Gables Notwithstanding the provisions of Wooden gable to carport this paragraph, the Council may at façade. its discretion permit wooden gables to be incorporated in any building. Clause 2B "In a residential district the Council may permit land to be developed subject to such conditions as the Council deems fit:– a) for use for a purpose which is not permitted in that district; b) notwithstanding that the developments will not comply with the standard or requirement prescribed by this by-law in that district.

if the Council is satisfied by an absolute majority that:– i) the development would be consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of its amenities; and ii) the use to be made of the land and the non-compliance with the prescribed standard or requirement will not have any adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of the development or the property in or the inhabitants of the locality or the likely future development of the locality".

Assessment

The carport design is to include a wooden gable on the northern façade to match that on the existing dwelling. The use of the timber gable occupies a small percentage of the carport façade, being only 4.3m2.

As the proposed gable is consistent with that existing on the site, and there are other examples of wooden gables within the locality, it is considered to be consistent with orderly and proper planning of the locality.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 26 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Given the small area of wooden gable proposed to be incorporated in to the building, approval is not considered to have any adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of the development or the property in or the inhabitants of the locality or the likely future development of the locality.

For the above reasons, the application is considered to meet Clause 2B of Local Law 43.

CONCLUSION:

Due to the significantly reduced primary street setback, and the subsequent impact on the provision of open space, the proposed development is not considered to be in keeping with the desired local character set out in the local planning framework.

The reduced primary street setback is considered to have an adverse impact on the established streetscape which is reflective of the traditional garden suburb-style streetscape qualities, with extensive landscaping in the front garden and verge.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that the application be refused.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Costs may be incurred by the Town if the landowner requests a review of the determination from the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS:

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The recommendations of this Report are consistent with the following aspects of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018 - 2028:-

Our Neighbourhoods

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 27 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Haddon-Casey

That, in accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and the authority delegated to the Town under the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the provisions of Local Law 43 - Buildings on Endowment Lands & Limekilns Estate, Council REFUSES the application for a proposed carport at 7 Peebles Road, Floreat, as shown on the attached plans stamped received 5 March 2020 for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not satisfy the Deemed Provisions of Clause 34 of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 as the proposed reduced setback is considered out-of- character with the existing local development context and therefore is not in accordance with orderly and proper planning in the locality;

2. Having due consideration of sub-clauses 67(m) and (n) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the proposal is not compatible with its settings on the basis of the scale and building bulk impacts associated with the carport, with those impacts having a detrimental impact on the existing residential streetscape;

3. The proposal does not satisfy the design principles of Provision 5.1.4 – Open Space of State Planning Policy 7.3 - Residential Design Codes Volume 1 as the carport will not reflect the existing or desired streetscape character and adds to the building bulk on site;

4. The proposal is not considered to meet the intent of the Floreat Precinct Policy (the Town's Local Planning Policy 2.3) and the Town's Streetscape Policy (Local Planning Policy 3.1) as it is not in keeping with the desired local character to preserve the original open nature and garden quality that the precinct was designed for; and

5. The approval of the proposal will establish a precedent which may be considered in future planning decisions, and as such, is not consistent with orderly and proper planning.

AMENDMENT:

Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Mayor Shannon

That clause 1 of the motion be amended to read as follows:-

1. The proposal does not comply with Clause 26 of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and discretion should not be exercised under Clause 34 of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 as the proposed reduced setback is considered out-of-character with the existing local development context and therefore is not in accordance with orderly and proper planning in the locality;

Amendment put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 28 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

5. The approval of the proposal will establish a precedent which may be considered in future planning decisions, and as such, is not consistent with orderly and proper planning.

Motion, as AMENDED, put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 29 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DV20.50 LOT 2 (NO. 4) THE BOULEVARD, FLOREAT – ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS INCLUDING DOUBLE GARAGE TO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for alterations and additions to the existing single house, including a double width three car garage that will replace an existing single garage.

SUMMARY:

The proposed garage is located within the primary street setback area and therefore the application does not comply with cl26 of Local Planning Scheme No. 1.

The garage is proposed to be built up to the eastern side boundary and due to the acute angle of the boundary, sections of the garage on the east elevation also do not meet the deemed- to-comply minimum lot boundary setbacks. The reduced primary street setback to the fully enclosed garage is considered to have an adverse impact on the streetscape, which is characterised by existing dwellings set back a minimum 9m from the street. In the immediate street block, there are some open-style carports with reduced street setbacks, however, there are no existing solid garage structures within the front setback area.

The proposed angled walls will create the appearance that there is no separation between the building and the eastern boundary, when viewed from street at the eastern side of the site, which will be inconsistent with the Garden Suburbs character of the Floreat Precinct, and the height of the walls and the lack of sufficient setbacks will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining eastern property.

The cumulative impact of the proposed reduced primary street setback, building on the boundary and reduced side setbacks are considered to have a detrimental impact on the established streetscape, local character and adjoining property.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused.

AUTHORITY/DISCRETION:

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.

adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 30 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DELEGATION:

In accordance with cl.9.1.2 of the Town's Delegation Register, the Council is required to determine the application for the following reason: • The determination of a development application under Cl. 34 (2) of Local Planning Scheme No. 1.

BACKGROUND:

Address: Lot 2 (No.4) The Boulevard, Floreat Report Date: 13 May 2020 File Reference: DA20/0044 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development, Marlaine Lavery Reporting Officer: Manager Statutory Planning, Jennifer Heyes Contributing Officer: Senior Statutory Planning Officer, Steven Laming Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachments: 1. Aerial Plan (1 page) 2. Development Plans (9 pages) 3. Annotated Site Plan (1 page) 4. Site Photos (4 pages) 5. Applicant's Comments (10 pages)

Applicant: Planning Outcomes WA Owner: Brendan Reed & Rebecca Hewitt Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: P1: City Beach Development Description: Alterations/Additions Including Double Garage to Existing Singe House Development Value: $240,000 Existing Land Use: Dwelling (Single) Proposed Land Use: N/A – works associated with existing use Land Area: 819m2 Heritage Listing: No Application Date: 28 February 2020 Application Process Days: 81 days

DETAILS:

Site Context

The site is located within the Floreat Planning Precinct and is located approximately 40m from the intersection of The Boulevard and Selby Street.

The site is currently occupied by a single house and the locality consists predominately of single houses. The Floreat Park Tennis Club is located directly opposite the site on the southern side of The Boulevard.

The existing dwelling on the site has a minimum primary street setback of 8.1m to the porch and a street setback of 10.6m to the existing single garage.

Proposal

The application proposes alterations and additions to the existing single house, including:

(i) A double width three car garage, which will replace the existing single garage, that is set back 8.1m from the primary street in lieu of 9m;

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 31 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

(ii) Two separate angled walls to the garage built up to the eastern (side) boundary where there is not an existing wall on the adjoining property with similar or greater dimensions (a wall built up to the boundary are deemed-to-comply only where the proposed wall will be adjacent to a wall on the adjoining property with similar or greater dimensions); and (iii) Where the angled walls taper away from the eastern boundary, a 1.2m long section of the 3.2m high wall, situated in the front half of the garage, is set back 0.61m to 0.99m in lieu of minimum 1m, and a 1.5m long section of the 4.05m high wall, situated in the rear half of the garage, is set back 0.61 to 1.09m in lieu of minimum 1.1m (a ‘wall on the boundary’ is defined in the R-Codes as any wall that is on, or set back up to 0.6m from, a boundary).

CONSULTATION:

Public Consultation

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Town's Local Planning Policy 1.2 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals.

No submissions were received during the public consultation period.

APPLICANTS COMMENTS:

STATUTORY ASSESSMENT:

Local Planning Scheme No. 1 - Clause 26 - Modification of R-Codes

Clause 26(1)(b) Modification of R-Codes Required Proposed Primary Street Setback 9m 8.1m (Garage) Clause 34 - Variations to Site and Development Requirements "(1) … a) an application for planning approval which does not comply with a standard or requirement of this Scheme, where the standard or requirement does not provide for any permitted variation, is called a "non-complying application"; …

(2) Subject to sub clause (3), the Council may refuse or approve a non-complying application with or without conditions".

Assessment

Having due regard to the matters listed in cl.67 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and the Policy Objectives and cl.1 of the Town’s Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Streetscape, the following is considered relevant:

The application proposes a double width garage for three cars to replace an existing single garage located on the eastern side of the dwelling. The single garage is currently set back minimum 10.3m from the front boundary. The proposed triple car garage will be set back 8.1m from the front boundary in lieu of minimum 9m, which will be in line with the 8.1m setback of the existing portico.

The applicant states the triple car garage is required to accommodate racing cars and memorabilia, which is of significant personal value, and that the existing single garage is not fit for this purpose.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 32 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

The streetscape on the north side of The Boulevard is characterised by all existing dwellings being setback a minimum 9m from the street boundary. In the immediate street block bound by Selby Street and Bournville Street, on the north side of The Boulevard, four properties also have existing open carports within the 9m front setback area.

Given the current and desired future character of the locality, it is considered that the reduced street setback to the fully enclosed garage will have an adverse impact on the streetscape. The existing portico is currently set back 8.1m from the street boundary, and it is considered that the addition of the proposed garage with a reduced setback will increase building bulk within the front setback area.

Whilst there are some open-style carports along the street located within the front setback area, the proposed garage would be the only fully enclosed structure within a front setback area. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not be compatible with the surrounding development.

It is also considered that the proposed reduced street setback will be inconsistent with the Garden Suburbs character of the Floreat Precinct, which is distinctly characterised by extensive setbacks of dwellings from the street. If approved, it is considered that the reduced street setback would set an undesirable precedent for future development in the area.

The proposed non-complying application is therefore not supported.

Local Planning Policy 3.2 – Buildings on the Boundary Residential Design Codes Volume 1 cl.1 Buildings on the Boundary 5.1.3 Lot Boundary Setbacks Deemed-to-comply Requirement Proposed Buildings on the Boundary Walls may be built up to a boundary There are 1.7m long sections East (side) (garage) behind the front setback line where of the two walls to the garage the wall abuts an existing or on the east elevation that are simultaneously constructed wall of built up to the boundary (nil – similar or greater dimension. 0.6m setback).

Lot Boundary Setbacks East (side) (garage): (i) 3.2m high wall 1m 0.61m – 0.99m

(ii) 4.05m high wall 1.1m 0.61m – 1.09m Design Principles (of R-Codes):

"Buildings setback from lot boundaries or adjacent buildings on the same lot so as to: • Reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and adjoining properties; and • Minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.”

Buildings built up to the boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this: • Makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living areas; • Does not compromise the design principle contained in clause 5.1.3 P3.1; • Does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; • Ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for adjoining properties is not restricted; and • Positively contributes to the prevailing or future development context.”

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 33 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Design Principles Assessment

The application proposes the garage on the east elevation to have two separate walls built up to the east boundary where there is not any existing adjacent walls on the adjoining property with similar or greater dimensions. The R-Codes defines building on the boundary as being any wall that is on or less than 0.6m from a lot boundary.

Due to the acute angle of the east boundary, the garage walls taper away from the boundary to maximum setbacks of 1.9m and 2.1m. As the walls taper away, a small section of each wall also do not meet the following deemed-to-comply lot boundary setbacks:

(i) The wall situated in the front half of the garage, closest to the street, has maximum height of 3.2m. A 1.2m long section of the wall is set back 0.61m to 0.99m in lieu of minimum 1m, and (ii) The wall situated in the rear half of the garage, has a maximum height of 4.05m. A 1.5m long section of the wall is set back 0.61 to 1.09m in lieu of minimum 1.1m. Refer to the Annotated Site Plan (Attachment 3) for reference of the proposed building on the boundary and reduced lot boundary setbacks.

Although only sections of the walls will be built up to the boundary, as viewed from the street, the development will have the appearance of there being no separation between the building and the boundary, which will be inconsistent with the Garden Suburbs character of the Floreat Precinct. The proposed building on the boundary and lack of sufficient setbacks will also not be in keeping with the desired future character of the locality, which is to maintain separation between buildings and to preserve the original open nature and gardenesque quality of the precinct.

It is considered that the cumulative impact of the proposed building on the boundary, reduced side setbacks and the height of the walls will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining eastern property, and will not reduce the impact of building bulk of the garage on the adjoining property and the streetscape.

For the above reasons, the application is considered to not meet the associated design principles.

CONCLUSION:

It is considered that the proposed reduced street setback to the fully enclosed garage will have an adverse impact on the streetscape character, which consists of existing dwellings set back minimum 9m from the street. Whilst some of the dwellings within the immediate street block have open-style carports in the front setback area, the proposed garage would be the only fully enclosed structure within the front setback. The reduced setback to the garage is therefore not considered to be compatible with the surrounding development, and will not be consistent with the desired future character of the Floreat Precinct, which is to maintain traditional street setbacks.

The lack of separation to the side boundary and the maximum height of the garage walls on the east elevation are considered to an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining eastern property, and will not reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property and the streetscape. Building up to the boundary will not be consistent with the Gardens Suburbs character of the Floreat Precinct, which includes clear separation between buildings.

For the above reasons, it is recommended that the application be refused.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 34 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Costs may be incurred by the Town if the landowner requests a review of the determination from the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS:

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The recommendations of this Report are consistent with the following aspects of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018 - 2028:-

Our Neighbourhoods

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Haddon-Casey

That, in accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and the authority delegated to the Town under the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme, Council REFUSES the application for Alterations/Additions Including Double Garage to Existing Single House at Lot 2 (No. 4) The Boulevard, Floreat, as shown on the attached plans stamped received 28 February 2020, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not comply with Clause 26(1)(b) of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and does not satisfy Clause 34 of Local Planning Scheme No. 1, as the proposed building bulk and location of the reduced setbacks would have a detrimental impact on the area’s established streetscape and local character and would not be in accordance with orderly and proper planning in the locality;

2. The proposal does not satisfy Clause 67(m) and (n) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as the proposed reduced street boundary setback will have an adverse impact on the local amenity due to the bulk of the building and set an undesirable precedent;

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 35 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

3. The proposal does not satisfy Policy Objective 3 of the Town’s Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Streetscape, as the proposed reduced street setback, building on the side boundary and reduced side boundary setbacks would not be respectful of the established streetscape character and amenity of the locality;

4. The proposal does not meet the desired future character of the Floreat Precinct in accordance with the Town’s Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Streetscape, as the development would not maintain the traditional street setback and separation between buildings; and

5. The cumulative impact of the proposed reduced primary street setback, building on the boundary and reduced side setbacks would have an adverse impact on the streetscape and character of the local area, establishing a precedent which may be considered in future planning decisions, and as such, is not consistent with orderly and proper planning.

During discussion, Cr Everett foreshadowed that, should the motion presently before Council be lost, he intended to move an approval as he considered that, given the unique shape of the block, the garage did not significantly impact on the locality.

Motion put and LOST (0/5)

REASON FOR CHANGING THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Given the unique shape of the block, it was considered that the garage did not significantly impact on the locality.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Mayor Shannon

That, in accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and the authority delegated to the Town under the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme, Council APPROVES the application for Alterations/Additions Including Double Garage to Existing Single House at Lot 2 (No. 4) The Boulevard, Floreat, as shown on the attached plans stamped received 28 February 2020, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the approved plans, subject to any modifications required as a consequence of any conditions of this approval.

2. Prior to practical completion of the development, the external surface of the boundary wall(s) shall be finished to the same standard as the rest of the development (provided access is granted by the adjoining landowner(s)), and thereafter maintained by the landowner(s) for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Town.

3. The landscaping area(s) within the 9m primary street setback area shown on the approved plans shall be installed and reticulated within six months of practical completion of the development and thereafter maintained by the landowner(s) for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Town.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 36 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

4. The roof material shall not be zincalume, white or off-white metal sheeting where the roof pitch exceeds five degrees.

Standard Advice Notes to be included by the Administration.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 37 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DV20.51 LOT 90 (NO. 26) TRANMORE WAY, CITY BEACH – CARPORT

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for a proposed carport.

SUMMARY:

The proposed carport is located within the primary street setback area and therefore the application does not comply with cl26 of Local Planning Scheme No.1. In addition, the application does not meet the deemed-to-comply provisions for the sightline truncation.

The Tranmore Way streetscape is uniquely characterised as a horseshoe bend, comprising of carports and garages within the primary street setback, with the predominant established setback being 4.78m along the northern bend. In this particular instance, there is a carport located in the front setback area on both sides of the subject property and, as such, the proposed setback of the carport is considered compatible with the development in the immediate locality.

Notwithstanding, as the proposed carport is unenclosed on all sides, the existing dwelling will remain an integral part of the streetscape and retain a visual connection to the street, therefore is not considered to have an adverse impact on the streetscape and neighbouring properties in accordance with the Streetscape Policy Objectives. It is considered that the extent of the variation to the sightline truncation meets the relevant design principles as adequate visibility for oncoming traffic will remain accessible.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

AUTHORITY/DISCRETION:

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.

adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made

DELEGATION:

In accordance with cl9.1.2 of the Town's Delegation Register, the Council is required to determine the application for the following reason:

• The determination of a development application under Cl. 34 (2) of Local Planning Scheme No. 1.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 38 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

BACKGROUND:

Address: Lot 90 (No. 26) Tranmore Way, City Beach Report Date: 21 April 2020 File Reference: DA20/0022 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development, Marlaine Lavery Reporting Officer: Manager Statutory Planning, Jennifer Heyes Contributing Officer: Statutory Planning Officer, Mackenzie Walmsley Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachments: 1. Aerial Plan (1 page) 2. Development Plans (3 pages) 3. Site Photos (3 pages) 4. Applicant's Comments (1 page)

Applicant: Karl Russell, Russell Approvals Owner: Mr Mathew Regan and Mrs Penelope Regan Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: P1: City Beach Development Description: Carport Development Value: $18 500.00 Existing Land Use: Dwelling (Single) Proposed Land Use: N/A – works incidental to existing use Land Area: 809m2 Heritage Listing: No Application Date: 4 February 2020 Application Process Days: 84 days (23 day time extension approved for applicant)

DETAILS:

Site Context

The site is located on the northern side of Tranmore Way and situated south of Bent Street Park. Currently occupied by a single storey dwelling, the site is relatively flat. There is an existing single-width crossover on the eastern side of the property, with a single-width garage set back 7.9m behind the primary street setback line. Surrounding development within the locality consists of single and two-storey dwellings with open carports within the primary street setback area.

Site History

The site previously obtained development approval in 2015 for a double width carport at the front of the existing single garage, however, never enacted upon the approval. The approved primary street setback of the carport was 1.5m, which is less than the current proposal.

Proposal

Details of the development application are as follows:

• The proposed carport is to be set back 2.775m from the primary street boundary. Under cl26 of LPS, a 7.5m street setback is required. • A west sightline truncation of 1.27m x 1.5m where a driveway meets a public street in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 1.5m x 1.5m provision.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 39 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

CONSULTATION:

Public Consultation

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Town's Local Planning Policy 1.2 - Public Notification of Planning Proposals.

No submissions were received during the public consultation period.

APPLICANT'S COMMENTS:

STATUTORY ASSESSMENT:

Local Planning Scheme No. 1 - Clause 26 - Modification of R-Codes

Clause 26(1)(a) Modification of R-Codes Required Proposed Primary Street Setback 7.5m 2.775m (Carport) Clause 34 - Variations to Site and Development Requirements "(1) … a) an application for planning approval which does not comply with a standard or requirement of this Scheme, where the standard or requirement does not provide for any permitted variation, is called a "non-complying application"; … (2) Subject to sub clause (3), the Council may refuse or approve a non-complying application with or without conditions".

Assessment

The application proposes to retain the existing single storey dwelling, which limits the location of the proposed carport to being in the front setback area. The proposed carport is set back from the side boundaries to preserve a streetscape of distinctly separate single residences separated by open space, and to preserve the amenity of neighbouring properties either side of the site, therefore satisfying the matters listed under cl1(b) of the Local Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape.

With respect to the Policy Objectives, the proposed carport is to be consistent in roof pitch and material as the existing single dwelling to encourage a good quality and well-designed development that is respectful of the established character and amenity.

As indicated earlier in this report, Tranmore Way is relatively unique in that there are quite a number of existing carports in the streetscape (including one either side of this property) with reduced primary street setbacks, ranging from nil setback to 6.5m, and several of these carports are bulky in nature (refer attached site photo’s).

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 40 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

As such, it is considered the new carport will not have a significant impact on the prevailing streetscape. The carport is proposed to be unenclosed on all sides to reduce the impact of building bulk as viewed from the streetscape in accordance with cl67(n) of the deemed provisions.

Taking into account the above, it is considered the height, bulk and scale of the proposed carport will not significantly impact the streetscape and is considered to be consistent with the conservation of the amenities of the locality in this instance and will not likely impact the future development of the area in terms of orderly and proper planning.

The proposed non-complying application is therefore supported.

State Planning Policy 7.3 - Residential Design Codes Volume 1

5.2.5 Sightlines Deemed-to-comply Requirement Proposed Sightlines Walls, fences and other structures 1.8m high fence within 1.5m truncated or reduced to no higher truncation. than 0.75m within 1.5m of where walls, fences, other structures adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street and where two streets intersect. Design Principles (of R-Codes):

"Unobstructed sight lines provided at vehicle access points to ensure safety and visibility along vehicle access ways, streets, right-of-ways, communal streets, crossovers and footpaths”.

Design Principles Assessment

The existing 1.8m solid fence on the west side lot boundary was approved as part of the development of the site in 1970. The proposed crossover will sit abutting the fence therefore protecting views from vehicles driving west from Tranmore Way.

As the carport is set back 2.775m from the primary street alignment with a separation distance of 1.27m from the fence, this equates to a greater sightline truncation at 3.52m² in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 2.25m². As such, it is considered this configuration will still allow for adequate sight lines for vehicles accessing and exiting the site.

The subject site does not have a pedestrian pathway located on the abutting verge, therefore pedestrian traffic in this instance is considered to be minor in this locality. Tranmore Way is a Local Access Road, the amount of traffic utilising the road is considered to be low in volume.

For the above reasons, the application is considered to meet the associated design principles.

CONCLUSION:

It is considered that approval of the proposed double carport will not detrimentally affect the existing and desired future Tranmore Way streetscape. Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with the orderly and proper planning in the locality and as a result, is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 41 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Costs may be incurred by the Town if the landowner requests a review of the determination from the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS:

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The recommendations of this Report are consistent with the following aspects of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018 - 2028:-

Our Neighbourhoods

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Haddon-Casey

That, in accordance with the provisions of Local Planning Scheme No. 1 and the authority delegated to the Town under the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme Council APPROVES the application for a carport at Lot 90 (No. 26) Tranmore Way, City Beach as shown on the attached plans stamped received 14 April 2020, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the approved plans, subject to any modifications required as a consequence of any conditions of this approval;

2. All stormwater shall be contained and disposed of on-site at all times, to the satisfaction of the Town;

3. Prior to occupation of any part of the development, the existing driveway and crossover to Lot 90 (No. 26) Tranmore Way, City Beach, shall be removed and the verge and kerb reinstated at the landowner’s cost to the satisfaction of the Town;

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 42 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

5. The carport shall remain unenclosed on all sides (except if it abuts the dwelling) and shall be without a door unless the door meets all deemed-to-comply provisions of cl3.1.4 of the Town’s Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Streetscape (as amended); and

6. The roof material shall not be zincalume, white or off-white metal sheeting where the roof pitch exceeds five degrees.

Standard Advice Notes to be included by the Administration.

Motion put and CARRIED (3/2)

For: Crs Everett, Haddon-Casey and McKerracher Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Nelson

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 43 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DV20.52 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY – OUTCOMES OF FORMAL ADVERTISING AND SUBMISSION TO WAPC

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

This report presents the outcomes of the formal advertising of the Town of Cambridge Draft Local Planning Strategy (LPS) and recommends adoption subject to minor modification.

SUMMARY: The Town has prepared a LPS to set out the long-term (10 to 20 years and beyond in line with draft Perth and Peel @ 3.5 million) planning framework for the whole local government area.

On 10 December 2019, the Western Australian Planning Committee’s Statutory Planning Committee resolved that the formal advertising of the LPS could occur subject to modification. These modifications were in accordance with the matters considered at the November Council meeting (DV19.45).

The LPS was formally advertised between 29 February 2020 and 31 March 2020. This report presents the feedback from this consultation and seeks Council adoption of the LPS, subject to modifications, for submission to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for endorsement in accordance with Part 3, Regulation 14(2)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (2015 Regulations).

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.  Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies. Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Information For the Council/Committee to note.

Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 20 April 2020 Responsible Officer: Director Planning & Development, Marlaine Lavery Reporting Officer: Manager Strategic Planning, Brett Cammell Contributing Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer, Simon Shub Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachment(s): 1. Draft Local Planning Strategy and Background Analysis Report (as advertised); 2. LPS Formal Advertising Consultation Report 3. Schedule of written submissions 4. Submissions from External/Government Agencies 5. Consultation Material (Survey, Posters, FAQ’s)

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 44 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

BACKGROUND:

Pursuant to Part 3, Regulation 11 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), a Local Planning Strategy (LPS) must:

1. Set out the long term planning directions for the local government; 2. Apply any State or regional planning policy that is relevant to the strategy; and 3. Provide the rationale for any rezoning or classification of land under the local planning scheme.

The preparation of the LPS formally commenced in February 2016 and preliminary work was undertaken which culminated in community engagement being undertaken between 15 March 2017 and 21 April 2017 to inform the preparation of the draft LPS. Three scenarios were presented to demonstrate different approaches to accommodate future development focusing on district centres, corridor growth and local opportunities. The outcomes of community engagement, including 959 individual submissions, were presented to Council at its meeting held 26 June 2017 (DV17.74) and Council resolved to note the submissions and seek further information from the Department of Planning.

Updates on the progress of these enquiries have been presented since this resolution and the following reports refer to the initiation and progress of the preparation of the LPS since February 2016:

1. February 2016 - Council endorsement to commence LPS (DV16.20). 2. April 2016 - Local Planning Strategy Project Plan (DV16.58). 3. August 2016 - Award of the tender to appoint consultants Taylor Burrell Barnett to prepare the LPS (DV16.126). 4. November 2016 - Endorsement of the LPS community engagement strategy (DV16.172). 5. March 2017 - Report on the first phase of Community Engagement (CR17.22). 6. April 2017 - Local Planning Strategy and Strategic Community Plan - Interim Report on Community Engagement (Item 10.1). 7. June 2017 - Local Planning Strategy - Outcomes of Community Engagement and Preferred Scenario (DV.17.74). 8. August 2017 - Local Planning Strategy update report (DV17.96). 9. September 2017 - Local Planning Strategy Contract and Project Scope - Reconsideration of Deferred item (DV17.106). 10. December 2017 - Local Planning Strategy next steps (DV17.139). 11. April 2018 - Revised Project Schedule and Contract Variations (Item 10.8). 12. July 2018 - Draft Local Planning Strategy adopted for the purposes of preliminary advertising (DV18.99). 13. December 2018 – Consideration of preliminary advertising submissions (537 submissions received), draft Local Planning Strategy adopted (subject to modifications) and submitted to the WAPC for certification to formally advertise (DV18.194). 14. November 2019 – Response to Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) – Proposed Modification to Local Planning Strategy (DV19.145). 15. December 2019 - WAPC / DPLH decision to require modifications. 16. 10 February 2020 - Modified document submitted to DPLH. 17. 13 February 2020 – WAPC provide consent to advertise the LPS.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 45 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

CONSULTATION:

The formal consultation took place for a period of 28 days, from 29 February 2020 to 30 March 2020 (minimum 21 days required by 2015 Regulations). During this time, the following communication and engagement mechanisms were employed to engage and obtain feedback from the community:

1. Preparation of online survey and submission form, with options for submissions to be received online or hardcopy survey, or by email and letter; 2. Posts on the Town's Facebook page advising of upcoming advertising and inviting comment throughout the preliminary advertising period; 3. A permanent display at the Town’s Administration Building during the consultation period; 4. A Notice was placed in the Post Newspaper on 22 February 2020 advising of upcoming preliminary advertising and five subsequent notices in the Post Newspaper on 29 February 2020, 7 March 2020, 14 March 2020, 21 March 2020 and 29 March 2020; 5. Two Saturday morning drop-in sessions on 7th and 14th March 2020; 6. Public notice placed on the Town's website for the entirety of the advertising period; 7. Development of a summary brochure (available electronically and in hard copy), posters, and FAQ's to explain the key areas of the draft LPS; 8. Letters sent to key service agencies seeking feedback on the plan; and 9 Notification to persons who provided a submission during the Preliminary Consultation stage in 2018.

Submissions

A survey was developed for the formal advertising, which is included as an attachment for information. The survey could be completed online and in hardcopy. The community were also able to provide feedback via email and letters.

A total of 128 submissions were received from residents, business owners, visitors to the Town, service agencies and developers and a breakdown of each method of submission is outlined below:

1. 92 survey submissions, which includes 2 hardcopy surveys manually entered into the online survey to capture the information contained within the survey; 2. 27 letters/written submissions; and 3. 9 public authority submissions

Summary of Survey Responses

The survey comprised the following qualitative questions:

1) What are you most supportive of the draft Local Planning Strategy? 2) What issues, concerns or suggestions do you have about the draft Local Planning Strategy? 3) Do you have any general comments about the Town of Cambridge’s draft Local Planning Strategy or any elements of the Strategy?

Of the 92 responses to the survey, the following five key themes emerged:

1. Housing 2. Character and Heritage 3. Traffic and Transport 4. Public Realm 5. Urban Consolidation Precincts

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 46 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

The survey results and responses are discussed under the headings below. Further information regarding the detailed findings are available as an attachment to this report (refer to attachment 3).

Housing

Survey What are you most What issues, concerns or Do you have any question supportive of about the suggestions do you have general comments draft Local Planning about the draft Local about the Town of Strategy? Planning Strategy? Cambridge’s Local Planning Strategy or any elements of the Strategy? Number of 43 42 28 responses

Supportive of: i. emphasis on maintaining the existing subdivision pattern of single lots ii. concentrating increased density in specific areas leaving the remainder of the Town unchanged

Issues, i. the density and/or number of dwellings proposed in City Beach and concerns or Floreat suggestions:

General i. Housing growth distribution (City Beach and Floreat) comment: ii. Permitting subdivision

Support for the housing elements are noted.

The concerns and general comments regarding development and subdivision in City Beach and Floreat/Garden Suburbs are acknowledged. The LPS proposes to the following distribution of housing growth:

1. 55% in the Activity Centres 2. 10% in the Cambridge Street Urban Corridor 3. 5% in Neighbourhood and Local Centres 4. 10% Suburban Residential Areas 5. 10% in Existing Development Areas 6. 10% Potential Future Development Areas

The distribution of additional population can be broken down by suburb as follows:

1. West Leederville (32%) 2. Wembley (21%) 3. Floreat (29%) 4. City Beach (18%)

Figure 22 and Table 12 of the LPS identify the number of subdivisible properties within the Town, based on current density codings. There is the possibility of subdivision occurring within selected sites (future residential development - Section 3.3.3), however, these are subject to further investigation and will include public consultation.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 47 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Character and Heritage

Question What are you most What issues, concerns or Do you have any supportive of about the suggestions do you have general comments draft Local Planning about the draft Local about the Town of Strategy? Planning Strategy? Cambridge’s Local Planning Strategy or any elements of the Strategy? Number of 33 1 1 responses

Supportive of: i. Preservation of the garden suburb ii. Protect and enhance integrity of character streets and streetscapes

Issues, i. Inclusion of a property on a heritage list should only be done so with concerns or the agreement of the landowner. suggestions:

General i. Local character should be preserved comment:

The general comment and support for the character and heritage objectives of the LPS are noted.

The concern associated with the process of adding properties to the Heritage List is acknowledged. Local Planning Policy 1.7 ‘Amending the Local Heritage Survey, Heritage List and Heritage Areas’ (LPP1.7) sets out four categories of significance and threshold for heritage listing. These categories support the provisions of Part 3 (Heritage protection) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Traffic and Transport

Supportive of: i. improving public transport and associated infrastructure ii. reducing traffic congestion and parking conflicts

Issues, concerns i. traffic and parking impact of high density; or suggestions: ii. the transport suggestions proposed are insufficient to cope with the additional dwellings proposed

General No overwhelming common theme. comment:

The support for the traffic and transport objectives is noted.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 48 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

The traffic and parking concerns are acknowledged. As part of each development proposal, a traffic impact assessment will need to be submitted considering the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the development, particularly in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect on traffic flow and safety.

Further, in the short term, the LPS recommends that in collaboration with the local community and key State Government agencies, undertake the preparation of a Movement Network Strategy in accordance with the Department of Transport guidelines for the preparation of integrated transport plans comprehensively analyses the existing and future transport system requirements within the Town and provides an efficient and sustainable movement network.

Public Realm

Supportive of: i. preservation and expansion of tree canopy ii. preservation of public open space

Issues, concerns or i. Removal of trees during development suggestions:

General comment: i. Public open space should be preserved

The support for the planning principle and objectives is noted.

The introduction of State Planning Policy 7.3 – Apartments includes objectives that prioritise retention of healthy and appropriate trees and protection of adjoining trees, and to include adequate measures to improve the long-term tree canopy. In the public realm, the Town has recently advertised the Town of Cambridge draft Urban Forest Strategy (UFS) which aims to:

1. To protect and enhance the Town’s urban forest 2. To foster an appreciation and pride for our urban forest 3. To ensure the resilience of our urban forest; and 4. To implement green infrastructure initiatives to improve the Town’s spaces

The outcomes of the advertising of the UFS will be presented for Council consideration at the Ordinary Council Meeting scheduled for 26 May 2020.

Urban Consolidation Precincts

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 49 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Supportive of: i. Redevelopment of Floreat Forum ii. Redevelopment of West Leederville Activity Centre iii. No development proposed on the City Beach High School site iv. Identification of local centres for infill

Issues, concerns or i. Future development sites at suggestions: a. Wembley Golf Course b. Floreat Forum c. Templetonia Crescent

General comment: i. Floreat Forum Activity Centre

The areas of support are noted.

The concerns associated with the two parcels of land at the Wembley Golf Course which are surplus to the needs of the golf facility are acknowledged. The Town has had a due diligence environmental assessment undertaken for the eastern site within the Golf Course and the assessment has not identified any environmental considerations which would fundamentally constrain potential future residential development of the site. Notwithstanding this conclusion, there is considerable planning work, including community consultation, required before the land can be developed, however, this can occur during the lifespan of the LPS.

The Floreat Forum Shopping Centre is identified as a District Centre by the State Governments' State Planning Policy 4.2 'Activity Centres for Perth and Peel' (SPP4.2), which requires an Activity Centre Plan (ACP) to be prepared for this land. An important part of the ACP will be the collaboration with the community and key stakeholders to guide future amendments to the statutory planning framework, necessary infrastructure upgrade considerations and detailed built form and public realm design considerations.

The Town owns two parcels of land on Templetonia Crescent in City Beach which total 2.2 hectares in size. The easternmost site currently accommodates the Civic Centre facility, whilst the western most site is vacant and undeveloped land. The concerns regarding future development of these sites are acknowledged. Subject to consideration of alternative facilities for the civic centre, site constraints and development feasibility, and community consultation, the two sites are potentially available for residential development.

Written Submissions

Throughout the advertising period, the Town received 27 written submissions and four common topics emerged, these are identified and discussed below under their respective headings. A schedule of submissions accompanied by a response, is included as an attachment to this report (refer to attachment 3). i) Floreat Forum

A total of 15 written submissions identified the Floreat Forum Shopping Centre; 11 in support and 4 that raised concerns with:

1. The Indicative Activity Centre and its impact on the character of surrounding residential streets through density creep and increase in traffic and loss of tree canopy; 2. Proximity of Activity Centre Frame to established single residential 3. Traffic generation

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 50 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

The concerns regarding the Indicative Floreat Activity Centre Frame are acknowledged. As the frame is indicative and the level of detail to address amenity concerns are not in the draft LPS, these can be addressed during the preparation of the Activity Centre Plan. Similarly, the massing and built form outcomes as they relate to the surrounding area will be subject to further detailed planning as part of the Activity Centre Plan development. Community input will be required as part of the development of the Floreat Activity Centre Plan (Schedule 2, Part 5, Clause 34 of the Regulations) and as part of any development application.

The key actions from the Transport and traffic section of the draft LPS will require the Town to prepare a Movement Network Strategy that examines the road network across the Town. In doing so, this will assist in mitigating traffic impacts. Parking and traffic management will be a key issue in any redevelopment of the Floreat Forum and will require further investigation at that time.

A submission was received from Roberts Day on behalf of APIL (syndicate and centre managers of Floreat Forum Shopping Centre), which was largely supportive of the LPS. The submitter requested that through the development of the ACP the inclusion of taller buildings to the west of the site away from long term low density areas may be appropriate. The submitter also indicated that, based on demographics and market demand, larger apartment sizes would require additional building volume and greater flexibility in height. Whilst this is noted, further detail on building massing and staging will be determined as part of the Activity Centre Plan.

The submitter was also supportive of the Town leading and preparing the Activity Centre Plan. Whilst the submitters support for the Town to prepare an Activity Centre Plan, it is recommended that the statements be modified to reflect the possibility (or likelihood) that the ACP will be prepared by the majority landowner.

ii) Urban Corridor

Written submissions raised questions regarding the built form impact, traffic and loss of tree canopy associated with the Cambridge Street Urban Corridor, alternative corridors and the separation of ACP’s and the Cambridge Street Urban Corridor.

Figure 18 of the LPS recognises that careful consideration of the interface between the Cambridge Street Urban Corridor and adjacent suburban areas is required, to ensure that their amenity is protected. The level of detail that addresses individual site features, amenity and traffic concerns will be available through future detailed planning for the Urban Corridor, pre- application and development applications for individual sites and other associated strategies (I.e. Movement Network Strategy) that will be actioned over the short and medium term.

Grantham Street between Selby and Harborne Street was an area originally identified for future investigation; however the removal of Grantham corridor was recognition that current public transport provision isn’t sufficient to cater for increased residential density, and that the LPS proposes review and monitoring on a 5 year basis. Further consideration to this corridor will be undertaken during subsequent reviews. It is noted that the corridor is identified by the state government as an Urban Corridor. The option for the boulevard was not preferred based upon site context and Cambridge Street based on its direct and recognised links to the Activity Centres and local centres and are supported by bus routes 81 and 82.

The Cambridge Street Urban Corridor is a well-known corridor through the urban areas of the Town and the primary route for public transport connections. The corridor, which will be residentially focussed, connects the three Activity Centres, which are distinct areas and serve different functions. The Activity Centres will not combine.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 51 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

iii) City Beach/Subdivision Opportunities/Housing Diversity

Written submissions sought further clarity regarding housing diversity options in City Beach, dwelling distribution in West Leederville and Wembley, and requested corner lot subdivision in City Beach.

The submissions in relation to subdivision within City Beach are acknowledged. In order to address the State Governments requirements, the draft LPS proposes to distribute the majority of development intensification within existing centres and urban corridors, as these locations are generally better serviced by transportation infrastructure, local employment opportunities and community facilities to support an increased population. The remaining growth is proposed to occur within identified development sites and via further infill development within existing suburban areas.

Accordingly, increased subdivision potential, inclusive of corner lots and R20 density codings within City Beach, do not form part of the Local Planning Strategy Plan. The dwelling estimates shown in Table 1 of the draft LPS, demonstrate that in a lower and higher growth situation the Town can comfortably meet the State Governments population targets.

As noted earlier in the housing heading of this report, the distribution of housing growth is concentrated within the Activity Centres, which are designated by SPP4.2, and local centres to reinforce economic sustainability of these precincts and leverage existing transport, community and service infrastructure. iv) Future Potential Development opportunities

Submissions expressed concerns with the identification of the Civic Centre and the Golf Course as future development opportunities.

The LPS identified four parcels of government owned land that may be surplus to needs and as such available for development. The Civic Centre is identified as part of a land holding on Templetonia Crescent comprising 2.2 hectares.

There are no immediate plans to demolish the Civic Centre. There are two Council owned sites on Templetonia Crescent. The easternmost site currently accommodates the Civic Centre facility, whilst the western most site is vacant and undeveloped land. Subject to consideration of alternative facilities for the civic centre, site constraints and development feasibility, the two sites are potentially available for residential development

These parcels of land at the golf course are considered surplus to the needs of the golf facility. These portions of land are owned by the Town of Cambridge and, subject to analysis of environmental significance, site constraints (e.g. Western Power substation) and development feasibility may be available for residential development. A due diligence environmental assessment has been undertaken for the eastern site within the Golf Course, which has not identified any environmental considerations that would fundamentally constrain potential future residential development of the site. Considerable planning work, including community consultation, is required before the land can be developed, however this can occur during the lifespan of the LPS. v) Gayton Road Shopping Centre

Element on behalf of the owners (G.P.A Pty Ltd) of Lot 101 (No. 31) Gayton Road, City Beach (Empire Village) made a submission, accompanied by a concept sketch, seeking to justify an increase in dwelling yield and the description of height within the LPS. This was based on, ownership constraints, land availability and financial viability of providing basement parking.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 52 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

The submission also requested that no additional open space be provided given the proximity to Beecroft Park, that any provision of community infrastructure be guided by a Development Contribution Plan and should the upgrade of the sewer pump station be required, this must be a shared infrastructure cost (given that it services a wider catchment).

The dwelling growth estimate in the LPS is provided as a guide for future detailed planning. Consideration of massing, built form outcomes and financial viability will be undertaken as part of the further detailed planning, in accordance with State Planning Policy 4.2 ‘Activity Centres for Perth and Peel’.

The proximity to Beecroft Park to the neighbourhood centre is acknowledged. Further detailed assessment of available open space will occur during planning for each of the Centres, in line with the statement in the LPS. It is not assumed that all activity centres will require additional public open space. The possible upgrade of the sewer service station can be confirmed through the development application (and pre-application) process and will be determined by Water Corporation requirements.

Service Agencies

A total of 17 services agencies were invited to comment on the draft LPS and 9 submissions were received from the City of Nedlands and Departments of: i) Health ii) Planning, Lands and Heritage iii) Transport iv) Water, Environment and Regulation v) Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation vi) Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions vii) Main Roads WA viii) Department of Fire and Emergency Services

The submissions are contained within attachment 4 to this report. Each submission expressed general support for the LPS and key comments are discussed below:

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage

The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage recommended that the terminology be updated to reflect the current legislation. These relate to:

1. The use of ‘heritage places’ rather than ‘heritage sites’ 2. Local Heritage Survey as opposed to Municipal Inventory 3. Historic Heritage as opposed to ‘European Heritage’ 4. Stage Register being referred to in full.

In addition to a correction within the background report (reference to seven State Registered sites as opposed to 6). These suggestions are acknowledged, and it is recommended that the relevant sections of the LPS be modified accordingly.

Department of Health

The Department of Health (DoH) raised a number of points regarding public health, however no outright objection or concern was raised. Main Roads Western Australia

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 53 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) submission comprised:

1. Objections to the removal of the Stephenson Avenue Primary Regional Roads reservation (the reservation) and any proposed development occurring within this reservation; 2. Encouraging the Town to: a. Prepare a Traffic Impact Assessment for the LPS and the preparation of a new Local Planning Scheme; b. Consider the cost of road and transport improvements required to accommodate population growth throughout the Town; c. Where relevant, utilise existing Development Control Policy and State Planning Policy; and d. Engage with Main Roads when considering pedestrian connectivity around Primary Regional Roads.

The objections are noted. Prior to the advertising of the LPS, the WAPC required a reference to support for the removal of the reservation from the MRS, be removed from the Background Analysis Report. As noted within section 5.4 of the Background Analysis Report, this is still considered to be an opportunity for the Town and no modifications are recommended.

The remaining suggestions are noted. A TIA will be prepared as part of the Movement Network Strategy and this will inform the preparation of a new Local Planning Scheme. A future City Wide Development Contribution Plan is not presently contemplated as part of the LPS, but may be considered as part of the Movement Network Strategy and through future detailed planning. Where applicable, State Planning Policy and Development Control Policy will be considered when the preparing transport related strategies and throughout development assessment.

Department of Fire and Emergency Services

The Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) recommended that where the Strategy aims to identify suitable land for land use intensification within designated bushfire prone areas, it is important that an assessment of the bushfire hazard issues is undertaken which informs the suitability of areas for urban expansion and/or land use intensification.

This is advice is acknowledged. There are three potential future development sites that are affected by this advice (Old Quarry Site, Town Administration Centre and Wembley Golf Course) and for each site, prior to any development being contemplated, an assessment of the environmental significance and site constraints is necessary.

The Town requested Emerge associates to prepare a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) to investigate the implications of SPP3.7, particularly as they relate to the potential future development sites. Section 4.1.6 of the Background Analysis Report outlines the recommendations to maintain compliance with SPP3.7. As part of the future detailed planning, relevant Bushfire Hazard Assessment would occur in accordance with DFES recommendations to ensure all recommendations for land use intensification avoid any increase in the threat of bushfire to people, property and infrastructure.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 54 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Minor Textual Amendments/Mapping Amendments

The administration took the opportunity to review the document as there have been many legislative changes since the LPS was submitted to the WAPC for certification, and the following modifications to the LPS and Background Analysis Document are proposed to text and maps

• Mapping o Changes to Bushfire Prone Areas as announced in 2019 o Changes to correct mapping anomaly regarding the Medical Zone and the Urban Corridor

• Text o Correction of typographical errors o Changes to Bushfire Prone Areas as announced in 2019

Summary

It is recommended that Council note the submissions received during the formal advertising period, adopt the Draft Local Planning Strategy subject to modifications and endorse the submission of it to the WAPC for endorsement.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

The preparation of the LPS is being undertaken in accordance with the requirements for preparing and approving a Local Planning Strategy outlined in Part 3 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Part 3, Regulation 15 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, states that within 60 days of receipt of the documents referred to in regulation 14(3), the Western Australian Planning Commission is to make a decision.

If endorsed, the Commission must publish the strategy in any manner the Commission considers appropriate

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

MEDIUM: The LPS sets out the long-term planning framework for the whole local government area and is an important part of the preparation of a new Local Planning Scheme. It is important to finalise the LPS to ensure that priorities can be set for the planning framework and that it remains up-to-date.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 55 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The recommendations of this report are consistent with the following aspects of the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:-

Our Neighbourhood

Goal 4 Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected, and planning is responsive to residents Strategy 4.1 Examine and better identify through planning and consultation those features and qualities which define our individual neighbourhoods Strategy 4.2 Create opportunities for greater housing choice in forms relevant to demand, lifestyle needs and location Strategy 4.3 Ensure new development is harmonious with established residences and respects our existing ‘sense of place’ and our unique character Strategy 4.4 Enhance and respect our existing streetscapes, setbacks and green spaces Strategy 4.5 Liaise with relevant agencies on planning, including provision for education and health facilities and service

Corporate Business Plan 2018-2022

Our Neighbourhood | Four year priority | Finalise Local Planning Strategy

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

The LPS was advertised in accordance with Part 3, Regulation 13 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Local Planning Policy 1.2: Public Notification of Planning Proposals which is considered to meet the requirements of the Town's Community Engagement Policy. Refer to earlier section ‘Consultation’ for details of the consultation undertaken associated with this report.

Committee Meeting 19 May 2020

Impartiality Interest Declaration – Cr McKerracher

Prior to consideration of the item, Cr McKerracher disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: “with regard to item DV20.52, I disclose that until 22 October 2017 I had an association with the Coast Ward Ratepayers’ Association Inc in that I was a committee member and member of that Association (which made a prior submission on the LPS) and that I received a notifiable gift from the Association in respect of the election at which I was elected which I disclosed, details of which are available on the Town’s Electoral Gift Register on the Town’s website. As a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly.

Impartiality Interest Declaration – Cr Everett

Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Everett disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: “with regard to item DV20.52, I declare that:-

1. Until June 2017, I was a member of the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association and received a notifiable gift from that Association being a contribution to my election expenses. The gift was formally declared on the Town’s Electoral Gift Register. As a

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 56 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

result, there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits at all times.

2. In 2017, my business CLE Town Planning of which I am a Director, provided planning advice to the owners of the Floreat Forum Shopping Centre. Whilst that business relationship formally ceased 3 years ago, there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will however consider this matter on its merits at all times.

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Haddon-Casey

That Council:-

1. In accordance with clause 14(2)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, SUPPORTS the Town of Cambridge Draft Local Planning Strategy, with the proposed modification detailed as follows:

Natural Asset Management 1.1 Modify paragraph 4 on page 59 (Urban Interface) to reflect the reduced coverage of Bushfire Prone Areas announced in 2019 1.2 Modify Figure 13 to reflect updated Bushfire Prone Areas announced in 2019

Floreat Activity Centre 1.3 Modify the key action on page 70 as follows:

“In collaboration with the community, key stakeholders and the Town of Cambridge, the Town of Cambridge an Activity Centre Plan will be prepared for the Floreat Activity Centre to guide future amendments to the statutory planning framework, necessary infrastructure upgrade considerations and detailed built form and public realm design considerations

Mapping 1.4 Modify the Medical Precinct as shown in Figure 18 to reflect the Medical Zoning as depicted by the Town Planning Scheme Map. 1.5 Modify Figures 4-6 and 14 to reflect the updates to Figure 18.

Actions and Implementation 1.6 Modify the action in Table 14 (Key Action Summary and Implementation Schedule for actions that relate to the urban consolidation precincts as outlined in Chapter 4) in accordance with point 1.3 above.

Background Analysis Report 1.7 Modify Figure 2 to reflect updated Bushfire Prone Area Map (September 2019) 1.8 Modify page 31 of the Background Analysis Report to accurately reflect the number of places included in the State Register of Heritage Places. 1.9 Modify section 4.9.5 to reflect the adoption of the Local Heritage Survey and associated terminology. 1.10 Update Figure 57 to reflect reduced Bush Fire Prone Areas 1.11 Replace reference to “the City” with “the Town” on page 138 “The City’s Town’s Coastal Natural Management Study and Coastal Vulnerability Study…” 1.12 Correct typographical errors

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 57 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

2. Upon completion of the modifications identified in resolution (1) the Local Planning Strategy, SUBMITS to the Western Australian Planning Commission for endorsement in accordance with Part 3, Regulation 14(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

3. NOTIFIES all persons who made a submission in writing of Council’s decision.

Motion put and CARRIED (4/1)

For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Everett, Haddon-Casey and McKerracher Against: Cr Nelson

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 58 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DV20.53 APPOINTMENT OF SENIOR COUNSEL - JUDICIAL REVIEW TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA - JDAP DECISION CONCERNING ABBOTSFORD HOSPITAL WEST LEEDERVILLE

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the indicative legal costs to appoint Senior Counsel to conduct a review of the decision and/or a judicial review to the Supreme Court concerning the Joint Development Assessment Panel decision to approve of the development application for the Abbotsford Hospital Lot 181 (No. 61-69) Cambridge Street, West Leederville.

Applications for judicial review are required to be lodged within six (6) months of the date of decision. After that date an applicant must ask the Court for permission to bring an application out of time and that requires an explanation for any delay.

SUMMARY:

At its meeting held on 25 February 2020 (refer item DV20.17, Council resolved as follows:

That Council:

1. RECEIVES the Legal advice dated 6 and 7 January 2020 relating to the Abbotsford Hospital JDAP decision provided by Hotchkin Hanly Lawyers; and

2. SEEKS further legal opinion from a Senior Counsel in relation to a judicial review on this matter.

A report proving quotes from two (2) Senior Council was presented to a Special Council meeting on Thursday 9 April 2020 (refer item 6.1). However, Council did not resolve to engage Senior Counsel but instead resolved as follows:

That Council APPROVES of the CEO engaging Hotchkin Hanly Lawyers to lodge a holding writ on behalf of the Town as soon as possible.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.  Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies. Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Information For the Council/Committee to note.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 59 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Address/Property Location: Lot 423, 59 Marlow Street, West Leederville Report Date 22 April 2020 Responsible Officer: Chief Executive Officer – Mr John Giorgi Reporting Officer: Director Planning and Development, Marlaine Lavery Contributing Officer: Nil Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachments: 1. Legal Advice dated 6 January 2020(Confidential) 2. Legal Advice dated 7 January 2020 (Confidential) 3. Cost estimates by Senior Counsel (Confidential)

BACKGROUND:

The original application was refused by JDAP on 30 January 2019 for reasons relating to parking, building height and setbacks, landscaping, overshadowing due to bulk and scale and insufficient information to be satisfied that any adverse impacts on the amenity of the locality would be addressed.

A right of review was lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) and following three mediation sessions, JDAP were invited to reconsider the earlier decision. As a result of mediation, the following changes were made to the proposal:

• The number of licensed beds was reduced; • The number of day-patients was reduced which in turn reduced the number of day- patient rooms; • The number of on-site parking bays was increased and included provision for a loading space and emergency vehicle zone; • The number of bicycle spaces was increased; and • The amount of landscaping was increased through the introduction of a roof-top garden and on-structure planting.

On 21 October 2019, the Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) resolved to reconsider its decision dated 30 January 2019 and approve the application to the expansion of Abbotsford Private Hospital including the construction of a six (6) storey addition to accommodate 77 beds on site, subject to standard conditions.

As per the 26 November 2019 Council Resolution (refer item DV 19.149), the CEO sought legal advice from four legal firms to provide an indicative quote to represent the Town in the Supreme Court. Council considered this at a Council meeting held on 17 December 2019 (Item DV.13.5) and resolved to engage Hotchkin Hanly Lawyers to represent the Town on this matter.

Hotchkin Hanly Lawyers reviewed the material relating the JDAP decision and provided written advice which is contained in Confidential Attachments 1 and 2.

The agendas, attachments and minutes for both the above applications can be downloaded from the JDAP website: https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/about/development-assessment- panels/daps-region-information/#metwjdap

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 60 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DETAILS:

Cost Estimate Requested by the Town:

On Thursday 2 April 2020, an email was sent to three (3) Senior Counsels who have expertise in planning law, enquiring whether or not they were available to provide a legal opinion in relation to a judicial review on this matter and, if available, to provide an estimate of their costs. The Senior Counsel responded and their cost estimates are shown in Confidential Attachment 3.

Michael Hotchkin has confirmed that he could represent the Town at any such hearing and has provided a cost estimate as shown in Confidential Attachment 3.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

• Local Government Act 1995; and • Rules of the Supreme Court 1971.

The Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011 provide statutory authority to the decision making role of the JDAP in the planning process. In effect, JDAP steps into the role of the local government to determine particular applications, but still within the realm of the local government's local planning scheme and 'Deemed Provisions', as provided for by the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Previous legal advice was sought by the Town and funded from the 2019/20 operating budget. Planning Budget - Appeals: $40,000

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Our Council

Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1: Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Not applicable.

Council Meeting 28 April 2020

Financial Interest Declaration – Cr Everett

Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Everett, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter as he owns a property in Abbotsford Street lodged a submission on this application. Cr Everett left the meeting at 8.29 pm.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 61 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Impartiality Interest Declaration – Mayor Shannon

Prior to consideration of the item, Mayor Shannon disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- “with regard to item 10.4, I declare that I attended the same University as Senior Counsel Martin Cuerdin and have previously briefed Henry Jackson. As a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly.”

ADMINISTRATION CONFIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Haddon-Casey, seconded by Mayor Shannon

That Council APPROVES of Senior Counsel ……………….. to represent the Town concerning Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) decision and possible judicial review concerning the approval of the development application for the Abbotsford Hospital Lot 181 (No. 61-69) Cambridge Street, West Leederville.

During discussion, Mayor Shannon proposed Martin Cuerdin to represent the Town.

AMENDMENT:

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Timmermanis

That the motion be amended to read as follows:-

That Council APPROVES of Senior Counsel Martin Cuerdin to represent the Town concerning Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) decision and possible judicial review concerning the approval of the development application for the Abbotsford Hospital Lot 181 (No. 61-69) Cambridge Street, West Leederville.

Discussion ensued.

PROCEDURAL MOTION:

Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Cr Bradley

That Council DEFERS the item for further information on what basis the cost estimates have been obtained.

Procedural motion put and CARRIED (7/1) (Cr Everett not present at the meeting)

For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Barlow, Bradley, Haddon-Casey, McKerracher, Mack and Timmermanis Against: Cr Nelson

Cr Everett returned to the meeting at 8.35 pm

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 62 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 28 April 2020)

The following information is provided in response to Council’s deferment of the item and the comments made by Cr McKerracher in moving the deferral.

The cost estimates were based on the following:

Senior Counsel

On Thursday 2 April 2020, an email was sent to three (3) Senior Counsels who have expertise in planning law, enquiring whether or not they were available to provide a legal opinion in relation to the merits of a judicial review on this matter and, if available, to provide an estimate of their costs.

The Senior Counsel responded and their cost estimates are shown in Confidential Attachment 3.

After the Special Council meeting on Thursday 9 April 2020, an additional request for quote was forwarded to a fourth Senior Counsel again in relation to the merits of a judicial review on the matter and this cost estimate is also shown in Attachment 3

Hotchkin Hanly

With regard to the quote from Hotchkin Hanly, this was based on a request by the Town to apply for an extension of time for any such application. Hotchkin Hanly responded explaining that the extension of time would require an affidavit explaining the delay and setting out the facts for the Court relating to the challenged decision, and the draft grounds for judicial review. Essentially in applying for an extension of time requires the Court to consider the merits of the case. If the case looks arguable, the application for an extension of time is deferred to the hearing of the substantive application, rather than hear argument about the nature of the case twice (once for the extension of time application and then again at the final hearing). Hotchkin Hanly confirmed that they could represent the Town at any such hearing and provided the likely cost contained in Attachment 3

Committee Meeting 19 May 2020

Financial Interest Declaration – Cr Everett

Impartiality Interest Declaration – Mayor Shannon

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 63 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

PROCEDURAL MOTION:

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Haddon-Casey

That the item be submitted to Council for determination.

Motion put and CARRIED (4/0) (Cr Everett not present at the meeting)

Cr Everett returned to the meeting at 6.50 pm.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 64 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DV20.54 BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY- APRIL 2020

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to receive the register of Building Permits issued under delegated Authority.

SUMMARY:

The report details building approvals issued under delegated authority.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.

adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made

by Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects

a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Information For the Council/Committee to note. 

Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 4 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development, Marlaine Lavery Reporting Officer: Manager Regulatory Services, Stephen Cleaver Contributing Officer: N/A Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachment(s): 1. Building Approvals (6 pages)

BACKGROUND:

Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued for the month of April 2020. Also shown are the comparative figures of the numbers of permits issued on the same month of the previous year and year to date fields.

April 2020 April 2019 Financial Year to Corresponding date 2019/2020 Financial Year to date 2018/2019

Building Permits (Certified) 33 18 323 301 Building Permits (Uncertified) 10 11 85 108 Demolition Permits 10 4 41 52

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 65 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Building Approval Certificate (Unauthorised Work) 1 3 13 13 Building Approval Certificate (Strata) 0 1 3 3 Occupancy Permits 0 3 9 8 Occupancy Permits (strata) 0 0 0 3 Total 54 40 474 488 Value of Construction $10,401,815.69 $5,840,680.70 $119,287,037.00 $ 98,342,544.7

DETAILS:

Nil

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

Building Act 2011.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: As the approvals have already been issued under delegated authority by the Town’s Building Surveyor, the risks to the Council are low.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications related to this report.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The recommendations of this report are consistent with the following aspects of the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:-

Our Community Life

Goal 3 An active and, safe and inclusive community. Strategy 3.4 Act to create and maintain safe, friendly and open environments that residents can access and enjoy

Our Council

Goal 11 An efficient local government Strategy 11.3 Embrace innovation and continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Nil

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 66 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Haddon-Casey

That Council RECEIVES the Schedule of Building and Demolition Permits approved under delegated authority for the month of April 2020, as attached to and forming part of the notice paper.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 67 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DV20.55 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS – APRIL 2020

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to receive the register of Planning Delegated Decisions.

SUMMARY:

To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.

adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made

by Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects

a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal. Information For the Council/Committee to note. 

Address/Property Location: Not applicable Report Date: 13 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development, Marlaine Lavery Reporting Officer: Manager Statutory Planning, Jennifer Heyes Contributing Officer: Administration Officer, Nancy Vanden Bergh Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachment(s): Not applicable

BACKGROUND:

The following items (for the month of April 2020) 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:-

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 68 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

DETAILS:

City Beach 9 Sudbury Way, City Beach Patio and Colourbond Skillion Roof 45 Launceston Avenue, City Beach Patio 4 Grasmere Avenue, City Beach Patio 15 Goonang Road, City Beach Two-storey Dwelling 17 Gayton Road, City Beach Single Dwelling 3 Canungra Road, City Beach Boundary Wall 8 Elimatta Way, City Beach Single Dwelling (Amendments To DA18/0361) 4 Niribi Road, City Beach Retaining Wall

Floreat 23a Newry Street, Floreat Demo of Existing Single Storey Dwelling and Proposed Two Storey Dwelling 35 Cromarty Road, Floreat Single House & Retaining Walls Floreat Forum, 96/5 Howtree Place, Change of Use (Public Recreation) Floreat Floreat Forum, 88B/5 Howtree Place, Change of Use (Educational Establishment) Floreat 4 Oceanic Drive, Floreat New Glass Balustrading & Refurbishment of Existing Decking 42 Evandale Street, Floreat Additions To Existing Single Dwelling 13 Shannon Street, Floreat Single Dwelling Floreat Forum, 5 Howtree Place, Floreat Change of Use (Consulting Rooms) 9 Kintyre Crescent, Floreat Addition To Existing Single Dwelling 11 Dundalk Road, Floreat Additions to Fencing 8 Lothian Street, Floreat Two Gatehouses and Fence Alteration 487 Cambridge Street, Floreat Street Fencing And Patio Extension 112 Grovedale Road, Floreat Screen Wall Height Increase (Amendment To 0217DA-2018)

Wembley 72 Nanson Street, Wembley Single Storey Alterations / Additions to Existing Dwelling 2/92 Salvado Road, Wembley Patio 38-42 Grantham Street, Wembley Change of Use (from Shop to Dry Cleaning Premises)

West Leederville 90A Mccourt Street, West Leederville Three-Storey Dwelling Leederville Memorial Gardens, 78 Works - Solar Panel Installation Cambridge Street, West Leederville 88 Tate Street, West Leederville Front Fence and Garage (Amendments to 0211DA-2017)

Mount Claremont 48 Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont Street Fencing

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 69 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020

Subdivision/amalgamation applications

One application was referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

24 St Leonards Street, West Survey-Strata Subdivision Leederville

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

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

RISK IMPLICATONS:

There are no Risk Implications related to this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no Financial Implications related to this report.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The recommendations of this report are consistent with the following aspects of the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:-

Our Community Life

Goal 3 An active and, safe and inclusive community. Strategy 3.4 Act to create and maintain safe, friendly and open environments that residents can access and enjoy

Our Council

Goal 11 An efficient local government Strategy 11.3 Embrace innovation and continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Nil

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Haddon-Casey

That the Council RECEIVES the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period of April 2020.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - TUESDAY 19 MAY 2020 70 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

MINUTES

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

18 MAY 2020

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

7. REPORTS

7.1 INFRASTRUCTURE

CR20.61 Tender No. RFT 2020-01 Wembley Golf Course Depot Machinery and Workshop Sheds 3 CR20.62 Draft Urban Forest Strategy: Outcomes of Community Consultation 6 CR20.63 The Boulevard Median Islands Concept Design 15 CR20.64 Alderbury Sports Ground Master Plan – Adoption 18

7.2 COMMUNITY SERVICES

Nil

7.3 CORPORATE BUSINESS

CR20.65 Wembley Golf Course – Online Booking Statistics (March – April 2020) 25 CR20.66 Child and Adolescent Health Service Lease Agreement for Wembley Community Centre Child Health Centre 28

7.4 FINANCE

CR20.67 Payment of Accounts – April 2020 31 CR20.68 Investment Schedule – April 2020 34

7.5 GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL

Nil

8. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

CR20.69 Former Quarry Site Capping Assessment and Ground Water Investigation Report 39

9. CLOSURE

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 1

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON 18 MAY 2020.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

Prior to commencement of this electronic meeting, Council Members and other attendee connections by electronic means were tested and confirmed.

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

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present: Time of Time of Entering Leaving

Members:

Cr Andres Timmermanis (Presiding Member)(Electronically) 6.02 pm 7.07 pm Mayor Keri Shannon (In Person) 6.02 pm 7.07 pm Cr Kate Barlow (In Person) 6.02 pm 7.07 pm Cr Rod Bradley (Electronically) 6.02 pm 7.07 pm Cr Gary Mack (In Person) 6.02 pm 7.07 pm

Observers:

Nil

Officers:

Kelton Hincks, Director Infrastructure & Works Cam Robbins, Director Corporate & Community Services Peter Maloney, Manager Asset Management Andrew Head, Manager Parks & Natural Environment Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Lee Gyomorei, Coordinator Governance & Office of CEO Denise Ribbands, Senior Governance Officer

Members of the Public:

Nil

Media:

Ben Dickinson, Post Newspaper (In Person until 6.49 pm)

Adjournments: Nil

Time meeting closed: 7.07 pm

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Apology – CEO. Mr John Giorgi, JP

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 1 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil 4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Nil

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Mack, seconded by Mayor Shannon

That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee held on 20 April 2020 as contained in the April 2020 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Nil

7. REPORTS

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 2 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

CR20.61 TENDER NO. RFT 2020-01 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE DEPOT MACHINERY AND WORKSHOP SHEDS

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To provide Council with the details of the submissions received for Tender 2020-01 - Wembley Golf Course Depot Machinery and Workshops Sheds, document the results of the Tender assessment and make a recommendation on the award of the Tender.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. Eg.  Adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by

Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a

person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Information For the Council/Committee to note.

Address/Property Location: Wembley Golf Course, Floreat Report Date: 28 April 2020 Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure and Works, Kelton Hincks Reporting Officer: Manager Asset Management, Peter Maloney Contributing Officers: Coordinator Projects, George Putland Coordinator Building Maintenance, Phil Wellsteed Building Maintenance Officer, Mark Mackney Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachment(s): 1. Confidential Evaluation and Recommendation Report. 2. Proposed Site location and Shed Elevation Drawings.

BACKGROUND:

Since 2009, the Wembley Golf Course facilities have been upgraded with the exception of the depot buildings and sheds.

The depot facilities are comprised of a converted house (staff offices and bathrooms) and a series of storage and maintenance sheds. The house and sheds were constructed between 1950 and 1980, providing work facilities and amenities for 14 ground staff.

It was identified that a significant upgrade is required to modernise the aging facilities and to accommodate a new mechanical workshop, along with the additional machinery that staff utilise in the maintenance and servicing of the golf course greens and surrounds. It is proposed to demolish the several existing sheds and construct two new sheds comprising of a machinery shed (499m2) and a mechanical workshop shed (375m2) with concrete wall protection and hardstand aprons.

The proposed location of these sheds are represented in drawings as outlined in (Attachment 2).

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 3 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

The mechanical workshop includes a drive-through wash bay area serviced by a “Waste2Water” treatment unit, which recycles all of the water used in washing the machinery each day.

The two shed combination is surrounded by a concrete hardstand apron of 4m on three sides for temporary parking and lay down/set down areas, and 1.2m high concrete dado wall panels which provide impact protection to the steel sheds.

The construction of both sheds includes standard cold rolled steel “I” and “C” sections clad in Colorbond steel sheeting in a Pale Eucalypt colour. The sheds are fully customised to suit the requirements of the depot.

Preliminary infrastructure works have commenced, with work associated with the sheds scheduled for early June 2020. The completion of these works is anticipated by late September 2020, subject to weather conditions.

Tender 2020-01 - Wembley Golf Course Depot Machinery and Mechanical Workshop Sheds was advertised in the West Australian Newspaper and on the Town’s website on 7 March 2020. The tender submission period closed 31 March 2020, with six submissions received from the following tenderers:

1. Action Sheds/ MGI; 2. AE Hoskins; 3. Belle Design & Construct; 4. Bistel Construction; 5. Jabaru Developments Built; and 6. Outdoor World.

DETAILS:

All submissions were evaluated by a panel comprising of three Town Officers, in accordance with the Town's Policy 3.2.1 ‘Contracts and Procurement’, Procurement Business Rules and the Tender documentation.

An assessment of the submissions was carried out against the following criteria:

1. Value for Money 40% 2. Capacity to Perform the Works 30%

3. Record of Delivering Similar Projects 25%

4. Social and Economic Effects On The Local Community 5%

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

Policy 3.2.1 ‘Contracts and Procurement’ and the Local Government Functions and General Regulations 1996 provides guidance for setting up tenders and contracts. The Local Government Act 1995 requires Requests for Tenders to be conducted when the total contract value, including any extension options, exceeds $150,000. This tender and contract award process has enabled the Town to procure the required goods in an accountable, transparent, ethical and financially prudent manner.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: The Town of Cambridge will mitigate risk by engaging contractors who are fully licensed and qualified to provide construction services in accordance with the appropriate Australian Standards and professional work practices.

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 4 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Funds for this capital project have been allocated in the 2019/2020 annual budget.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The recommendations embrace the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Plan 2018 - 2028:

Goal 5: Successful commercial, retail and residential hubs Strategy 5.3 Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure is maintained in and around our centres throughout the Town

Goal 10: The Town is a proactive local government that provides financially sustainable public assets, services and facilities Strategy 10.2 Promote equity and transparency in the provision of infrastructure and services throughout the Town Strategy 10.3 Ensure sound and sustainable financial planning, management and reporting

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This Tender has been assessed in line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 and community consultation is not required as it’s administrative in nature.

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley

That Council APPROVES the award of Tender 2020-01 - Wembley Golf Course Depot Machinery and Workshop Sheds, as outlined in Confidential Attachment 1.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 5 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

CR20.62 DRAFT URBAN FOREST STRATEGY: OUTCOMES OF COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the outcomes from the Urban Forest Strategy community consultation, and recommend adoption of the Urban Forest Strategy.

SUMMARY:

The Urban Forest Strategy was made available for public comment via an online survey for a four week period from March to April 2020. A total of 40 submissions were received as shown in (Attachment 1).

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.  adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by

Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a

person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Information For the Council/Committee to note.

Address/Property Location: 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat Report Date: 7 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure and Works, Kelton Hincks Reporting Officer: Manager Parks and Natural Environment, Andrew Head Contributing Officer: Senior Landscape Officer, Patrick Bewely Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachment(s): 1. Confidential Community Consultation Feedback Spreadsheet 2. Draft Urban Forest Strategy

BACKGROUND:

A report regarding the Urban Forest Strategy and the adoption for community consultation (CR20.5) was presented to Council at its meeting held 25 February 2020, where it was decided:

“That Council:

1. APPROVES:-

1.1 the revised Draft Urban Forest Strategy as shown in Attachment 1; 1.2 the Draft Urban Forest Strategy for public consultation; and

2. REQUESTS that a report be presented to Council following public consultation.”

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 6 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

DETAILS:

The Draft Urban Forest Strategy was available on the Town’s website for a period of four weeks during April and May 2020. The Community was made aware of the Urban Forest Strategy consultation period through the Cambridge News, E-mail and newspaper publications, Social Media (Instagram, Facebook and Twitter) and on the Town’s website.

Feedback was gathered from the survey which requested the following information:

1. Name and address; 2. Contact information; 3. Level of support for the Urban Forest Strategy; and 4. General comments and feedback.

A total of 40 submissions as shown in Attachment 1, were received from residents across the Towns’ suburbs. Suburbs with participants included Floreat with 16 respondents, City beach with eight respondents, West Leederville with five respondents and Wembley four. No responses were received from Jolimont or Mount Claremont residents, however, there were seven respondents who did not list an address.

The data regarding the respondents is summarised in the below graphs.

1. Representation by Suburb

The community consultation results suggest that the community is in support of the Urban Forest Strategy. Out of the 40 respondents, 35 were recorded as indicating a high level of support for the Strategy. Only three respondents recorded a medium level of support and two recorded a low level of support.

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 7 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

2. Level of support for the Urban Forrest Strategy

The general comments and feedback made up the majority of the data received. Comments were categorised into the following topics:

1. Natives; 2. Exotics; 3. Diversity; 4. Verge Trees; 5. Private Trees; 6. Tree Management; 7. Policy; 8. General support; and 9. Miscellaneous.

3. Comments per Category

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 8 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

Respondent comments and the Town’s responses are summarised in the table below.

Categories Resident Comments Town Response ‘I support 100% any initiative to increase canopy As per the Urban Forest Strategy cover anywhere!! (within safety reason) the Town promotes the use of preferably using trees and shrubs naturally indigenous plantings where occurring in the area such tuarts and banksias’ suitable in streets, parks and ‘please continue to use Western Australian natural areas. While certain native species for all plantings - and if at all indigenous tree species are not possible those species that are indigenous to the suitable for streetscapes, the area.’ Town encourages planting of Natives ‘I suggest native flowering and fruiting trees native shrub and groundcover which provide food to birds and nectar to bees, species in the verge area such as Eucalyptus, Banksia, Melaleuca and through the Waterwise Verge Hakea species.’ Scheme. Indigenous planting of ‘We should be planting as many native trees as trees and shrubs are also used in possible to help support our animals.’ natural areas and encouraged in private gardens to support our wildlife and biodiversity. ‘Stop planting gum trees they look unattractive As per the Urban Forest Strategy and drop limbs without warning The best tree the Town tree species selection canopies are those of European origin.’ is irrespective of origin and ‘I personally favour the use of suitable deciduous based on advantages and Exotics trees in and around suburban housing blocks for disadvantages of use. This passive cooling and heating, i.e. shade in includes in parkland and summer and the warmth of the sunshine in the streetscape environments. winter.’

As per the Urban Forest ‘I am pleased to see a mix of both native and Strategy’s vision the Town aims exotic species that bring diversity to the to protect and enhance the landscape’ Towns urban forest through increase in tree diversity. While ‘The mono species approach may have given our acknowledging the aesthetic Diversity forefathers the notion they were in charge of benefits of a diverse tree canopy, nature, but nowadays we know better. Diversity diversity also provides greater works better than mono culture.’ resilience against pests, diseases and climate change. ‘The Jacaranda group are ideal and provide a lovely colourful canopy along roadsides as well as some native species with colour.’ ‘Your strategy is really nonsense because what The Town aims to plant trees in you have failed to declare is the fact that you all available verge space. Once have a " policy" of not planting trees on crown the Town is aware of a vacant land vested in Council where the immediate verge, the Tree Officer conducts resident does not wish to have one. No valid an inspection, and if appropriate reason is required all the resident has to say is the site will be included in the no.’ tree planting list for the upcoming ‘I fully support the Council increasing tree canopy tree planting season. The Verge Trees however I would like to know why a resident can resident will be notified via a

decline a street tree being planted for no letter of the proposed tree reason?’ planting. Residents are not able ‘I think it’s important to get street trees on every to decline a verge tree, if the verge, especially in Wembley, both for the resident does not wish to have a wildlife, and for water saving (the shade from our tree planted in their verge, they verge tree keeps our front lawn green, with less can request to postpone the tree water. And, for shade in our streets too. Maybe planting for 12 months only. there could be an incentive for householders to

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 9 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

have a tree on their verge.’ ‘I want a tree on every verge however am not happy with the forever changing tree selection available for McKenzie street Wembley between Grantham to Cambridge street.’ ‘Please increase the density and variety of verge trees. Multiple studies have shown a combination of street trees planted is more efficient for cooling, native wildlife and in increasing a home's value.’ ‘I think this arbitrary policy is a huge waste of Comments relating to species of money and very dictatorial. It takes away all verge tree species selection are rights of the home owner as to how they wish more related to the Street Tree their frontage to look with the trees chosen often Masterplan, which is available on not matching the architecture of the home or the the Towns website for existing landscaping, which has been created by community feedback from 1 April the homeowner at great expense.’ - 1 May 2020. It is likely this will

receive a high level of community input on this topic, therefore review of this will be determined once the feedback is received.

‘Essential that we maintain/increase the urban The Town of Cambridge cannot forest. It has been extremely disappointing to see manage trees on private land, many trees in my areas being cut down by however the Urban Forest residents’ Strategy was prepared in an effort to lift the perception of trees and inform the community about the benefits of retaining mature trees. The Urban Forest Strategy lists ‘I strongly support the objectives of this strategy, the need for policy changes and but it needs more direct action to protect existing the development of a significant tree canopy, especially on private property. tree register as a KPI. However Trees on Private Mature trees on private property are being only property owners can apply Land sacrificed in order to achieve significant financial to register significant trees and gains from urban infill development. generally it is the property owner Consideration could be given to an enhanced who opts to remove the tree for tree register for private properties.’ development reasons or other. ‘There should be encouragement of owners to Appendix A of the Urban Forest plant trees in their private grounds that have a Strategy outlines a tree selection certain height thereby positively affecting the table which lists appropriate tree neighbourhood. Assistance from the council in species for a number of the way of helping to identify neighbour friendly, environments including private pool friendly and underground pipe friendly tree gardens. varieties could encourage owners to commit to a

private tree.’

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 10 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

‘Pay for tree pruning services of large trees on The Town currently offers a private land: it's a benefit to the greater green waste bin which is community but the cost is borne by the land- collected fortnightly from all owner. Also, provide free collection of tree residents who require green trimmings at any time of year otherwise land- waste collection. The Town also owner can only do personal pruning immediately collects green waste bi-annually prior to bi-annual bulk waste removal’ under the bulk verge collection. The Town cannot undertake work on private land but can assist with advice for residents with larger mature trees.

‘enjoy seeing the new plantings - sad to see the Unfortunately despite the Towns many that do not survive.’ watering and maintenance programs not all new plantings are successful. The Town is working with its tree watering Contractor to ensure these deaths are reported and a replanting scheme follows ‘We are concerned that the council is not In the case of Challenger Park a following their recommendations in Challenger group of residents objected to Park, where 15 peppermint trees were planted tree plantings in Challenger Park with more trees planned to come & after planting due to obstruction of views, open they were removed except 1, because the space and passive surveillance. residents living along the park complained.’ As there was not a sufficient consultation process prior to planting these trees, the Town made the decision to remove the trees. ‘My biggest concern is that Council continues to The use of 45L pot size is plant trees that are only 45-100ltr in size. The industry standard for street tree argument that planting smaller allows for trees to planting. This is the optimal size have a greater chance of survival I think is a moot for the Town due to cost, point. Larger trees planted, particularly on verges adaptability, and water Tree means the likelihood of residents caring for these requirements. The exception is Management trees is greater.’ Jacaranda and Poinciana species which are planted at 100L, as these establish differently in Perth’s Climate. Larger trees require exponentially higher volumes of water to keep them alive than smaller specimens and they are harder to establish as a result. ‘Unfortunately I feel that the level of care and The Town is working with the upkeep of the gardens in the Perry lakes estate residents of Perry Lakes Estate is not up to standard.’ to ensure a level of expectation for the areas maintenance is establishment and met. ‘Unfortunately the street trees do not receive There is an annual Town wide sufficient attention and pruning to ensure that pruning program which takes they continue to grow in an appropriate shape for eight weeks. In addition the the area in which they are planted, and that Towns Tree and Parks staff uplifting to allow clear access for pedestrians and respond to emailed and cyclists occurs. As this is lacking in areas, telephone pruning requests residents then sometimes prune the trees through the year. themselves. Perhaps if the ToC had a section on their website where residents could request

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 11 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

pruning, and the ToC actively promoted that section, some of these problems might be avoided.’ ‘The Fiddlewood Trees on our street, while lovely As the Fiddlewood trees shed and green for most of the year, create a massive leaves in summer months they mess through December and January. I certainly do not line up with the planned wouldn’t want to see them go, however we often street sweeping program which fill our green bin on day 1, and have garbage occurs in autumn. The Town will bags full of green waste that we then have to look into undertaking additional dispose of ourselves. We love the trees but street sweeping services in perhaps the Council needs to give some further summer to capture leaf drop in thought to weekly green waste collections or streets which contain perhaps far more regular street sweeps to help Fiddlewood trees. pick up the debri?’

‘…please make sure that developments have The Towns policies reflect best enough setback to allow trees to be planted on practice planning guidelines for private property.’ tree planting. ‘As a practising Architect for an influential Perth An incentive based scheme has Tree Policy firm have some thoughts about how we as a merit, however development society can strike a balance between necessary sites are evaluated on a case by infill development whilst retaining our mature tree case basis and whether mature canopy. In a nutshell, it boils down to incentive- tree species exist. based policy.’ ‘Tree canopy and grasses areas keeps the area The Town appreciate the cooler during hot summer months and homes positive support provided in more native animals.’ these comments. ‘We love the trees, more the merrier! It makes our Floreat very distinctive, cool, and interesting. I General support hate seeing them cut down’ of strategy ‘Green open spaces and foliage are essential for the suburb’

‘I like trees in my neighbourhood’

‘A personal suggestion is to addition the strategy The Town will continue to with knowledge sharing and education. In promote the urban forest through informed community garners greater support, ongoing monitoring and sharing engagement and facilitation.’ projects and initiatives with residents via website and social media. ‘the Town should consider working with other The Urban Forest Strategy urban councils to monitor its tree canopies using proposes aerial surveys every a standardised method (Urban Monitor) five years to monitor health of the supported by the Department of Planning, Lands tree canopy and determine if any and Heritage. Annual summer data at 15 to 25 intervention is required. The cm resolution exist on all types of vegetation seven western suburbs councils Miscellaneous (trees, lawn, irrigated, unirrigated, healthy, poor initiated a regional report on condition) since 2009.’ canopy change at a higher resolution earlier in 2020 and aim to do this on a regular basis to lower costs for all. ‘what to do about deformed trees on the sides of While these trees may not have streets that used to have above ground power the same aesthetic value as a lines. An unfortunate consequence of putting naturally grown tree canopy, power underground has been that it has now they still provide all other exposed streets lined with very badly deformed benefits of tree canopy in the trees, trees that have suffered years of heavy streetscape. The Town proposes pruning to accommodate power lines.’ this is addressed through the regeneration of new generation

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 12 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

of tree plantings. As the old trees die, new trees will be installed which will grow to reflect a healthy tree canopy.

In summary, the Urban Forest Strategy was highly supported by the community. Insufficient feedback was received to support any major changes to the document.

Amendments to the verge tree species selection will be refined by feedback received on the Street Tree Masterplan during May 2020. As the selection process is referenced in the Urban Forest Strategy, minor changes may be needed for consistency.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report are as follows:

Local Planning Policy 3.1 Streetscape Policy Policy 5.1.3 Management of Street Trees Policy Policy 5.2.19 Street Trees - Landscaping and Maintenance Policy

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: This strategic document helps support the Street Tree Masterplan implementation and future updates to Natural Area Management Plans.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications associated with this report, as the changes to the strategy will be made by the Town's Administration.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Goal 4 Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and responsive to future needs Strategy 4.2 Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and retains a sense of place Strategy 4.3 Make neighbourhoods green and pleasant

Goal 6 Efficient transport networks Strategy 6.1 Develop an integrated transport strategy in response to population changes

Goal 7 The Town is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy 7.2 Optimise our use of ground water and improve the efficiency of our clean water consumption

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

The residents who provided comment on the Urban Forest Strategy will be notified by letter that their feedback has been received and reviewed. Where a specific response is required it will be provided. The revised plan will be made available on the Town’s Website.

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 13 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley

That Council:-

1. RECEIVES the submissions of the Draft Urban Forest Strategy Community Consultation; and

2. ADOPTS the Urban Forest Strategy, as shown in Attachment 2.

Motion put and CARRIED (4/1)

For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Barlow, Mack and Timmermanis Against: Cr Bradley

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 14 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

CR20.63 THE BOULEVARD MEDIAN ISLANDS CONCEPT DESIGN

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the proposed median islands to be removed and those identified for tree planting.

SUMMARY:

The Boulevard Median Islands Concept Design has been prepared to address Council’s decision of 25 February 2020 (CR20.4):

“That Council:

REQUESTS that the Administration develops a plan for the removal or rationalisation of some of the medians on The Boulevard, and submit a further report to Council.”

The design plan includes removal of two median islands and tree planting works to 10 median islands.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by

Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a

person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Information For the Council/Committee to note.

Address/Property Location: The Boulevard, Floreat Report Date: 7 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure and Works, Kelton Hincks Reporting Officer: Manager Parks and Natural Environment, Andrew Head Contributing Officer: Senior Landscape Officer, Patrick Bewely Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachment(s): 1. The Boulevard Median Islands Concept Design

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 15 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

BACKGROUND:

A report regarding The Boulevard Draft Landscape Concept and Other Iconic Roads (CR20.4) was presented to Council at its meeting held 25 February 2020, where it was decided:

“That Council:

1. APPROVES The Boulevard Landscape Concept as shown in Attachment 1;

2. LISTS FOR CONSIDERATION an allocation of $340,000 into 2020-2021 budget for detailed design and implementation on site;

3. REQUESTS Landscape Concepts be developed for the Town’s other iconic roads; and

4. REQUESTS that the Administration develops a plan for the removal or rationalisation of some of the medians on The Boulevard, and submit a further report to Council.”

As per Council’s decision, the Administration commenced developing a concept plan for The Boulevard median islands.

DETAILS:

The concept plan addresses the area between Empire Avenue and Durston Road which contains 20 median islands and includes approach islands for two roundabouts. The purpose of these median islands is to facilitate a safe passage of vehicles at intersections, buses when merging from bus stops, pedestrian crossing points and cyclists when approaching roundabouts.

There are two median islands in this area which the Administration are proposing to remove as they do not serve a traffic function and do not leave adequate room for vehicles to pass cyclists on The Boulevard. These include the median islands opposite property numbers 159 (#15) and 143 (#18).

The Administration is proposing to undertake tree planting to 10 of the remaining median islands. The tree planting will form a cohesive element, linking Floreat with the City Empire Village, increase canopy cover and improve the wildlife corridor between Wembley Golf Course and the natural areas of Bold Park. The median islands have been selected to provide evenly distributed tree plantings along this section of The Boulevard and does not hinder sight lines for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

The selected species of Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) is utilised through the Town in similar median islands and is consistent with the Treescape Plan and Draft Street Tree Masterplan. The works will involve traffic management, excavation and removal of pavement and road base, soil works, tree planting and mulching.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report are as follows:

Local Planning Policy 3.1 Streetscape Policy Policy 5.1.3 Management of Street Trees Policy Policy 5.2.19 Street Trees - Landscaping and Maintenance Policy

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 16 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: This project is considered minor road works and does not impact the local residents to any great extent and forms part of a larger project to landscape The Boulevard.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost of the works are included in the $340,000 proposed for The Boulevard Iconic Road project and has been included in the 2020-2021 Draft Budget

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Goal 6 Efficient transport networks Strategy 6.1 Develop an integrated transport strategy in response to population changes

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

As the landscaping works proposed do not directly impact any stakeholders, a community engagement plan is not required in accordance with policy 1.2.11 Community Engagement.

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley

That Council APPROVES The Boulevard Medium Island Concept Design as shown in Attachment 1.

Motion put and CARRIED (3/2)

For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Barlow and Mack Against: Crs Bradley and Timmermanis

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 17 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

CR20.64 ALDERBURY SPORTS GROUND MASTER PLAN - ADOPTION

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council adoption of the Alderbury Sports Ground Master Plan, subject to the relocation of the practice cricket nets to the eastern side of the proposed new sports amenity building. An update is also provided on the status of discussions with YMCC, University of Western Australia, Hockey WA and other western suburbs local authorities relating to a shared regional hockey turf facility.

SUMMARY:

The Alderbury Sports Ground Draft Master Plan was not formally adopted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting in May 2019. Although that being the case, there has been some progress with a number of the key projects identified in the document. The current plan indicates a cricket training facility within Area 2, however, it is recommended this should be relocated within Area 3 as highlighted in (Attachment 1), subject to support from the YMCC Hockey Club and the Subiaco Floreat Cricket club.

The Town has met with various external agencies with the intention of finding a suitable location for a shared regional synthetic turf hockey facility. Unfortunately, these meetings have not had the desired outcome due to various factors. Hockey WA are now undertaking a review of the facility needs for the northern metro corridor which may provide a better understanding for the Town to base future decisions on in relation to a synthetic turf hockey facility.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by

Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a

person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Information For the Council/Committee to note.

Address/Property Location: Alderbury Reserve, Floreat Report Date: 6 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure and Works, Kelton Hincks Reporting Officer: Manager Parks and Natural Environment, Andrew Head Contributing Officer: Director Corporate and Community Services, Cam Robbins Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachment(s): 1. Alderbury Sports Ground Draft Master Plan 2. Alternate Site SWOT analysis

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 18 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

BACKGROUND:

In August 2017, the Alderbury Sport Ground Needs Assessment (item CR17.129) was completed which included a series of development options. At a Council forum in March 2018, the preferred Alderbury Sports Ground Draft Master Plan (the Plan) was presented to Council for consideration.

The Plan focused on the replacement of the existing toilet and change room building with a more efficient and functionally appropriate sports amenity facility to service the needs of all users and mitigate anti-social behaviour. In addition, cricket training nets, upgraded sports lighting infrastructure, off-leash dog exercise area, and other reserve infrastructure identified through the needs analysis were incorporated. The Plan excluded a community shed, synthetic hockey pitch and multi-purpose clubhouse facility. The Plan was subsequently presented at the Ordinary Council Meeting held 18 December 2018 (CR18.194) where it was decided:

“That Council:-

1. RECEIVES the Alderbury Sports Ground Draft Master Plan;

2. ADVERTISES the Alderbury Sports Ground Draft Master Plan, excluding those elements dealing with fencing options for the dog exercise area, for public comment in February/March 2019), including a direct mail-out to owners and residents of properties within 800 metres of Alderbury Sports Ground; and

3. NOTES a further report on the outcome of 2 above will be submitted at the conclusion of the consultation period.”

As per the Council decision, community consultation was undertaken from 20 February 2019 to 21 March 2019. The results of the consultation was included in a further report presented to Council in May 2019 (CR19.46). The report detailed the overall estimated cost of the projects within the Plan would be approximately $4,200,000. The Plan outlined five major design elements which had the ability to be staged over a number of years, pending Council endorsement of individual budgets for the various components.

The design elements are listed below in the proposed order of works:-

1. Replacement Toilet/Change room Facility (sports amenity building); 2. Sports Infrastructure; 3. Community Recreation Infrastructure; 4. Skate Park Precinct Infrastructure; and 5. Dog Exercise Area

An alternative hockey facility with no major fencing or supporting infrastructure was provided by the YMCC and included in the report which was not supported by Council. It should be noted that items 2 - 4 listed above had no overwhelming support and therefore have not progressed at this point in time.

The results of the consultation were included in the May 2019 report (CR19.46) where it was decided:

“That Council:

1. RECEIVES the comments made during the community consultation period in relation to Alderbury Sports Ground Master Plan;

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 19 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

2. NOTES the proposals from YMCA Coastal City Hockey Club (YMCC) and Subiaco Floreat Cricket Club;

3. APPROVES an amount of $160,000 (ex GST) in the 2019/2020 Draft Budget for the development of engineering and professional detailed designs for the replacement of the toilet/ change room facility (sports amenity building) at Alderbury Sports Ground;

4. REQUESTS further examination on the possible location of cricket training facilities; and

5. SUPPORTS a working group entailing other Western Suburb Councils and the University of Western Australia to examine a regional artificial hockey turf that could be shared amongst various stakeholders.”

As per the Council decision, a working group was formed with other Western Suburb local authorities and the University of Western Australia (UWA) to examine the possible provision of a regional artificial hockey turf facility, similar to the Shenton Park facility.

In early 2019, a separate meeting was held with UWA to discuss a proposed hockey pitch within their land. At that time, they advised they were progressing with a Master Plan for UWA Sports Park and would not commit the availability of an artificial hockey pitch for the YMCC Hockey Club due to the potential of it competing with their resident hockey club.

In the 2018/2019 mid-year budget review (Item 10.4 - March 2019), Council re-allocated an amount of $60,000 for the Alderbury Reserve - Fenced Dog Exercise Area identified as item 5 – Dog Exercise Area.

To progress with the item 1 - Sports Amenity Building, an amount of $160,000 was included in the 2019/2020 Budget for the development of engineering and professional detailed designs for the replacement facility.

A report regarding the Recreational Cycling Facility Assessment was presented to Council at its meeting held on 28 April 2020 (item CR20.53), where the Administration’s recommendation was amended and it was decided:

“That Council:

1. RECEIVES the Recreation Facility Assessment, as shown in Attachment 1;

2. APPROVES the Administration to undertake public consultation to determine the preferred location for a Mountain Bike Track;

3. DOES NOT SUPPORT the Perry Lakes site (ID 4) for Pump, Jump and Learn to Ride tracks;

4. APPROVES the Administration to undertake public consultation for a Pump, Jump and Learn to Ride track, except the Perry Lakes location; 5. REQUESTS Administration present a Report back to Council in May 2020 for adoption of the Alderbury Sports Ground Master Plan (Option N) including reporting on the preferred location for cricket training facilities; and

6. REQUESTS Administration report back to Council in May 2020 on the status of discussions with the YMCC, University of WA and other Western Suburbs Councils concerning a shared regional hockey turf.”

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 20 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

Recommendation 5 and 6 above are the focus of this report and are addressed in more detail below.

DETAILS:

As can be seen from the brief history above, the Plan was not formally adopted by Council which was the reason for the change in the Recreational Cycling Facility Assessment report recommendation at the 28 April 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting. Although that being the case, there has been some progress with a number of the key projects within the Plan.

Sports Amenity Building

The replacement of the sports amenity building is progressing with an amount of $160,000 included in the 2019/2020 Budget. A schematic design has been developed with input from user groups, including the YMCC Hockey Club and Subiaco-Floreat Cricket Club. The schematic design is currently out for public consultation with the results proposed to be presented at a future Elected Member Forum.

Hockey Training Lights Identified in the Plan was the upgrade of the hockey pitch floodlighting to meet Australian Standards. Earlier this year, structural engineers were commissioned to investigate the current condition of the four hockey training light towers. The results of the survey highlighted that two of the towers required immediate removal to mitigate a significant risk to the community. A lighting design is currently being developed to determine the scope of works and determine final cost to replace these lights with LED luminaires and smart controls. An amount of $150,000 has been included in the 2020/2021 Draft Budget for these works.

Cricket Nets The Subiaco Floreat Cricket Club do not have training facilities at Alderbury Reserve and have requested three hard based cricket training nets as part of the Plan. The previously proposed location as outlined in the Plan (Area 2 item 1) would possibly impact on the layout of the hockey fields (as they require a two metree clearance) and an alternative location was suggested by the Subiaco Floreat Cricket Club. The site suggested is within Area 3 (Attachment 1) and would be directly east of the new Sports Amenity Building. This would also reduce the encroachment onto the active playing surface.

Synthetic Turf Hockey Pitch During September 2019, a meeting was held with representatives from the City of Nedlands, City of Subiaco and Hockey WA. Other western suburb local authorities and the UWA declined to be a part of the working group and did not attend. At this meeting, Hockey WA mentioned that they are working on a Hockey WA Strategic Facilities Plan and advised that at least three other parties are interested in potentially developing synthetic turf hockey facilities.

At the same meeting, a potential site at the northern section of Lake Monger was discussed as a potential site, however, Hockey WA advised that old tip sites are not suitable due to risks associated with the use of potentially contaminated ground water. This site is also too small to cater for a full sized hockey pitch.

No further meetings have been held with the Working Group, although the Town has had a meeting with the YMCC Hockey Club on 27 February 2020. The YMCC Hockey Club advised that the UWA site was not a suitable option for them. As an action from this meeting, a strengths, weakness, opportunities and threat analysis (SWOT) was conducted following this meeting to identify potential sites within the Town (Attachment 2).

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 21 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

Open Space and Community Infrastructure Strategy

The Town’s draft Local Planning Strategy identifies the need to prepare an Open Space and Community Infrastructure Strategy (OSCIS) as part of an overall strategic planning framework. The OSCIS is a short term action to be undertaken within one to three years of the finalisation of the Local Planning Strategy.

The OSCIS will consist of an audit of current open spaces and community infrastructure, consider current usage and trends, adopt benchmarking and project future needs and determine priorities to cater for future needs. Various sporting needs, including specific sporting codes will be considered in a local and regional framework. This will be in conjunction with the Department of Sport and Recreation benchmarks and other industry associations.

Hockey WA is currently prioritising the northern metro corridor review of the Strategic Facilities Plan (SCP) which has a direct impact on any YMCC proposal. Therefore, it is recommended to await the results of both the OSCIS and the Hockey WA SCP to determine if a facility is both supported and required.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: This report is to provide Council with an update and seek endorsement of the Draft Alderbury Sports Ground Master Plan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

In the 2020/2021 Draft Budget, an amount of $150,000 has been included for replacement training lights prior to the 2021 hockey season and, $1,200,000 has been included for the construction of the Sports Amenity Building.

A cricket training facility will be included in the 2021/2022 Draft Budget once a final location is determined.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Goal 1: A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.1 Encourage and support participation in a range of public activities and events where residents can gather and interact Strategy 1.2 Promote our strong community identity and focus our responses on the needs of local residents, businesses and ratepayers

Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.1 Adopt a more strategic and coordinated approach to the planning of our parks and greenspaces recognising their diverse roles and local community preferences Strategy 2.2 Improve the maintenance and provision of amenities in our local parks and district open spaces reflecting local values and priorities and the broader regional demand on facilities

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 22 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1 Focus on improving and expanding those places where community groups interact to encourage greater participation Strategy 3.3 Encourage a range of activities that better align with the diverse needs of ratepayers of all ages, cultures and abilities

Goal 10: The Town is a proactive local government that provides financially sustainable public assets, services and facilities Strategy 10.1 Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to the preparation and implementation of day to day decision making, broader strategic planning and major projects Strategy 10.2 Promote equity and transparency in the provision of infrastructure and services throughout the Town

Goal 12: Advocacy for the Community Strategy 12.1 Foster key relationships with all levels of government and other major stakeholders Strategy 12.2 Engage with surrounding local governments on key district and regional strategies and decision making Strategy 12.3 Take actions and make decisions that adopt a “locals first” approach at all times

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Extensive community engagement was undertaken and presented to Council in 28 May 2019 (CR19.46). This outlined a total of 288 responses to the survey from the community.

Further refinement of the location of the cricket nets will be undertaken with the two community sporting clubs.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley

That Council:-

1. ADOPTS the Alderbury Sports Ground Draft Master Plan as shown in Attachment 1, subject to support from YMCC and Subiaco Floreat Cricket Club to relocate the proposed cricket nets from Area 2, to Area 3; and

2. RECEIVES the update of the strategic review of suitable sites for artificial turf hockey facilities.

Debate ensued. Cr Timmermanis stated that third parties should not be dictating the location of the cricket nets.

AMENDMENT:

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Mack

That clause 1 of the motion be amended to read as follows:-

1. ADOPTS the Alderbury Sports Ground Draft Master Plan as shown in Attachment 1.

Amendment put and CARRIED (4/1)

For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Barlow, Mack and Timmermanis Against: Cr Bradley

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 23 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

During discussion, Cr Timmermanis, advised that, in accordance with clause 9.8 of the Town of Cambridge Meeting Procedures Local Law 2019, the motion be divided into two separate motions.

That Council:-

1. ADOPTS the Alderbury Sports Ground Draft Master Plan as shown in Attachment; and

Motion put and CARRIED (4/1)

For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Barlow, Mack and Timmermanis Against: Cr Bradley

2. RECEIVES the update of the strategic review of suitable sites for artificial turf hockey facilities.

Motion put and LOST (0/5)

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That Council ADOPTS the Alderbury Sports Ground Draft Master Plan as shown in Attachment 1.

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 24 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

CR20.65 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE - ONLINE BOOKING STATSTICS (JANUARY TO APRIL 2020)

PURPOSE:

To provide an update on the number of golfing patrons booking online since this new strategy was implemented as part of the annual Fees and Charges review. (Item CR19.123 - December 2019 refers).

SUMMARY:

Online booking figures and overall numbers for Wembley Golf Course (WGC) golfers were monitored and measured from January to April 2020 to ascertain if any detrimental effect to player numbers occurred.

As at the end of April 2020, there has been no detrimental effect to player numbers, although numbers have been affected due to COVID-19 and adhering to the State Government social distancing rules.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.

adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by

Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a

person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Information For the Council/Committee to note. 

Address/Property Location: Wembley Golf Course Report Date: 13 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Director Corporate and Community Services, Cam Robbins Reporting Officer: General Manager Wembley Golf Course, Josh Madden Contributing Officer: N/A Reporting Officer Interest Nil Attachment(s): Nil

BACKGROUND:

Through the WGC 2019 annual fee review (a price freeze for online bookings only), a strategy was recommended and endorsed by Council on the proviso that WGC monitors the outcomes and keep an eye out for declines in revenue relating to green fees.

A goal of this strategy was to increase the WGC data acquisition, improve the pro-Shop customer service and incentive patrons to book on line.

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 25 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

DETAILS:

The on-line booking system remains very strong as outlined in Table 1 below.

Month On Line (%) In Person or on Phone (%) January 2020 84.7 15.3 February 2020 89.3 10.7 March 2020 93.1 6.9 April 2020 98.6 1.4

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

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

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: The adoption of the fees and charges is a statutory requirement, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995.

There is/was some risk that making changes to our booking system could affect our green fee revenue. Specifically, with customers who might not embrace change. However, this has not been the case.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

With partial closures on 25 March 2020, and the course re-opening on 11 April 2020 and the driving range 22 April 2020, the financial impact linked to online bookings have not played a key role. However, the advent of COVID-19 has and the financial impact on the WGC and other Town’s facilities will have a negative result.

It is noted that whilst COVD-19 restrictions were in place, the WGC adhered to the social distancing rules with bookings in advance at capacity. Green fees actual income were tracking to budget at the end of March 2020, Budget - $2.644m to Actual - $2.686m.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The Wembley Golf Course on-line booking stats for February 2020 supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028

Our Community

Goal 1 A sense of community, pride and belonging

Our Council

Goal 11 An efficient local government

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required.

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 26 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley

That Council NOTES the Online Booking numbers for the Wembley Golf Course from January to April 2020.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 27 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

CR20.66 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT HEALTH SERVICE LEASE AGREEMENT FOR WEMBLEY COMMUNITY CENTRE CHILD HEALTH CENTRE

SUMMARY:

WA Health’s Child and Adolescent Health Service (CAHS) has historically occupied the Wembley Community Centre (WCC) Child Health Clinic (CHC) for a number of years, with no formal Lease Agreement with the Town, currently in place.

CAHS has proposed that the Town formalise the current arrangement for the occupation of the WCC CHC, to enable it to continue its services from the Centre.

This report recommends the approval of a formal Lease Agreement between the Town and CAHS for the ongoing occupation of the WCC CHC.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by

Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a

person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Information For the Council/Committee to note.

Address/Property Location: 40 Alexander Street, Wembley Report Date: 12 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Director Corporate and Community Services, Cam Robbins Reporting Officer: Manager Corporate Business, Rob Andrews Contributing Officer: Coordinator Property and Procurement, Paul O’Keefe Reporting Officer Interest Nil Attachment(s): Nil

BACKGROUND:

For a number of years, the Child and Adolescent Health Service (CAHS) has provided its free Community and Child Health Care Services (CHCS) from an office at the Wembley Community Centre (WCC).

CAHS’ Child Health Clinics (CHC) support the health, wellbeing and development of young people in local communities with the following services provided at the WCC CHC:

Community Health - child health and developmental assessments, with targeted and specialist programs offered, which support parents/carers to optimise the health, wellbeing and development of the infant/child.

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 28 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

Child Development Services - provides a range of assessments, early intervention and treatment services to children with developmental delay or difficulties which impact on function, participation and/or parent-child relationships.

Immunisation from birth to five (5) years of age.

The current occupation of the WCC CHC is based on a historical arrangement, which is undocumented, between WA Health and the Town.

DETAILS:

Local Governments, across Western Australia, provide buildings to CAHS to enable them to provide free CHCS to local communities.

In most circumstances, the State Government (either via WA Health or Building Management and Works) historically contribute to the building which accommodates CAHS’ CHCS.

At present, the specific occupancy arrangements for the WCC CHC are uncertain as there is no documented agreement currently in place. As such, CAHS intends to formalise and document, though a formal Lease Agreement, the ongoing occupation of the WCC CHC.

CAHS has proposed a five (5) year Lease Agreement with the Town, with two (2) x five (5) year extension options, at a peppercorn rent of one ($1) dollar per annum, be entered into. The Lease Agreement will also include, during the tenancy, any and all maintenance and repairs at the WCC CHC, will be undertaken by CAHS.

CAHS is currently in the process of formalising similar Lease Agreements with the following Local Governments:

1. City of Wanneroo 2. City of Joondalup 3. City of Bayswater 4. Shire of Mundaring 5. City of Melville 6. City of Kwinana 7. City of South Perth 8. City of Cockburn

On Council approval of the CAHS proposal, a Lease Agreement will be prepared by the State Solicitor’s Office (SSO), requiring sign off by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer under Common Seal. Costs associated with this document will be met by CAHS.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

There are no Policy or Statutory implications related to this Report.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: Entering into a Lease Agreement with CAHS for the WCC CHC, in order for them to provide free health care to the community, is considered low risk to the Town.

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 29 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil, the Town will not incur any legal fees as a result of the SSO drawing up a Lease between the parties.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Entering into a Lease Agreement with CAHS for the use of the WCC CHC supports the following goal within the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2018 – 2028:

Our Community

Goal 3 An active, safe and inclusive community. Strategy 3.1 Focus on improving and expanding those places where community groups interact to encourage greater participation.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is administrative.

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley

That Council:-

1. APPROVES a Lease Agreement between the Town and WA Health’s Child and Adolescent Health Service (CAHS), for the use of the Wembley Community Centre (WCC) Child Health Clinic (CHC), for a term of five (5) years with two (2) x five (5) year extension options, at a peppercorn rent of one ($1) dollar per annum; and

2. AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign the Lease, subject to the final terms being agreed and accepted, between the Town and CAHS for the use of the WCC CHC under Common Seal, pursuant to section 9.49A of the Local Government Act 1995.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 30 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

CR20.67 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - APRIL 2020

PURPOSE:

To provide and confirm the schedule of payments for the month of April 2020 in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

(i) CHEQUE PAYMENTS

Date From Date To Details Amount

Municipal Fund 02-April-2020 02-April-2020 057505 - 057535 $48,753.34 Municipal Fund 09-April-2020 09-April-2020 057536 - 057590 $43,953.72 Municipal Fund 17-April-2020 17-April-2020 057591 - 057620 $10,208.03 Municipal Fund 22-April-2020 22-April-2020 057621 - 057678 $121,827.87 Municipal Fund 23-April-2020 28-April-2020 057679 - 057721 $5,698.74 Municipal Fund 30-April-2020 30-April-2020 057722 - 057793 $71,931.17

$302,372.87

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)

Date From Date To Details Amount

Investments 01-April-2020 30-April-2020 INV1166 - INV1172 $10,597,406.96 Direct Supplier Charges 04-April-2020 30-April-2020 Sup551 - Sup553 $77,956.30 Accounts Payable 02-April-2020 06-April-2020 E41391 - E41453 $416,441.04 Accounts Payable 09-April-2020 09-April-2020 E41454 - E41504 $128,442.56 Accounts Payable 17-April-2020 17-April-2020 E41505 - E41598 $588,566.96 Accounts Payable 23-April-2020 28-April-2020 E41599 - E41671 $430,838.02 Payroll 01-April-2020 30-April-2020 Pay1207 - Pay1208 $812,853.98

Total EFT Payments $13,052,505.82

TOTAL PAYMENTS $13,354,878.69

SUMMARY:

Under the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, payments of accounts made by the Town are to be submitted to Council. The report contains a summary of payments made for the month with detailed payment listings attached providing more information.

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 31 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.

adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by

Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a

person’s right and interests. Information For the Council/Committee to note. 

Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 7 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Director Corporate and Community Services, Cam Robbins Reporting Officer: Manager Finance, Roy Ruitenga Contributing Officer: N/A Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachment(s): 1. Account Payment Listing

BACKGROUND:

Section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires the keeping of financial records and general management of payments, which is further specified in regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1996. A list of accounts is to be prepared each month which is to be presented to the Ordinary meeting of Council showing the payee's name, the amount of payment, the date of the payment and sufficient information to identify the transaction.

DETAILS:

A list of the cheques raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and Trust Account where applicable) for the past month.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: The schedule of payments has been produced in accordance with applicable local government legislation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 32 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Community Plan 2018-2028:-

Our Council

Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and knowledge

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required.

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley

That Council CONFIRMS, in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts, as detailed below and attached.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 33 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

CR20.68 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE – APRIL 2020

PURPOSE:

To provide information to Council in relation to its investment portfolio performance during the month of April 2020.

SUMMARY:

The Council invests funds that are surplus to operational requirements with various financial institutions and reports on the amounts invested, the distribution of those funds and the financial performance of each investment, being interest earned, against year to date budget.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.

adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by

Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a

person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Information For the Council/Committee to note. 

BACKGROUND:

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity guidelines as set out in the policy.

DETAILS:

Investment Portfolio Performance

At its May 2020 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to maintain the official cash rate at 0.25%.

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 34 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

The global economy is experiencing a severe downturn as countries seek to contain the COVID- 19. The containment measures have reduced infection rates in a number of countries. If this continues, a recovery in the global economy is expected to be later this year, supported both by large fiscal packages and significant easing in monetary policies. Financial markets are working more effectively than they were a month ago, although conditions have not completely normalised.

In Australia, the economy is going through a difficult period with considerable uncertainty about the economic outlook. Much will depend on the success of efforts to contain COVID-19. The unemployment rate is expected to peak at around 10 per cent, its highest level for many years. The coordinated monetary and fiscal response, together with the measures taken by Australia’s Reserve Bank ensures that the economy is well placed to recover once the health crisis has passed. Without this response, the outlook would have been more challenging. The Australian financial system is resilient, well capitalised and in a strong liquidity position, which will go towards supporting the economy, if required.

Looking forward, in terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates have declined as a result of the Reserve Bank's low cash rate. The major banks rates for one to three month terms are on average 0.63%, for terms of four to six months on average 0.89% and for terms of seven months to nine months on average 0.91%. The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day period) was 0.58% for April 2020. The 90 days BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of future interest rates) was 0.10% as at 30 April 2020. As Council’s investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 0.25% for April 2020 is the more appropriate performance measure.

Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash rate with a weighted average interest rate of 1.53%. The weighted average investment period of 195 days (approximately six months) is consistent with term deposit rates (with the major Australian banks) which for this period were an average of 0.9%.

Investment Portfolio Performance for April 2020

The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 12 month period, specifically April 2019 to April 2020.

Investment Performance Interest Rates For April 2019 to April 2020 4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 35 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the Town's investment portfolio, since April 2017.

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance Interest Rates For April 2017 to April 2020

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 Apr-17 Jul-17 Oct-17 Jan-18 Apr-18 Jul-18 Oct-18 Jan-19 Apr-19 Jul-19 Oct-19 Jan-20 Apr-20

Weighted Avg Interest 90 UBS Bank Bill Index

The total investment at the end of April 2020 is $51.5 million which consists of Municipal Funds of $18.1 million, Reserve Funds of $30.9 million and Endowment Lands Funds of $2.5 million.

The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from April 2019 to April 2020.

Millions Investment Portfolio 63 60 57 54 51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0 Apr 19 May 19 Jun 19 Jul 19 Aug 19 Sep 19 Oct 19 Nov 19 Dec 19 Jan 20 Feb 20 Mar 20 Apr 20

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 36 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

Current % of Weighted Term Interest Maturiy April 2020 Total Amount Funds Average (Days) Rating Rate Date Income Invested Invested Interest Floating Rate Notes . Emerald Reverse Mortgage "AA" 1.34% $609 $555,355 1.08% 0.01%

Sub-total $609 $555,355 1.08% 0.01% Term Deposits and Bank Bills ANZ - Term Deposit 196 "A1+" 1.55% 26 May 2020 $2,548 $2,014,523 3.91% 0.06% ANZ - Term Deposit 210 "A1+" 1.55% 09 Jun 2020 $2,548 $2,014,523 3.91% 0.06% ANZ - Term Deposit 224 "A1+" 1.55% 23 Jun 2020 $1,274 $1,007,262 1.95% 0.03% ANZ - Term Deposit 273 "A1+" 1.49% 10 Nov 2020 $1,225 $1,003,266 1.95% 0.03% NAB - Term Deposit 112 "A1+" 1.15% 04 Aug 2020 $543 $1,014,823 1.97% 0.02% NAB - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 1.58% 09 Jun 2020 $1,964 $1,519,560 2.95% 0.05% NAB - Term Deposit 126 "A1+" 1.60% 12 May 2020 $1,323 $1,010,870 1.96% 0.03% NAB - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 1.57% 23 Jun 2020 $1,299 $1,010,778 1.96% 0.03% NAB - Term Deposit 118 "A1+" 1.40% 29 Jun 2020 $1,726 $1,503,395 2.92% 0.04% NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 1.54% 12 May 2020 $2,543 $2,023,867 3.93% 0.06% NAB - Term Deposit 155 "A1+" 1.58% 26 May 2020 $1,299 $1,005,627 1.95% 0.03% NAB - Term Deposit 160 "A1+" 1.57% 29 Jun 2020 $2,581 $2,008,689 3.90% 0.06% NAB - Term Deposit 243 "A1+" 1.53% 06 Oct 2020 $2,515 $2,007,126 3.90% 0.06% NAB - Term Deposit 126 "A1+" 1.40% 07 Jul 2020 $1,151 $1,002,263 1.95% 0.03% Macquarie - Term Deposit 196 "A1" 1.70% 27 Oct 2020 $800 $1,011,057 1.96% 0.03% Macquarie - Term Deposit 154 "A1" 1.60% 21 Jul 2020 $1,325 $1,010,670 1.96% 0.03% Macquarie - Term Deposit 97 "A1" 1.30% 03 Aug 2020 $270 $2,525,921 4.90% 0.06% Macquarie - Term Deposit 160 "A1" 1.65% 05 May 2020 $2,034 $1,510,578 2.93% 0.05% Macquarie - Term Deposit 174 "A1" 1.65% 19 May 2020 $2,034 $1,510,578 2.93% 0.05% Macquarie - Term Deposit 180 "A1" 1.65% 02 Jun 2020 $4,068 $3,020,071 5.86% 0.10% Macquarie - Term Deposit 180 "A1" 1.65% 02 Jun 2020 $2,712 $2,013,381 3.91% 0.06% Macquarie - Term Deposit 272 "A1" 1.60% 24 Nov 2020 $2,630 $2,005,699 3.89% 0.06% Macquarie - Term Deposit 275 "A1" 1.65% 04 Dec 2020 $2,712 $2,005,244 3.89% 0.06% Macquarie - Term Deposit 244 "A1" 1.70% 21 Dec 2020 $706 $1,516,536 2.94% 0.05% Macquarie - Term Deposit 230 "A1" 1.70% 07 Dec 2020 $701 $1,506,669 2.92% 0.05% Suncorp - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 1.60% 06 Oct 2020 $1,605 $1,527,026 2.96% 0.05% Suncorp - Term Deposit 210 "A1" 1.58% 26 May 2020 $2,678 $2,078,360 4.03% 0.06% Suncorp - Term Deposit 273 "A1" 1.55% 18 Aug 2020 $2,620 $2,070,995 4.02% 0.06% Suncorp - Term Deposit 273 "A1" 1.70% 15 Dec 2020 $1,397 $1,002,096 1.94% 0.03% Suncorp - Term Deposit 363 "A1" 1.60% 16 Mar 2021 $1,315 $1,001,929 1.94% 0.03% Suncorp - Term Deposit 188 "A1" 1.70% 29 Sep 2020 $1,397 $1,001,723 1.94% 0.03% Suncorp - Term Deposit 202 "A1" 1.68% 13 Oct 2020 $1,381 $1,001,703 1.94% 0.03% Suncorp - Term Deposit 153 "A1" 1.35% 15 Sep 2020 $888 $1,500,888 2.91% 0.04% TD Matured in April $9,348 Sub-total $67,160 $50,967,695 98.92% 1.52%

Total Investments $67,769 $51,523,050 100.00% 1.53% Weighted Average 195 1.53%

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: The investments are in accordance with Council’s adopted Investment Policy 3.2.5 and applicable local government legislation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this.

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 37 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

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:

Actual as at Budget YTD Budget Actual as at June 2019 2019/2020 April 2020 April 2020 %

General * 672,617 400,000 323,300 283,951 71.0% Reserves 710,931 497,600 411,000 418,270 84.1% Endowment Lands 125,727 50,000 38,200 31,258 62.5% External Investments 1,509,275 947,600 772,500 733,478 77.4%

Reserve (Internal Loan) 327,232 257,300 215,100 215,149 83.6% Endowment Lands (Internal Loan) 767,541 707,200 591,500 591,561 83.6% Internal Loans 1,094,773 964,500 806,600 806,711 83.6%

Total Investments 2,604,048 1,912,100 1,579,100 1,540,189 80.5%

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $13,102.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan, specifically:

Our Council

Goal: 11 An efficient local government. Strategy: 11.1 Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required.

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley

That Council RECEIVES the Investment Schedule for 30 April 2020, as attached.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 38 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

8. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

The Presiding Member called for a motion to declare the following item as confidential. As no Member wished to move a motion to that effect, the Presiding Member advised that the meeting would continue as an open meeting.

CR20.69 FORMER QUARRY SITE CAPPING ASSESSMENT AND GROUND WATER INVESTIGATION REPORT

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY:

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

(c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; (e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal - (i) a trade secret; (ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or (iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of a person and Section 5.23 (2) (h).

Regulation 4A – Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996

The determination by the local government of a price for the sale or purchase of property by the local government, and the discussion of such a matter, are matters prescribed for the purposes of section 5.23(2) (h).

Elected Members are reminded they are to ensure this information remains CONFIDENTIAL and should not disclose the content of this report to any other person. To do so would be an improper use of information under s.5.93 of the Local Government Act 1995.

PURPOSE:

To receive Golder and Associates’ Former Quarry and Landfill Site, City Beach: Capping Assessment and Ground Water Investigation Report (April 2020) and approve Golder and Associates to finalise the Site Management Plan (SMP) with the Departments of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) and Health (DOH).

SUMMARY:

In December 2018, DWER requested the Town undertake additional groundwater sampling and capping material thickness assessments at the former quarry site located on the Boulevard, City Beach.

In 2019, the Town engaged Golder and Associates to undertake Capping Assessment and Ground Water Investigations at the Former Quarry Site.

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 39 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

This report recommends Golder and Associates, on the Town’s behalf to submit its Capping Assessment and Groundwater Investigations Report (April 2020) and finalise the Former Quarry’s SMP to/with DWER and DOH.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Address/Property Location: The Boulevard, City Beach Report Date: 7 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Director Corporate and Community Services, Cam Robbins Reporting Officer: Manager Corporate Business, Rob Andrews Contributing Officer: Coordinator Property and Procurement, Paul O’Keefe Reporting Officer Interest Nil Attachment(s): 1. Capping Assessment and Groundwater Investigations Report 2. Letter - 3 December 2018 from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

BACKGROUND:

The Former Quarry Site (Site) is located on the Boulevard, City Beach and is owned freehold by the Town. The Site is a former landfill area and, as such, was identified as a contaminated site by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER).

In 2016, DWER advised an updated Site Management Plan (SMP) was required for the ongoing management of the Site, resulting in the Town engaging Golder and Associates (Golders), to prepare an SMP for its ongoing management. DWER, in conjunction with the Department of Health (DOH), reviewed the initial SMP, with both Departments requesting additional groundwater investigations be conducted prior to finalisation of the SMP.

Golders subsequently undertook groundwater investigations, plus a Tier 1 Risk Assessment, while liaising with DWER, in regard to the testing and analysis of this groundwater. Golders’ installed three (3) monitoring bores, which enabled adequate ground water sampling to be conducted during the initial investigation.

In 2017, the Town submitted Golders’ SMP and Tier 1 Risk Assessment Report to DWER and DOH. However, on 3 December 2018, DWER and DOH advised the Town (letter attached) to undertake further capping assessments and groundwater investigations, prior to finalisation of the SMP and Site reclassification.

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 40 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

At its 26 March 2019 meeting, Council decided:-

That Council:

1. APPROVES the engagement of Golder and Associates to undertake ground water investigations and soil thickness assessments at the former quarry site, as detailed in this report, as required by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation and the Department of Health;

2. APPROVES an unbudgeted expenditure of $23,000 to undertake (1) above by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 to be funded from the Endowment Lands Account; and

3. APPROVES an amount of $45,000 to be included in the Draft 2019/2020 budget to undertake any addition works identified by Golder and Associates as a result of the ground water and soil investigations at the former quarry site.

DETAILS:

Targeted capping thickness assessment and groundwater investigations were undertaken by Golder, with the targeted capping assessment indicating sufficient capping material currently exists at the assessed locations. These targeted locations were those deemed at risk of not meeting DWER’s required capping thickness.

In relation to the groundwater investigations, ongoing monitoring was undertaken, with an additional well installed, down-gradient of the Site. At the time of monitoring, Golder considered the gradient relatively flat, with no significant groundwater level difference across the entire Site.

Nevertheless, the groundwater flow, based on historical monitoring rounds, indicates the flow is towards the West-North-West, which results in residents and ecosystems located west (down-gradient) of the Site, as potential receptors. As described in the 2017 Groundwater Monitoring Report, very few registered bores in the vicinity of the Site were labelled as bores for production or irrigation purposes.

Private bores are not required to be registered, however, there may be residential groundwater users in this area. Migration of groundwater off-site may present an aesthetic risk to residents (odour), if extracted for irrigation or other uses, such as filling swimming pools. To date, the Town has yet to receive any complaints in relation to odorous groundwater.

During well installation, Golder noted the houses immediately down-gradient (along Alkoomie Terrace) were relatively high density with minimal gardens and generally built to the property boundary. Further offsite, the Ocean Gardens Retirement Village irrigation bore and Bore 30 (located on the median strip on the Boulevard) were considered unlikely to be located within the area of potential groundwater impact.

The Wembley Golf Course (WGC) was also considered low risk as the groundwater flow is West-North-West, rather than North. Kalinda Lake, which is topped up with groundwater, is unlikely to be impacted by groundwater from underneath the Site, as other parameters, such as pH levels, were not consistent. WGC have been advised to regularly monitor and test the water quality at Kalinda Lake, which they currently do.

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 41 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

The Indian Ocean is located approximately 1.8 km West of Site and, as such, it is not anticipated the marine receptors will be impacted by the Site’s groundwater.

Based on Golders’ findings from its Assessment and groundwater monitoring, the Site’s land use and configuration does not currently pose an unacceptable risk. The proposed SMP should continue to be adopted with DWER and DOH, noting any future land use change will require a further assessment of Site conditions.

Site Management Plan and Reclassification

Golders will update and amend the SMP to accurately reflect the outcomes of the groundwater and soil thickness investigations and resubmit it to DWER, along with liaising with them, on behalf of the Town.

Until the SMP is finalised, DWER will not provide a final classification for the Site, resulting in the current classification, ‘Possibly Contaminated - Investigation Required', remaining. Once the final classification is established, the Town can either maintain or monitor the conditions, or it may be able to transact on the Site.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

DWER on 15 September 2015, classified the Former Quarry Site under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003, as "Possibly Contaminated - Investigation Required.”

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: Exposure of humans to groundwater on Site is unlikely to occur given its depth and irrigation is not present, or likely to be present, on the Site for the foreseeable future.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Any additional funding required for Golders to finalise the SMP and represent the Town, will be funded from the 2019-20 budget line item “Old Quarry Site Management”

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

MINUTES – COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 18 MAY 2020 42 COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 18 MAY 2020

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley

That Council:-

1. RECEIVES the Former Quarry and Landfill Site, City Beach: Capping Assessment and Ground Water Investigations Report (April 2020) prepared by Golder and Associates, as required by the Departments of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) and Health (DOH);

2. APPROVES Golder and Associates to represent the Town in submitting its Capping Assessment and Ground Water Investigations Report to DWER and DOH ; and

3. APPROVES Golder and Associates to represent the Town in the finalisation of the Site Management Plan, in conjunction with DWER and DOH.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE – 18 MAY 2020 43 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

10.1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES – APRIL 2020

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:-

1. RECEIVES the report on the Financial Statements for period ended 30 April 2020; and

2. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY a budget reallocation of $17,000 from South City Beach Kiosk – Concrete cancer repairs to City Beach Lookout Tower refurbishment.

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To receive the Financial Statements for period 30 April 2020.

SUMMARY:

The April 2020 financial statements have been completed. Comments have been provided on the financial position compared to budget including any permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on financial results with respect up to 30 April 2020.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies. Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice.  Information For the Council/Committee to note.

Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 19 May 2020 Responsible Executive/Director: Director Corporate and Community Services, Cam Robbins Responsible Manager: Manager Finance, Roy Ruitenga Reporting Officer: N/A Reporting Officer Interest Nil File Reference: N/A Attachments: Financial Statements April 2020

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 7 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

DETAILS:

Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures against the year to date budget.

Operations Capital Expenditure $60,000 $25,000 $50,000 $20,000

$40,000 $15,000 $30,000 $'000 $10,000

$'000 $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $0 Capital Expenditure -$10,000 Current Current Budget $21,646 YTD Budget YTD Actual Budget YTD Budget $15,283 Revenue $48,638 $45,471 $44,471 YTD Actual $6,072 Expenditure $51,832 $41,978 $40,293 Operating Profit/(Loss) -$3,194 $3,493 $4,178

Reserves & ELA Transfers Net Current Assets ($'000) Current $1,000 Liabilities - $500 $8,512 $0 -$500 $'000 -$1,000 -$1,500 -$2,000 Current YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Transfers to/(from) -$2,381 $71 $6,880 Current Assets Reserves $55,160 Transfers to/(from) $554 $233 $1,117 Endowment Lands

Investments ($'000) Endowment Lands, $2,521

General Funds $18,120

Reserves, $30,882

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 8 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

The following comments are provided and should be read in conjunction with the Statement of Financial Activity for April 2020 (Rate Setting Statement) in Attachment 1.

1. Operating Revenue

Operating revenue year to date is $44.5 million compared to YTD budget of $45.5 million, giving an unfavourable variance of $1 million. Significant variances are as follows:

(a) Fees and Charges

Actual fees and charges year to date is $15.2 million compared to budget of $16.5 million, giving an unfavourable of $1.2 million of $7.4%. The COVID-19 has had an impact on the Town’s revenue with the golf course partially closed (reopened 11 April 2020 and driving range reopened 22 April 2020) and the aquatic centre completely closed during April. It should be noted that all centres have reopened for business in May with strict adherence to COVID-19 social distancing rules. The Wembley golf course in particular has performed very well during May 2020 and should meet revenue targets for the month.

Unfavourable variances for April include:

• Planning fees $114k under YTD budget; • Bold Park Aquatic Centre $307k under YTD budget; • Sports ground hire $42k under YTD budget; • Wembley Golf Course $267k under YTD budget; • Commercial Lease $140k under YTD budget; • Parking Control revenue $122k under YTD budget;

(b) Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

Actual Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions for April 2020 YTD is $1.3 million compared to YTD budget of $1.1 million, giving a favourable variance of $148k or 12.5%. Various reimbursements contributing to the variances including tenancy reimbursements of outgoings and West Coast Highway recoup of maintenance works from Main Roads.

2. Operating Expenses

Operating expenses year to date is $40.3 million compared to budget of $42 million, giving a favourable variance of $1.7 million or 5.6%. Significant variances are as follows:

(a) Materials and Contracts

Actual expenditure for April YTD is $13.2 million against YTD budget of $14 million, giving a favourable variance of $779k or 5.6%.

The following timing variances exist:

• Clubs leased premises non-capital works $197k under YTD budget; • Planning program expenditure $208k under YTD budget; • Sports Grounds maintenance non-capital works $80k under YTD budget; • Parks building non-capital works $150k under YTD budget; • Parks ground maintenance non-capital works $88k under YTD budget.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 9 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

(b) Employee Costs

Actual expenditure for April YTD is $15.9 million against YTD budget of $16.6 million, giving a favourable variance of $757k, or 4.5%. This is largely due to vacancies across the organisation with some positions remaining vacant and savings in casual labour as operations are impacted by COVED-19.

The legal costs expended until 30 April 2020 is $388,877.96.

3. Net Operating Result

The net operating surplus from operations is $11.9 million compared to YTD budget of $11.3 million, giving a favourable variance of $662k.

Net Operating Result 28.0 24.0 20.0 16.0 Budget 12.0 Actual 8.0 4.0 0.0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

4. Capital Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

The total amount of funds received for the Town's capital works program for the period ended 30 April 2020 is currently under budget by $1.1 million. This is predominantly due to a timing variance with respect to grant funded capital road infrastructure projects ($850k) and Perth Netball Association – Court lighting ($288k) which are currently in progress and will be claimed over the forthcoming months.

5. Capital Works Programs

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 30 April 2020 is $6.1 million against budget of $15.3 million, giving a favourable variance of $9.2 million. It should be noted that of the $21.6 million annual capital budget, some $8 million has been identified to be carried forward, including major works Perry Lakes Water Replenishment project, Lake Monger Community Shed, Wembley Driving Range conveyor belt replacement, Dodd Street and Fred Burton car park upgrades.

A brief overview of the capital works programs to date shows the following timing variances:

• Buildings - $957k spent against year to date budget of $3.3 million; • Parks and Reserves - $1.6 million spent against year to date budget of $3.9 million; • Roads and Lanes - $2.6 million spent against year to date budget of $5 million; • Carparks - $13k spent against year to date budget of $45k; • Footpaths - $182k spent against year to date budget of $1million.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 10 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

6. Cash Surplus (Closing Funds)

The cash surplus as at 30 April 2020 is $8.6 million which is above the year to date budget of $7.5 million, giving a favourable variance of $1.1 million. The surplus is predominantly due to the under expenditure with respect to materials and contracts and capital works.

This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and the carrying out of budgeted capital works. Given the impact of COVID-19 on Council operations, it is expected that the year end result will be a deficit.

Cash Surplus ($ millions) 30.0 28.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 Budget 14.0 12.0 Actual 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

7. Material Variances

Permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items are normally reported upon. As at 30 April 2020, there are a few material timing variances to report upon as follows:

• Building capital works ($2.3 million) under YTD budget with Lake Monger Community shed ($968k) and Golf Course Machinery Shed ($751k) projects under budget; • Parks and reserves capital works ($2.4 million) under YTD budget predominantly due to the Perth Netball Association – conversion of court install light ($713k) under budget, Perry Lakes Water Replenishment project ($810k) under budget, various parks playground equipment ($202k) under budget, City Beach Tennis Club – hard court surface refurbishment ($70k) under budget and Beecroft Park improvement program ($100k) under budget. • Roads and lanes capital works ($2.4 million) under YTD budget predominantly due to road surfacing projects Oceanic Drive (Sunnyside – Cale) ($84k), Windarra Drive ($102k) and Rochdale Rd (McClemans - Boundary) ($115k), Ruislip St (Gregory - Kimberley) ($128k) under budget. • Planning - Leederville Hub Planning and Strategic Projects are currently $208k and $125K under YTD budget.

The variances noted are generally attributable to works identified as carry forward works for next financial year, timing differences or the profile of the monthly distribution of the budget, over the year.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 11 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

BUDGET REALLOCATIONS AND AMENDMENTS

Refurbishment of City Beach Lookout Tower. (S1810)

An amount of $57,000 has been adopted by the Council for the refurbishment of City Beach Lookout Tower in 2019/2020 budget. Following a Public RFQ process, the tenders exceed this budget allocation. The lowest and preferred contractor submission was $73,770. It is proposed that $17,000 be allocated from capital project South City Beach Kiosk – Concrete cancer repairs (C1595), as this project has been deferred.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: The financial statements have been produced in accordance with the adopted budget for the 2019/2020 financial year and in accordance with applicable local government legislation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impact on Council funds.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance

Goal 11: A strong performing local government

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 12 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

10.2 REGISTER OF PETITIONS AS AT 28 APRIL 2020

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION

That Council NOTES the status of Petitions, as at 28 April 2020, as detailed in this report.

PURPOSE:

This report provides an update on Petitions received by Council, as at 28 April 2020.

SUMMARY:

Council was provided with an update on the status of petitions received at the Ordinary Meeting of 20 February 2020. This report details Petitions received to date which remain active. It is noted that no petitions were received at the March or April 2020 Ordinary Council Meetings.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council, eg adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes and policies. Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice.  Information For the Council/Committee to note.

Address/Property Location: Town of Cambridge Administration - 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat Report Date: 19 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Chief Executive Officer – John Giorgi, JP Reporting Officers: Coordinator Governance and Office of the CEO – Lee Gyomorei Contributing Officer: Not Applicable. Reporting Officer Interest: Nil. Attachment(s): 1. Register of Petitions.

BACKGROUND:

As part of the Town’s ongoing governance improvements, it was determined to provide Council with an update report on Petitions received on a regular basis.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 13 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

DETAILS:

Petitions presented at Ordinary Meetings are considered by Council, and if received, are actioned by the Town’s Administration. Attachment 1 details Petitions received to date which remain active.

The following graph details Petitions received from July 2009 to 28 April 2020:

Number of Petitions Received - July 2009 to Date

14 13 13 12 12 11

10 8 8 8 7 7 6 6

4 3 2 2

0 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

The following graph details the status of petitions received from July 2018 to date:

Petitions Received - July 2018 to Date 60 52.63% 50 47.37% 40

19 20

9 10 10

0 Complete Not Complete Petitions Received July 2018 to Date

No %

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 14 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

(a) Town of Cambridge Meeting Procedures Local Law 2019.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: Reporting on the status of petitions, and adoption of the Administration’s recommendation detailed in this report, provides for good governance and transparency. Risks will vary for reports on each individual petition.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no financial impact through adoption of the Administration’s recommendation, however separate reports on each individual Petition may have financial implications.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Our Council

Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance

Strategy 9.1: Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and knowledge.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This matter has been assessed under Policy 1.2.11 – Community Engagement, and does not require community consultation, as the matter is administrative in nature.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 15 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

10.3 REGISTER OF NOTICES OF MOTION AS AT 20 MAY 2020

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION

That Council NOTES the status of Notices of Motion as at 20 May 2020.

PURPOSE:

This report provides an update on Notices of Motion presented to Council as at 20 May 2020.

SUMMARY:

Report CR20.22 – ‘Register of Notices of Motion – Status as at 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019’, was presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 25 February 2020. The report detailed Notices of Motion presented to council for the full calendar year of 2019. This report details Notices of Motion presented to Council from 1 January 2020 to date.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council, eg adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes and policies. Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice.  Information For the Council/Committee to note.

Address/Property Location: Town of Cambridge Administration - 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat Report Date: 20 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Chief Executive Officer – John Giorgi, JP Reporting Officers: Coordinator Governance and Office of the CEO – Lee Gyomorei Contributing Officer: Not Applicable. Reporting Officer Interest: Nil. Attachment(s): 1. Register of Notices of Motion – 2020.

BACKGROUND:

As part of the Town’s ongoing governance improvements, it was determined to provide Council with an update report on Notices of Motion on a regular basis.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 16 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

DETAILS:

Notices of Motion presented at Council Meetings are considered, and if adopted, are actioned by the Town’s Administration. Attachment 1 details Notices of Motion presented to date for 2020. A total of eight (8) Notices of Motion have been presented to date.

It is noted that the Notice of Motion put to the Special Council Meeting of Friday, 15 May 2020, was deferred to a Special Council Meeting on Thursday, 21 May 2020, and is therefore shown as yet to be determined at the time of writing.

Graph 1 below details the number of Notices of Motion received in 2020, and the outcome for each, depicted by number and percentage of total.

Graph 1

Number of Notices of Motion - 2020 9 120.00 100.00 8 100.00 7

6 80.00

5 60.00 4 8

3 40.00 No 25.00 25.00 25.00 2 12.50 % 12.50 20.00 1 2 2 2 0.00 1 0 1 0.000 0 0.00 Motion Lost Motion Motion Deferred Motion Withdrawn Yet to Determined be No Presented in 2020 Adopted as Amended Adopted as Presented Motion Ruled Out of Order

Graph 2 below details Notices of Motion submitted by each Elected Member for 2020 (number and percentage of total).

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 17 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Graph 2

Notices of Motion by Elected Member - 2020 (No and %) 60 50.00 50

20 No 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 % 10 4 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0 0.00 1 0 0.00 1 1 0 Cr Cr Gary Mack Cr Ian Everett Cr Rod Bradley Cr Kate Barlow Cr James Nelson Cr Mayor Keri Shannon Keri Mayor Cr Kate McKerracher Cr Alaine Haddon-Casey Cr Cr Andres Timmermanis Andres Cr

Graph 3 below shows a total of Notices of Motion for the period 2009 to 2020.

Graph 3

Total Number of Notices of Motion 2009-2020 80

70 67

48 50

40 32 30 24 29 20

8 10 7 6 4 3 2 2 0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 18 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

(a) Town of Cambridge Meeting Procedures Local Law 2019.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: Reporting on the status of Notices of Motion, and adoption of the Administration’s recommendation detailed in this report, provides for good governance and transparency. Risks will vary for reports on each individual Notice of Motion.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no financial impact through adoption of the recommendation, however separate reports on each individual adopted Notice of Motion may have financial implications.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Our Council

Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance

Strategy 9.1: Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and knowledge.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This matter has been assessed under Policy 1.2.11 – Community Engagement, and does not require community consultation, as the matter is administrative in nature.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 19 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

10.4 REGISTER OF DELEGATIONS EXERCISED – 1 JULY 2019 – 31 MARCH 2020

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION

That Council NOTES the Register of Delegations Exercised for the period 1 July 2019 to 31 March 2020.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is for Council to receive the Register of Delegations Exercised for the period 1 July 2019 to 31 March 2020.

SUMMARY:

This report provides Council with details of Delegations Exercised for the given period, and is in addition to regular reports presented to Council in relation to Building Permits approved under Delegated Authority, and Delegated Decisions and Notifications (Planning matters).

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council, eg adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes and policies. Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi- When the Council determines an application/matter that directly Judicial affects a person’s right and interests.  Information For the Council/Committee to note.

Address/Property Location: Town of Cambridge Administration, 1 Bold Park, Floreat Report Date: 19 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Chief Executive Officer, John Giorgi, JP Reporting Officer: Coordinator Governance and Office of the CEO – Lee Gyomorei Contributing Officer: Director Infrastructure and Works – Kelton Hincks Manager Regulatory Services – Steve Cleaver Manager Community Services - Priya Narula Manager Bold Park Aquatic – Stefan Humphreys Reporting Officer Interest: Nil. Attachments: 1. Register of Delegations Exercised – 1 July 2019 – 31 March 2020.

BACKGROUND:

As part of the Town’s ongoing governance improvements, it has been determined to provide Council with an update on the exercise of Delegations, in addition to those already reported in relation to Building and Planning matters.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 20 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

DETAILS:

This report provides Council with an update on the exercise of Delegations by the Town’s Officers in relation to the following:

1. CEO – governance matters, authorisations under various Acts and Local Laws. 2. Library – waiving of fees. 3. Bold Park Aquatic – deferrals, granting of discounts, waiving of fees and write off of debts. 4. Infrastructure and Works – Payments from the Municipal or Trust Funds.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

1. Register of Delegated Authority.

There is no legal requirement to submit a list of delegations to the Council. However, it is best practice to do so.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: Reporting on the exercise of Delegations, and adoption of the Administration’s recommendation detailed in this report, provides for good governance and transparency.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no financial impact through adoption of the recommendation, however separate reports on each individual adopted Notice of Motion may have financial implications.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Our Council

Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance

Strategy 9.1: Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and knowledge.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This matter has been assessed under Policy 1.2.11 – Community Engagement, and does not require community consultation, as the matter is administrative in nature.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 21 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

10.5 NATIONAL REDRESS SCHEME – PARTICIPATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. NOTES the consultation undertaken, and information provided by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries regarding the national Redress Scheme, and the participation of Western Australian Local Governments;

2. NOTES that the Town of Cambridge will not be included in the Western Australian Government’s amended Participation Declaration and afforded the associated financial and administrative coverage, unless the Town of Cambridge makes a specific and formal decision to be included;

3. ENDORSES participation by the Town of Cambridge in the National Redress Scheme as a State Government Institution, and inclusion of the Town as part of the State Government’s Declaration;

4. AUTHORISES, subject to (3) above being approved, to the Chief Executive Officer to execute a service agreement with the State if a Redress Application is received; and

5. NOTES that a confidential report will be provided if a Redress Application is received by the Town of Cambridge.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with background information relating to National Redress Scheme, the State Government’s decision in relation to the Scheme, and considerations for the Town of Cambridge’s participation in the Scheme.

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with:

1. Background information and the Western Australian State Government’s decision in relation to the national Redress Scheme.

2. Key considerations and administrative arrangements for the Town of Cambridge to participate in the National Redress Scheme.

3. The opportunity to endorse the Town of Cambridge’s participation as part of the State Government’s declaration in the national Redress Scheme.

4. The opportunity to authorise the Chief Executive Officer to execute a service agreement with the State, if a Redress Application is received.

SUMMARY:

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Royal Commission) was established in 2013. State Parliament has passed legislation for the Government and Western Australian based non-government organisations to participate in the National Redress Scheme. All State and Territory Governments, and many major non-government organisations and church groups have joined the Scheme.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 22 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

 Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council, eg adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets. Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes and policies. Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi- When the Council determines an application/matter that directly Judicial affects a person’s right and interests. Information For the Council/Committee to note.

Address/Property Location: Town of Cambridge Administration, 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat Report Date: 18 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Chief Executive Officer, John Giorgi, JP Reporting Officer: Chief Executive Officer, John Giorgi, JP Contributing Officer: Coordinator Governance and Office of CEO- Lee Gyomorei. Reporting Officer Interest: Nil. Attachments: 1. Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries’ National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse – Information Paper. 2. Redress Database – Town of Cambridge. 3. LGIS Update – April 2019. 4. Email dated 17 April 2020 from Department of Local Government, Sports and Cultural Industries

BACKGROUND:

On 17 April 2020, the Department of Local Government, Sports and Cultural Industries (DLGSCI) sent an email to the Town advising as follows:

“The Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) is part of the Western Australian Government (State Government) implementing reforms from the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The establishment of a National Redress Scheme (Scheme) was a key recommendation of the Royal Commission to recognise the harm suffered by survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. DLGSC consulted with WA local governments throughout 2019 and early 2020 focusing on raising awareness of the Scheme (including an Information Paper) and identifying how participation of the sector may be best approached.

Following this consultation and in line with the WALGA State Council resolution on 3 July 2019, the State Government (December 2019):

1. Noted the consultation undertaken with the WA local government sector about the National Redress Scheme; 2. Noted the options for WA local government participation in the Scheme; 3. Agreed to WA local governments participating in the Scheme as State Government institutions and to include local governments (that formally indicate a desire to do so) within an amended State Government participation declaration;

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 23 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

4. Agreed to the State Government covering payments to the survivor (LGs that receive an application will cover their own information search / administration costs and the delivery of an apology, if requested by the survivor).

A Memorandum of Understanding has now been signed with WALGA that sets out the key principles of the WA local government sector participating in the Scheme with the State Government.

DLGSCI acknowledges the current situation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges being faced by the WA local government sector and the communities you work with and support. Given the priority is to make redress available to as many survivors as possible and that organisations have until 30 June 2020 to join the Scheme, local governments are asked to progress some key actions even during this difficult time.

It is important to note the financial and administrative coverage offered by the State will only be afforded to WA local governments that decide (via a resolution of Council) to join the Scheme as a State Government institution, as part of the State’s amended participation declaration….”

The DLGSCI is seeking a response by 31 May 2020, as to whether the Town will be participating in the National Redress scheme. (refer Attachment 4).

The Royal Commission was established in 2013 to investigate failures of public and private institutions to protect children from sexual abuse. The Royal Commission released three reports throughout the inquiry:

1. Working with Children Checks (August 2015); 2. Redress and Civil Litigation (September 2015); and 3. Criminal Justice (August 2017).

Royal Commission Final Report

The Royal Commission’s Final Report (15 December 2017) incorporated findings and recommendations of the three previous reports, and contained a total of 409 recommendations, of which 310 are applicable to the State Government and the broader Western Australian community.

The implications of the Royal Commission’s recommendations are twofold. The first is accountability for historical breaches in the duty of care that occurred before 1 July 2018 within any institution, with the second being future facing to ensure better child safe approaches are implemented holistically moving forward.

The scope of the report addresses only the historical element of institutional child sexual abuse through the National Redress Scheme.

All levels of Australian society, including the local government sector, and the Town of Cambridge (Town), will be required to consider leading practice approaches to child safeguarding separately in the future.

National Redress Scheme

The Royal Commission’s Report ‘Redress and Civil Litigation’ (September 2015) recommended the establishment of a single National Redress Scheme (the Scheme) to recognise the harm suffered by survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 24 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

The Scheme acknowledges that children were sexually abused, recognises the suffering endured, holds institutions accountable, and helps those who have been abused access counselling, psychological services, an apology and a redress payment.

The Scheme commenced on 1 July 2018, will run for ten years, and offers eligible applicants three elements of redress:

1. A direct personal response (apology) from the responsible institution, if requested; 2. Funds to access counselling and psychological care; and 3. A monetary payment of up to $150,000.

All State and Territory Governments, and many major non-government organisations and church groups have joined the Scheme.

Legislation has been passed by Parliament for the State Government and Western Australian based non-government organisations to participate in the National Redress Scheme. The State Government commenced participation in the Scheme from 1 January 2019.

Under the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018, local government may be considered a State Government institution [s111(1)(b)].

A decision was made at the time of joining the Scheme to exclude Western Australian Local Governments from the State Government’s participation declaration. This was to allow consultation to occur with the sector about the Scheme, and for fuller consideration of how the Western Australian Local Government Sector could best participate.

DETAILS:

Following extensive consultation, the State Government (December 2019):

1. Noted the consultations undertaken to date with the Western Australian Local Government sector about the National redress Scheme;

2. Noted the options for Western Australian Local Government participation in the Scheme;

3. Agreed to Local Governments participating in the Scheme as State Government Institutions, with the State Government covering payments to the survivor; and

4. Agrees to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSCI) leading further negotiations with the Western Australian Local Government sector regarding Local Government funding costs, other than payments to the survivor, including counselling, legal and administrative costs.

The following will be covered for Local Governments participating in the Scheme as a State Government Institution and part of the State Government’s declaration:

1. Redress monetary payment provided o the survivor;

2. Costs in relation to counselling, legal and administration (including the coordination of requests for information and record keeping in accordance with the State Records Act 2000); and

3. Trained staff to coordinate and facilitate a Direct Personal Response (DPR – Apology) to the survivor, if requested, on a fee for service basis, with costs to be covered by the individual Local Government) (see below for further information).

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 25 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

State Government financial support for Local Government participation in the Scheme, as set out, will ensure that Redress is available to as many Western Australian survivors of institutional child sexual abuse as possible.

Individual Local Governments participating in the Scheme as a State Government Institution, with the State will be responsible for:

1. Providing the State with the necessary (facilities and services) information to participate in the Scheme;

2. Resources and costs associated with gathering their own (internal information and providing that information (Request for Information) to the State (if they receive a Redress Application); and

3. Costs associated with the delivery of a DPR (apology), if requested (based on a standard service fee, plus travel and accommodation depending on the survivor’s circumstance). The State’s decision includes that all requested DPR’s will be coordinated and facilitated by the Redress Coordination Unit – Department of Justice, on every occasion.

At the State Council Meeting of 4 March 2020, the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) determined to:

1. Acknowledge the State Government’s decision to include the participation of Local Governments in the National Redress Scheme as part of the State Government’s declaration;

2. Endorse the negotiation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Template Service Agreement with the State Government; and

3. Endorse by ‘Flying Minute’ the MOU prior to execution, in order to uphold requirements to respond within legislative timeframes.

The State and WALGA will sign an MOU to reflect the principles of Western Australian Local Governments participating in the Scheme as State Government Institutions, and being part of the State Government’s declaration.

State Agencies, led by the DLGSCI, WALGA and Local Government Professionals WA, will support all Local Governments to prepare to participate in the Scheme from 1 July 2020 (or earlier, subject to completing the necessary arrangements).

The State’s decision allows for the State Government’s Scheme participation declaration to be amended to include Local Government, and this report seeks endorsement of the Town of Cambridge’s participation in the Scheme. As an independent entity, and for absolute clarity, it is essential that the Town of Cambridge formally indicates via a decision of council, the intention to be considered a State Government Institution for the purposes of the National Redress Scheme, and be included in the State Government’s amended participation declaration.

The Town of Cambridge will not be included in the State Government’s amended declaration, unless it formally decides to be included.

The financial and administrative coverage offered BY THE State will only be afforded to Western Australian Local Governments who join the Scheme as a State Government Institution as part of the State Government’s amended declaration.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 26 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

The option also exists for the Town of Cambridge to formally decide not to participate in the Scheme, either individually, or as part of the State Government’s declaration.

Decision to Not Participate in the Scheme – Considerations for the Town

Should Council formally decide via resolution not to participate with the State Government or in the Scheme altogether, considerations for the Town would include:

1. Divergence from the Commonwealth, State, WALGA and the broader Local Government sector’s position on the Scheme (noting the Commonwealth’s preparedness to name and shame non participating organisations).

2. Potential reputational damage at a State, sector and community level.

3. Complete removal of the State Government’s coverage of costs and administrative support with the Town having full responsibility and liability for any potential claim.

4. Acknowledgement that the only remaining method of redress for a victim and survivor would be through civil litigation, with no upper limit, posing a significant financial risk to the Town.

Decision to Participate in the Scheme – Considerations for the Town

The following is a list of considerations, should Council determine to participate in the Scheme.

1. Executing a Service Agreement

All Royal Commission information is confidential, and it is not known if the Town will receive a Redress Application.

A Service Agreement will only be executed if the Town receives a Redress Application. The Town needs to give authority to an appropriate position or Officer to execute a service agreement with the State, if a Redress Application is received.

Timeframes for responding to a Request for Information (RFI) are three weeks for priority Applications, and seven weeks for non-priority Applications. A priority Application timeframe (3 weeks) will be outside of most Council meeting cycles, and therefore it is necessary to provide the authorisation to execute an agreement in advance.

2. Reporting to council if/when an Application is Received

Council will receive a confidential report, notifying when a Redress Application has been received. All information in the report will be de-identified, but will make Council ware that an Application has been received. 3. Application Processing/Staffing and confidentiality

Administratively, the Town will determine:

3.1 Which position(s) will be responsible for receiving Applications and responding to Requests for Information.

3.2 Support mechanisms for staff members processing Requests for Information.

The appointed person(s) will have a level of seniority in order to understand the magnitude of the undertaking, and to manage the potential conflicts of interest and confidentiality requirements.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 27 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

4. Record Keeping

The State Records Office advised (April 2019) all relevant agencies, including Local Governments, of a ‘disposal freeze’ initiated under the State Records Act 2000 (the Act) to protect past and current records that may be relevant to actual and alleged incidents of child sexual abuse. The Town’s record keeping practices as a result, have been modified to ensure the secure protection and retention of relevant records. These records (or part thereof) may be required to be provided to the State Government’s Redress coordination Unit in relation to a Redress Application.

The Redress Coordination Unit (Department of Justice) is the State record holder for Redress, and will keep copies of all documentation and RFI responses. Local Governments will be required to keep their own records regarding a Redress Application in a confidential and secure manner, and in line with all requirements in the Act.

5. Redress Decisions

The Town should note that decisions regarding Redress Applicant eligibility and the responsible institution(s), are made by Independent Decision Makers, based on the information received by the Applicant and any RFI responses. The State Government and the Town do not have any influence on the decision made and there is not right of appeal.

Consultation

The State Government, through the DLGSCI, consulted with the Western Australian Local Government sector and other key stakeholders on the Roy Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2018, and the national Redress Scheme in 2019.

The consultation throughout 2019 has focused on the National Redress Scheme, with the aim of:

1. Raising awareness about the Scheme; 2. Identifying whether Western Australian Local Governments are considering participating in the Scheme; 3. Identifying how participation may be facilitated; and 4. Enabling advice to be provided to Government on the longer term participation of Western Australian Local Governments.

Between March and May 2019, the DLGSCI completed consultations that reached 115 out of 137 Western Australian Local Governments via:

1. Webinars to Local Governments, predominately in regional and remote areas; 2. Presentations at twelve WALGA Zone and Local Government Professional (WA) meetings; 3. Responses to email and telephone enquiries from individual Local Governments.

It was apparent from the consultations, Local Governments were most commonly concerned about:

1. Potential cost of Redress payments; 2. Availability of historical information; 3. Capacity of Local Governments to provide a Direct Personal Response (apology), if requested by Redress recipients; 4. Process ad obligations relating to maintaining confidentiality if Redress Applications are received, particularly in small Local Governments; 5. Lack of insurance coverage of Redress payments by LGIS, meaning Local Governments would need to self-fund participation and Redress payments.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 28 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

In April 2019, LGIS published and distributed an update regarding the considerations and potential liability position of the Western Australian Local Government sector in relation to the National Redress Scheme (Attachment 3).

The WALGA State Council, at its meeting of 3 July 2019, recommended that:

“1. WA local government participation in the State’s National Redress Scheme declaration with full financial coverage by the State Government, be endorsed in principle, noting that further engagement with the sector will occur in the second half of 2019.

2. WALGA continue to promote awareness of the National Redress Scheme, and note that local governments may wish to join the Scheme in the future to demonstrate a commitment to the victims of institutional child sexual abuse.”

The DLGSCI distributed an Information Paper (Attachment 1) to Western Australian Local Governments on 3 February 2020, made a presentation at a WALGA hosted webinar on 18 February 2020, and presented to all WALGA Zone meetings in late February 2020.

The State’s decision, in particular to cover the costs/payments to the survivor, has taken into account the feedback provided by Local Governments during the consultation detailed above.

Local Governments participating in the Scheme are required to complete an “Institution/Organisation Details” spreadsheet, as shown at Attachment 2.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

The Town in agreeing to join the Scheme, is required to adhere to legislative requirements set out in the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018.

Authorisation of an appropriately appointed person to execute a service agreement with the State Government, if a Redress Application is received, will be in accordance with s9.49A(4) of the Local government Act 1995.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Non Participation in the Scheme

High Should Council determine not to participate in the Scheme, the risk would be considered to be high, as the decision would:

1. Be a divergence from the Commonwealth State, WALGA and broader Local Government sector position in relation to the Scheme. 2. Have the potential for reputational damage at a State, sector and community level. 3. Remove State Government coverage of costs and administrative support, and leave the Town will full responsibility and liability for any potential claim. 4. Leave any victim or survivor with civil litigation, with no upper limit, as the only method of redress.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 29 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Participation in the Scheme

Low Should Council determine to participate in the Scheme, the risk would be considered to be low, as the decision would:

1. Be in accordance with Commonwealth State, WALGA and broader Local Government sector position in relation to the Scheme. 2. Be received positively at a State, sector and community level. 3. Retain State Government coverage of costs and administrative support, and reduce the Town’s level of responsibility and liability for any potential claim. 4. Provide victims and survivors with a method of redress.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The State Government’s decision will cover the following financial costs for local governments:

1. Redress monetary payment provided to the survivor;

2. Costs in relation to counselling, legal and administration (including the coordination or requests for information and record keeping); and

3. Trained staff to coordinate and facilitate a Direct Personal Response (DPR – Apology) to the survivor, if requested (on a fee for service basis, with costs to be covered by the individual Local Government).

The only financial cost the Town may incur will be the payment of the DPR’s, which is on an ‘as requested’ basis by the survivor. This will be based on the standard of service fee of $3,000 plus travel and accommodation, depending on the survivor’s circumstances. All requested DPR’s will be coordinated and facilitated by the Redress Coordination Unit (Department of Justice).

The State’s decision also mitigates a significant financial risk to the Town in terms of waiving rights to future claims. Accepting an offer of redress has the effect of releasing the responsible participating organisation and their officials (other than the abuser(s)) from civil liability for instances of sexual abuse and related non-sexual abuse of the person that is within the scope of the Scheme. This means that the person who receives redress through the Scheme agrees to not bring or continue any civil claims against the responsible participating organisation in relation to any abuse within the scope of the Scheme.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Our Council

Goal 12: Advocacy for the Community

Strategy 12.1 foster key relationships with all levels of government and other major stakeholders.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

The State Government has undertaken extensive consultation with the Western Australian Local Government sector. This report is presented to Council as part of that consultation process. As such, in accordance with the assessment criteria of Policy 1.2.11, it has been determined that community engagement by the Town is not required.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 30 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

10.6 STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MATTERS POLICY – REVIEW AND ADOPTION

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the review of Local Planning Policy 1.5: ‘Response to State Administrative Tribunal Matters’ (LPP1.5) and to revoke it as a planning policy and to adopt a new revised Policy No;1.2.22 – ‘State Administrative Tribunal Matters’, under the Local Government Act 1995.

SUMMARY:

Council requested a report on reviewing LPP1.5 at its Ordinary Meeting of 24 March 2020 (held on 26 March 2020 and 31 March 2020).

The current SAT planning Policy is solely focussed on planning and development matters. The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) was established in Western Australia in 2005 as an independent body that makes and reviews a range of administrative decisions. The SAT was established by the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (SAT Act) and the State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Act 2004 (Conferral Act). The Conferral Act refers to more than 130 existing Acts of Parliament, known as enabling Acts. The enabling Acts give the SAT the jurisdiction to make decisions on specific matters. Individuals, businesses, public officials and vocational boards can bring before the SAT many different types of applications related to civil, commercial and personal matters. These range from reviews of multi-million dollar tax judgements and dog destruction orders to disciplinary proceedings, guardianship questions and town planning and compensation issues.

In view of the above, it is recommended that the Policy be rescinded as a planning policy and adopted as a general policy , which would also apply to statutes, such as; Planning and Development Act 2005, Local Government Act 1995, Building Act 2011, Dog Act 1976, Public Health Act 2016, Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911.

Proposed amendments have been drafted to LPP1.5, taking into account recent State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) matters and the stated reasons for Council’s decision to require a review of LPP1.5.

The amendments are considered ‘minor’.

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 31 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Address/Property Location: Town of Cambridge 1 Bold Park Drive FLOREAT Report Date: 24 April 2020 Responsible Officer: Chief Executive Officer – John Giorgi, JP Reporting Officers: Chief Executive Officer John Giorgi, JP Manager Strategic Planning, Brett Cammell Contributing Officer: Director Planning and Development – Marlaine Lavery Manager Statutory Planning, Jennifer Heyes Coordinator Governance and Office of CEO, Lee Gyomorei Reporting Officer Interest: Nil Attachment(s): 1. Current Local Planning Policy 1.5: Response to State Administrative Tribunal Matters 2. New proposed draft Policy No; 1.2.22- State Administrative Tribunal Matters – showing substantive changes in red

BACKGROUND:

28 August 2018 Ordinary Meeting of Council DV18.119 – Local Planning Policy 2.9: Response to State Administrative Tribunal Matters was adopted (LPP2.9).

26 March 2019 Ordinary Meeting of Council DV19.29 – LPP2.9 was amended to be renumbered LPP1.5, along with the renumbering and formatting of many local planning policies.

24 March 2020 Ordinary Meeting of Council (held on 26 and 31 March 2020) DV20.32 - Council resolved the following:

1. REQUESTS the Chief Executive Officer to review the Council Local Planning Policy 1.5: Response to State Administrative Tribunal Matters and the Town’s current procedures concerning reports to the Joint Development Assessment Panel. 2. NOTES that the Chief Executive Officer has requested that the Town’s Responsible Authority Reports be submitted to Council for information prior to being submitted to the to the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel; and 3. REQUESTS a report to be submitted to Council by no later than April 2020.

This report responds to parts 1 and 3 of the above resolution.

Item 12.1 – Notice of Motion. Council resolved:

That Council:

1. INSTRUCTS the CEO that, until Local Planning Policy 1.5 is reviewed and amended, all instructions to legal representatives acting on behalf of the Council must have a report brought to Council which includes: a. Legal advice; b. Instructions to legal representatives; and

2. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to DELEGATE, pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995 its power to provide ongoing instructions to the Town’s legal representatives to the CEO, on the condition that all instructions and legal advice must be provided in writing.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 32 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

DETAILS:

Six stages of the SAT review process have been identified. The Policy has been amended to include referral to Elected Members at the following stages:

1. Notification by applicant that application for review has been lodged, and engagement of ‘preferred suppliers’ (see below for further discussion on ‘preferred suppliers’) 2. If required by 1, Engagement of a town planning consultant and/or legal representative 3. Initial Directions Hearing – no referral proposed due to time constraints 4. Mediation(s) 5. Subsequent Directions Hearing(s) 6. Hearing

In all instances, the Town will refer to Elected Members the Town’s “intended action” at each of the above stages. Elected Members will have the opportunity to consider the action and if 5 or more Elected Members disagree, then a report will be presented to Council on the matter. This process is outlined in cl. 5.0(b) of the Policy and is a similar process to that provided for in Policy 1.2.15: Public Consultation Material.

Attachment 2 to this report details the proposed amendments to the Policy No: 1.2.22 (in red font).

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

Deemed Provisions of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Cl. 3(3) ‘A local planning policy must be based on sound town planning principles and may address either strategic or operational considerations in relation to the matter to which the policy applies.’

Cl. 5(2) ‘Despite subclause (1), the local government may make an amendment to a local planning policy without advertising the amendment if, in the opinion of the local government, the amendment is a minor amendment.’

Cl. 6(b) A local planning policy may be revoked – (b) by a notice of revocation – (i) prepared by the local government; and (ii) published in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme area.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: Adopting a well-defined process for dealing with SAT matters is important to representing the Town’s position and for clarity between the roles of Elected Members and the Administration.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report. Costs incurred preparing and advertising the Policy were spent from the Town’s Operating Budget for FY2019/20.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 33 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Our Neighbourhoods

Goal 4: Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected, and planning is responsive to residents Strategy 4.1 Examine and better identify through planning and consultation those features and qualities which define our individual neighbourhoods Strategy 4.3 Ensure new development is harmonious with established residences and respects our existing ‘sense of place’ and our unique character

Our Council

Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and knowledge

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Public consultation is not required under the Local Government Act 1995 for adoption of a Council policy.

A notice of revocation of LPP1.5 will be published in a local newspaper.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That the Council:-

1. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to:

1.1 REVOKES Local Planning Policy 1.5: ‘Response to State Administrative Tribunal Matters’ (LPP1.5), as shown in Attachment 1;

1.2 ADOPT Policy No: 1.2.22 – ‘State Administrative Tribunal Matters’, as shown in Attachment 2;

2. PUBLISHES a public notice of the revoked LPP1.5 in a local newspaper and on the Town’s website.

Council Meeting 28 April 2020

PROCEDURAL MOTION:

Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Cr Everett

That Council DEFERS the item relating to State Administrative Tribunal Matters Policy to an Elected Member Forum for further consideration.

Procedural motion put and CARRIED (8/1)

For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Barlow, Bradley, Everett, Haddon-Casey, McKerracher, Mack and Timmermanis Against: Cr Nelson

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 34 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 28 April 2020)

The matter was discussed at an Elected Member Forum held on Tuesday 12 May 2020.

There was a view that the current Planning Policy (No: 1.5) should remain and be amended and a separate SAT Policy introduced for general (non- planning and development) matters which are referred to the SAT.

A new draft SAT Policy has therefore been prepared for the Council’s consideration, which excludes planning and development matters.

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to ADOPT Policy No: 1.2.22 – ‘State Administrative Tribunal Matters’, as shown in Attachment 2.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 35 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

10.7 PROPOSED NEW ’HARDSHIP POLICY’ - ADOPTION

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is for the Council to adopt a ‘Hardship Policy’, as part of the Town of CambridgeCOVID-19 Recovery and Relief Plan and to amend Delegation No: 1.2.23 – ‘Agreement as to Payment of Rates and Service Charges’, to reflect the proposed new Financial Hardship Policy.

SUMMARY: Council is requested to give consideration to adopting a revised Policy No: 3.2.8 – ‘Hardship Policy’, as shown at Attachment 1.

The Council currently does not have a Hardship Policy

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Address/Property Town of Cambridge - 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat Location: Report Date: 16 April 2020 Responsible Officer: Chief Executive Officer John Giorgi, JP Reporting Officer: Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP Contributing Officer: Manager Finance Roy Ruitenga Reporting Officers Nil Interest File Reference: - Attachments: 1. Council Policy No:3.2.8 – 'Hardship Policy’.' 2. Delegation No: 1.2.23 –‘Agreement as to Payment of Rates and Service Charges. 3. Current Council Policy No: 3.2.8 –‘Financial Policy for Debt Recovery’

BACKGROUND:

At the Special meeting of Council held on 9 April 2020, it was reported that a ‘Hardship Policy’ would be prepared as part of the Town of Cambridge COVID-19 Recovery and Relief Plan, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic which is currently causing world- wide havoc, major health issues and financial and economic hardship as a result of shut down measures introduced to contain the virus.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 36 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

As part of the Recovery and relief Plan, the Council has approved of a number of initiatives to provide financial and economic relief to ratepayers, residents and business proprietors. It is considered that the proposed ‘Hardship’ policy will formalise what is currently in practice and will provide clearer guidelines for Officer to utilise when considering any applications.

A hardship policy is recommended to be adopted to enable the town to consider application of hardship being experienced by the Town’s ratepayers, residents and business proprietors.

DETAILS:

The Town currently has a policy- No: 3.2.8, which deals with debt recovery, however, this policy is very brief and does not cover aspects required to be considered. (refer Attachment 3)

The draft policy has been compiled after researching other local government policies and also a template guide issued by the Western Australian Local Government Association. The proposed new policy incorporates the existing details of the Towns current policy.

The proposed policy includes the following details:

1. Objective 2. Policy Scope 3. Policy Statement 4. Financial Hardship Criteria and definitions 5. Debt Management and Recovery Principles 6. Payment Arrangements 7. Deferment of Rates 8. Review Rights 9. Communication and Confidentiality 10. Delegation

Delegation No: 1.2.23: (refer Attachment 2)

The proposed new Financial Hardship Policy specifies that any Agreement to delay the payment of rates or service charges is to be to a date approved by the Town, in a Special Payment Agreement. Currently Delegation No: 1.2.23 specifies that acquittal of outstanding rates and service charges is to be ‘before the next annual rates or service charges are levied.’

If the Council approves of the proposed new Financial Hardship Policy, Delegation No; 1.2.23 should be amended to reflect the new Policy.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 provides Council with the power to determine policies.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: The failure to not have a Policy has been assessed as having a low risk.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 37 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Our Council

Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1: Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

The adoption of a Policy will provide guidance to the Council, Administration and the general public. This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No.1.2.11 and does not require community consultation, as this matter is administrative in nature.

Committee Meeting 20 April 2020

During discussion, the Mayor stated that she proposed a number of amendments to the policy. It was suggested that the item be submitted to Council for determination in order that the amendments can be circulated and considered.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That the item relating to the proposed new ‘Hardship Policy’ be submitted to Council for determination.

COUNCIL DECISION:

PROCEDURAL MOTION:

Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Mayor Shannon

That Council DEFERS the item relating to the proposed new 'Hardship Policy' to an Elected Member Forum for further consideration.

Procedural motion put and CARRIED (9/0)

FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 28 April 2020)

The matter was discussed at an Elected Member Forum held on Tuesday 12 May 2020.

There was a view that the draft Policy should be simplified and there were too many definitions concerning ‘hardship’.

A new draft ‘Financial Hardship’ Policy has therefore been prepared for the Council’s consideration, which has been simplified. The draft also retains new clauses relating to debt recovery, as the existing ‘Debt Recovery’ Policy has been reviewed and requires amendment.

The proposed new draft ‘Financial Hardship’ Policy is proposed to cover all financial hardship cases (as the Town does not currently have such a policy), including any applications as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 38 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That the Council:

1. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to:

1.1 ADOPT Policy No: 3.2.8 – ‘Hardship Policy,' as shown in Attachment 1;

1.2 AMEND Delegation No: 1.2.23 –‘Agreement as to Payment of Rates and Service Charges’, as shown in Attachment 2; and

2. RESCINDS existing Council Policy 3.2.8 – ‘Financial Policy for Debt Recovery’, as shown in Attachment 3.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 39 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

10.8 ENDOWMENT LANDS ACT 1920 - REVIEW

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:-

1. RECEIVES the report dated 20 May 2020, concerning the request from the Minister the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts for a review of the Endowment Lands Act 1920;

2. NOTES that:

2.1 if the Endowment Lands Act 1920 is repealed it will not diminish the total amounts of revenue received from the rates, however, it will significantly vary the method of rating throughout the Town;

2.2 the Town does not have full details of how a new rates financial model will affect the Town’s ratepayers;

2.3 at the Council meeting held on 30 April 2019 the Council resolved to ‘defer consideration of the repeal of Local Law 43 until after the review of the Town Planning Scheme’;’

3. ADVISES the Minister that the Council is of the view that it is premature to formulate a position on whether the Act should be repealed, as it requires further information about the impact of a revised rating system (which would result if the Act was repealed);

4. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, subject to 3 above being approved, to re- allocate funds up to $20,000 to engage a financial consultant to assist the Town to conduct financial modelling of the Endowment Lands Area Rating System;

5. AUTHORISES, subject to 3 and 4 above being approved, the Chief Executive Officer to call a Request for Quotation for an external financial consultant to assist the Town to conduct financial modelling of the Endowment Lands Area Rating System; and

6. REQUESTS a further report to be submitted to Council by no later than August 2020.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the receipt of two letters from the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts requesting the Council’s views concerning a possible repealing of the Cambridge Endowment lands Act 1920 (‘the Act’). (Refer Attachment 1)

SUMMARY:

This report highlight the anomalies in applying a different rating system within the Endowment Lands Area as compared to the remainder of the Town, the restrictions applicable to the Endowment Lands Account (reserves) and the application of local law 43: Buildings on Endowment Lands and Limekilns Estate.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 40 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Address/Property Location: Endowment Lands Area Report Date: 20 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Chief Executive Officer, John Giorgi, JP Reporting Officers: Chief Executive Officer, John Giorgi, JP Director Corporate & Community Services, Cam Robbins Manager Finance, Roy Ruitenga Contributing Officer: Manager Strategic Planning, Brett Cammell Reporting Officers Interest Nil Attachment(s): 1. Endowment Lands Act 1920 2. Letter from Minister dated 20 February 2020 3. Letter from Minister dated 24April 2020 4. Endowment Lands Area Map

BACKGROUND:

On 20 February and 24 April 2020 the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts wrote to the Town proposing that consideration be given to repealing the Cambridge Endowment lands Act 1920 and seeking the Town’s views before any further consideration is undertaken. (Refer Attachment 2 and 3). A letter was sent to the Minister on 7 May 2020 advising that a report is being included in the agenda for the Council meeting to be held on 26 May 2020.

Endowment Lands Act 1920

The Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920 is an act relating to lands known as the Endowment Lands and Lime Kilns Estate. The Act prescribes matters about the following:

Part I — Preliminary 1. Short title 3. Terms used

Part II — Valuation and rating 6. Unimproved value of land, how determined 7. Rates on said lands, general rules 7A. Rates on said lands and rest of Cambridge district, how to be determined

Part VI — Powers of the local government 39. Term used: Town lands 40. Town of Cambridge’s powers over Town lands 41. Proceeds of sales of Town lands

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 41 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Part VII — Local laws 42. Powers to make local laws for said lands 43. Local laws may levy tolls and charges

Part VIII — General 44. Application of Local Government Act 1995 45. Liquor licence for premises on said lands not to be granted without local government’s consent 46. Purchasers of land in said lands to hold it subject to this Act

Endowment Lands Act 1920 – Prescribed area

The Endowment Lands as defined, means the lands being portion of the Swan location 1911 containing 2,281 acres, which the lands are comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 641, Folio 60.

Lime Kilns Estate as defined means those lands being Swan Location 571, Perthshire Location Ak, portions of Perthshire Location Al and Am, and Swan Locations 586,617, and 691, containing 1,290 acres, which lands comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 675, Folio 9.

A map highlighting the Endowment lands Area, denoted by the green coloured boundary, is provided as Attachment 4 to this report.

Previous Reports to Council:

1. 26 May 1998

The issue of applying a different rating system to the Endowment Lands Area within the Town, in comparison to the remainder of the Town, has been an issue for contention and discussion since the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act was created back in 1920. Since the Town of Cambridge was created on 1 July 1994, it has been brought to Council’s attention on a number of occasions for discussion, namely at the Council meeting held 26 May 1998 (Confidential Report 15.1 “Endowment Lands Area – Rating Considerations”) when Council decided:

“That evaluation of the Town’s rating system be deferred and that discussions continue in Corporate and Customer Services and other relevant Committees on a fair and equitable rating system for the Town with reports to come forward for the Council’s consideration at reasonable intervals.”

2. 28 August 2001

An Elected Member motion was received at the 28 August 2001 Council meeting (Item 10.2 Endowment Lands Area Rating System refers) and Council decided as follows:

“That:-

(i) the Council requests the Administration to prepare a report outlining all aspects of the current rating system applying in the Town and highlighting the Gross Rental Value (GRV) and Unimproved Value (UV) methods of valuation and rating;

(ii) following completion of the report, an Elected Members’ workshop be held to discuss its contents;

(iii) the report referred to in (i) above is also to examine the valuation system used by the Valuer General and investigate how the Council can approach the State Government seeking a review of the valuation methodology used.”

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 42 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

3. 19 November 2002

Subsequently, a comprehensive briefing paper was prepared and presented at an Elected Members Workshop held on 29 October 2002. A report, attaching the briefing paper and workshop determination, was presented to the Council meeting held on 19 November 2002, (report CCS02.139 “Endowment Lands Area – Rates” refers) with the following Council decision made:

“That:-

(i) the rating system applying to the Endowment Lands Area not be altered and continue to be based on the Unimproved Values of the properties in accordance with the provisions of the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920;

(ii) the Town’s Strategic Plan be amended by deleting the goal “Equitable Rating System.”

At the meetings, the purpose was to investigate the various options for applying Council Rates in the Endowment Lands with the objective of implementing an equitable and sustainable rating system so that the community as a whole share the cost of service provision. The Town currently operates with two different methods of rating. Rates for urban properties within Western Australia are rated on values based on the Gross Rental Value (GRV) of each property. However, an exception exists within the Endowment Lands Area which represents 39% of the properties in the Town (refer: Annual report 2018/2019 note 19 – Rating Information). The rating requirements of this area is specified in the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920 and requires rates to be imposed on the unimproved value (UV) of each property.

The effect of a dual rating system results in variations in the amount of rates levied on similar properties within the Endowment Lands Area and those outside the area. Therefore, an equity exists in the rate calculation of properties, depending on their location within the Town. For example, some properties in the Endowment Lands Area will benefit from their rates being assessed on unimproved value as opposed to the gross rental value. It is estimated that the majority (65%) of properties are currently disadvantaged under the unimproved value method.

4. 22 April 2008

Council previously considered a notice of motion submitted by Mayor Withers at its meeting held on 22 April 2008 to widen the Town’s powers to invest the proceeds of the sale of “Town lands” under Section 41(4) of the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920 (the Act), report 12.2 “Endowment Lands Act Proposed Amendment” refers.

The motion was effectively to widen the scope of the Endowment Lands Account to permit use of the funds within the account for investments in other parts of the Town’s district that are not within the Endowment Lands Area. The Council unanimously voted to request State Government to amend the Act accordingly and a submission was subsequently made.

5. 24 June 2014

However, following a Council meeting held on 24 June 2014 (Report 10.1 - Cambridge Endowment Lands Amendment Bill 2013 refers), Council unanimously voted for this request to State Government to be withdrawn as the circumstances had changed considerably since the request was initiated and the need for the amendment was no longer pertinent. The following factors contributed to the withdrawal, namely:

1. the Town had realised proceeds from the Ocean Mia development and the funds had been fully committed to a number of major projects,

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 43 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

2. Proceeds being raised outside the Endowment Lands Area, from the Perry lakes Stadium Development, Tamala Park Land Development and Nursery Site were imminent and would be substantial; 3. The Town had already acquired a number of strategic sites within West Leederville area from other funding sources; and 4. Local government reform had evolved since the initial amendment was proposed and it was considered for the Act to remain as is, should the Town be merged into a larger local government district.

The matter has not since been brought to Council again for consideration.

6. 18 December 2018

The Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920, section 42, enabled the creation of By-laws (later referred to as Local Laws) for a variety of purposes, including control of land use, subdivision and development. This was reflective of the time, given that specific Town Planning legislation was not passed until the Town Planning and Development Act 1928. Local Law 43 has been in existence since 1939, has been amended on 33 occasions, the most recent being 1993, and continues to be applicable. Amendment 5 to Town Planning Scheme No.1 was initiated in November 1999, and proposed to incorporate certain development standards of Bylaw 43 into Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and upon gazettal, it was proposed to repeal Local Law 43. At the Council meeting 26 April 2000, Council determined to defer consideration of Amendment 5 to Town Planning Scheme No.1 and repealing Local Law 43. At the 18 December 2018, Council resolved to commence review of Local Law 43.

7. 30 April 2019

Furthermore, at the Council meeting held 30 April 2019, a report was submitted to Council (report DV19.39 refers), to complete the process to review Local Law 43: Buildings on Endowment Lands and Limekilns Estate. The provisions of Local Law 43 were reviewed and generally found to be duplicated or covered in contemporary town planning and building policy, or no longer of regulatory concern to the Town.

The Administration recommended that, for this reason, the process to repeal Local Law 43 be re commenced. Council unanimously decided to defer the consideration of the repeal of Local Law 43 until after the review of the Town Planning Scheme.

DETAILS: (a) Rating System:

The issue of the rating system being based on unimproved values on properties that are situated with the Endowment lands Area has been a matter for regular discussion over the years, since the creation of the Endowment Lands Area in 1920, by both the City of Perth and in more recent years, by the Town. One of the primary reasons being that the area is rated under a different method from every other urban area in Western Australia. This creates anomalies as different properties within the same local authority area are rated under different rating rules purely as a result of the properties location within the Town. Some of these variances can be quite extensive and result in some properties being favourably treated to the detriment of other properties.

The original purpose for implementing a rating system based on unimproved land values back in 1920, was to encourage development within an area that was undeveloped at the time, and in doing so not penalise owners for making such improvements. Furthermore, the proceeds of any land sales within the area also had be spent within the area on infrastructure asset development, accelerating the development process. With the area now some hundred years later, fully

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 44 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020 developed, it can be argued that the original objective of establishing the endowment area has been realised and, as such, no longer is required.

Raising of Rate Revenue

It should be pointed out that regardless of which method of rating is applied to the Endowment Lands Area, gross rental method or unimproved value method, the Town will not be generating more or less revenue as a result of changing the rating system. One significant change, however, by adopting the gross rental value rating method, is that some two thirds of properties will be better off, with the remainder adversely affected, consisting largely of commercial properties such as shopping centres, the Ocean Gardens Retirement Village, and large houses and units on small land parcels.

Changing the Rating System

Changing the current unimproved value rating system will have arguments supporting such a move and arguments for retaining it as briefly outlined below:

Changing the UV Rating System

1. Equity in rating across the Town, with the same rating method applied for every property owner; 2. Revaluations will be in sync with all properties being revalued within the same time period, currently gross rental values are revalued every three years, whereas unimproved values are revalued annually, placing those properties within the Endowment Lands Account out of sync with the remainder of the Town. 3. The majority of properties within the Endowment Lands Account to benefit by paying lower rates under a gross rental value system; 4. Simplification of a complex dual rating structure across the Town, leading to cost savings and efficiencies in administration processes.

Retaining the Current UV Rating Systems

1. The existing unimproved rating method supports the original objective of establishing the Endowment Lands Area; 2. Owners are not penalised for improving their properties; 3. Changing the Endowment Lands Act requires a submission to State Parliament, a lengthy process, and carries an element of risk that other amendments to the Act may occur.

Recommendation:

If the Town was to proceed with amending the rating system, it is suggested prior to making any such request to State Government, consultation be conducted of those property owners in the affected area, namely the Endowment Lands Area, to ascertain whether majority support for such a change exists.

It is also proposed that a third party be engaged to assist the Town with a detailed financial analysis and model of the ELA ratings system.

(b) Endowment Lands Account:

The Council has previously requested State Government to amend the Cambridge Endowment Land Act 1920, to enable proceeds of sales from land within the Endowment Lands area to be invested in those areas of the Town not covered by the Act. (Report 10.1, Council meeting 22 April 2008) refers). The Endowment lands Account was set to receive a substantial amount of funds from land proceeds within the Ocean Mia land subdivision, with lot sales commencing

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 45 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020 during the 2007/2008 financial year. The Endowment Lands Account subsequently received an inflow of some $13 million during the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 financial years. The request was later withdrawn by Council in 2014, when these funds where applied to major development projects within the Endowment lands Area, including the Bold Park Aquatic Centre, City Beach Hospitality Precinct and Wembley Golf Course.

Current Situation

The Town has recently received written correspondence from the State Government to consider repealing the Cambridge Endowments Land Act 1920 (refer Attachments 2 and 3), which would subsequently allow the proceeds from lands sales within the Endowment Lands Area to be applied to areas not covered by the Endowment Lands Act 1920.

However, this is no longer as relevant today, as since that time the Town has received substantial funds from State Government in respect of the Perry Lakes Re-development with a $22.6 cash contribution and has sold two multi residential lots ($18.6 million) within the Perry Lakes land subdivision with proceeds transferred to the Area Improvement Reserve during the 2016/2017 financial year. One multi residential lot still remains to be sold, currently reflected in the 2018/2019 financial statements at $11.8 million. The Area Improvement Reserve is expected to have a balance of $16.5 million when budgeted capital projects for 2019/2020, funded from this reserve have been completed. In comparison the balance of the Endowment Lands Account is budgeted to decrease to $2.7 million by 30 June 2020.

Since Council’s decision on 30 April 2019 to ‘defer consideration of the repeal of Local Law 43 until after the review of the Town Planning Scheme’, Council adopted amended Local Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscapes (LPP3.1) on 28 April 2020. During review of LPP3.1, Council considered the inclusion of some matters dealt with by LL43 into LPP3.1 and resolved to include provisions relating to roof reflectivity (refer Council minutes 19 December 2019, DV19.167).

The following table details Council decisions over the past 12 months (May 2019 to April 2020) on variations to the requirements of LL43. Approval to grant variations to LL43 requirements cannot be delegated and must be determined by an absolute majority decision of Council. All of the variations sought to LL43 related to the construction and building materials prescribed in LL43, which were intended to restrict the use of temporary and less aesthetically pleasing materials (NB. one application also sought to vary the outbuilding size of LL43). This concern and subsequent regulatory requirement is not considered necessary and can be evidenced to some extent in the 100 percent approval rate of variations to the requirements of LL43 in the table below:

Category Decision on LL43 variation Approved Refused Total Application required solely due to variation to LL43 12 0 12 requirement Application required for planning approval and due 25 0 25 to variation to LL43 requirement Total 37 0 37

As stated in the Town’s report on 30 April 2019, the provisions of Local Law 43 are ‘generally found to be already duplicated or covered in contemporary town planning and building legislation and policy, or no longer of regulatory concern to the Town.’

Recommendation: Whilst acknowledging Council’s decision that repeal of LL43 be deferred until after the review of the Town Planning Scheme, the Administration’s view is that LL43 should be repealed.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 46 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

(d) Local Laws (general):

The Act includes a section to allow the Council to make local laws, as follows:

42. Powers to make local laws for said lands (1) The Town of Cambridge may make local laws in accordance with subdivision 2 of Division 2 of Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1995 to have effect within the said lands as to the following matters — [(1) Deleted] (2) Regulating and controlling the buildings to be erected on any part of the said lands sold or leased. (3) Prohibiting the erection of any building or buildings on the said lands, the plans of which the local government shall not approve. (4) Prohibiting the carrying on of any trade or business manufactures or otherwise on any part of the said land. (5) Regulating the number of houses to the acre which may be built on any part of the lands set apart as a residential district. (6) Prohibiting and regulating the area of lots into which any lands sold by the local government may be subdivided. (7) Regulating and controlling the building line of any street or way, and prohibiting any building extending beyond such line. (8) Regulating and controlling the portions of any public road which shall or may be devoted to or used for — (a) carriage way; (b) footway; (c) tree planting; (d) gardens; (e) grass plots; (f) island refuges; (g) public conveniences; (h) street lamps; (i) fountains; (j) monuments or memorials; (k) poles. (9) Prohibiting, regulating, and controlling the erection of advertising hoardings on the said lands or any part thereof. (10) Classifying the said lands into separate or combined districts for residence, factories, business, or noxious trades, and from time to time reclassifying the same. (11) Prohibiting, regulating, and controlling the use of any districts so classified as residential district, factory district, business district, and noxious trade district, or a combined district. (12) Prohibiting a purchaser of any part of the said lands from the local government from dividing or sub-dividing such land without the consent of the local government or from transferring, selling, assigning, leasing, or in any way parting with the possession of a portion of the said lands not being the whole so purchased by him without the consent of the local government.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 47 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

(13) Prohibiting the erection in any classified district of any building other than a building designed and intended for the purpose of the district, and the plans for which have been approved of by the local government. (14) Prohibiting the use of any building erected in any district for any purpose other than the classified purpose of such district. (15) Prescribing the minimum area of land upon which any building to be used as a private residence may be erected, and prohibiting the erection of any such building on a lesser area than the one prescribed. (16) Prohibiting the erection of any building which in the opinion of the local government would be unsightly or which would tend to destroy local amenities. (17) Prescribing the height of fences and hedges on any of the said lands sold or leased by the local government. (2) Any local law may impose a penalty not exceeding $40 for the breach thereof. (3) Such local laws when confirmed by the Governor and published in the Government Gazette shall have the force of law.

Recommendation: Apart from Local Law 43, the Council has not adopted any local laws under the Act. The Local Government Act 1995 is now used to make local laws. As such, the Town’s Administration does not have any objection if PART VII – LOCAL LAWS of the Act is repealed.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

Policy Implications:

There are no Council Policies that are applicable to this matter.

Statutory Implications:

The various statutory provisions that impact on rating by Local Government and specifically the Town of Cambridge with respect to rating in the Endowment Lands Area as follows:

Local Government Act 1995, namely Section 6.28 “Basis of Rates’ and the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920, namely Section 6 – Valuation of Lands on Unimproved Value, Section 7 – Rates on Unimproved Value and Section 7A – Apportionment of rates burden between said lands and the remainder of the Local Government District.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

Low: All matters discussed in this report that is the raising of rates, planning compliance with Local Law 43 are being complied with in accordance with Endowment Lands Act 1920.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There will be no material financial impact on the Town’s revenue regardless of which rating system is applied within the Endowment lands Area as the same amount of rates are raised from the area. It will of course change the application of rating.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 48 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The raising of rates, investing in the Endowment Lands Account is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028, specifically:

Our Council

Goal 11: An efficient local government. Strategy: 11.1 Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit.

The review of Local Law 43 is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028, specifically:

Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and knowledge.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required.

If the Council determines a position to support the repeal of the Act, it is recommended that community consultation be carried out.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 49 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

10.9 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (IT) STATUS UPDATE REPORT

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:-

1. RECEIVES the Information Technology (IT)Services Status Update Report dated 20 May 2020;

2. APPROVES the proposed 2020-21 Draft IT Services Capital Budget Items, as outlined in Attachment 1;

3. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to engage a consultant to develop and implement a IT Strategic Plan for the next 4 years to enable the smooth adoption and transition to a more modernised and Cloud-friendly applications and services; and

4. APPROVES BY AN ANSOLUTE MAJORITY, subject to 3 above being approved, to re- allocate funds to engage an external consultant to develop and implement a IT Strategic Plan at an approximate cost of up to $40,000 (ex GST).

PURPOSE:

To seek Council’s approval of the proposed IT Strategy for 2020-21 and also to authorise the engagement of a consultant to establish a strategic direction and to enable the smooth adoption and transition to a more modernised and Cloud-friendly applications and services, as outlined in this Report.

SUMMARY:

At an Elected Member’s Forum (EMF) held on 27 February 2020, Councillors were presented with an in-house Status Report in relation to the Town’s IT Services, whereby historical and current IT Service issues, 2019-20 achievements and proposed future IT strategies were all outlined.

This report provides a further Status Update in relation to the Town’s IT Services and its proposed strategy for 2020-21.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 50 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Address/Property Location: 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat Report Date: 21 May 2020 Responsible Officer: Strategic – Chief Executive Officer, John Giorgi, JP Operational - Director Corporate and Community Services – Cam Robbins Reporting Officer: Director Corporate and Community Services, Cam Robbins

Contributing Officers: Manager Corporate Business, Rob Andrews, Rob Andrews Coordinator IT Systems, Owen Lutz Reporting Officer Interest Nil Attachment(s): 1. Draft 2020-21 IT Services Capital Budget Items

BACKGROUND:

At an Elected Member’s Forum (EMF) held on 27 February 2020, Councillors were presented with a Status Report in relation to the Town’s IT Services, whereby historical and current IT Service issues, 2019-20 achievements, and proposed future IT strategies were all outlined, as follows:

1. Historically

(a) The Town’s Strategic IT Plan was last completed in June 2013, however was not subsequently endorsed by Council at the time; and

(b) Blue Zoo Consultants undertook and completed an ITC Review in 2016, which was presented to a Council Forum in September 2017, with no recommendations endorsed.

The above has fundamentally has affected the way the Town’s IT Services Team operates on a daily basis, as the main priority has been to maintain operations, with no Strategic Direction, which has resulted in a:

(a) Limited capacity and/or capability in oversight of IT specific investment; (b) Limited Application Support, reporting and process validation; (c) Lack of prioritisation and selection of critical IT Projects to be invested in; (d) Heavy reliance on external consultants, with limited to-none User Acceptance Testing(UAT), prior to implementation into the Production environment; (e) Non-alignment to/with the Local Government Integrated Planning Framework, which link informing strategies to the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028 and Corporate Business Plan 2018-2022; and (f) Individualised Business Area IT needs being delivered at the expense of a holistic IT Purpose-Built Operational requirement.

The continuation of a disjointed decision-making processes and a poor User understanding of the Town’s IT obligations, has resulted in:

(a) Individual Business Areas implementing IT Projects, Applications, Software and Systems within the Town’s Production environment, without prior input or involvement from the IT Services Team; (b) Undocumented and untested modifications being made within and across the IT environment by external consultants; (c) Reduced organisational trust across IT Applications and Systems; (d) The true cost of the Town’s IT not being known or properly understood; (e) No IT investment prioritisation processes in place, with annual funding towards the continuation of existing legacy Applications and Systems, in order to maintain the “lights on” functionality; and (f) IT funding decisions and budgets are predominantly based on Cost not Value.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 51 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

As the following Table indicates, the annual Budget for Corporate IT items are generally a fixed amount determined a number of previous years earlier. In addition, funds carried forward each year are done so, irrespective of any increased costs with new technology and/or Consumer Price Index (CPI) factored in, which further highlights the Town’s ongoing approach of IT Cost rather than IT Value.

2. 2019-20 IT Achievements:

Since mid - 2019, a Roadmap has been prepared and significant work has been made in implementing many of the tasks. These tasks are not of a strategic nature and are more of a necessity to enable the Town’s IT system to function at a reasonable level.

Despite the limitations experienced by the IT Services Team during 2019-20 (pre-COVID-19), a number of significant pieces of work have been completed since July 2019:

Completed a) Microsoft Desktop Licence Agreement. b) Windows 10 Upgrade. c) Microsoft Office 2016/Microsoft Exchange 2016. d) Town of Cambridge IT Environment Health Review. e) Online Animal Registrations. f) Venues Booking System. g) Multi-Function Printer + Printer + Plotter Replacements. h) Mobile Phone Replacements / New Mobile-Data Services Contract.

Ongoing i) Workstation/Laptop Replacements/Surface Pro's. j) Cyber Security Reviews/Testing/Assessments/Training - 1st Stage. k) Landline to NBN Replacement.

In Progress l) Host Server Replacement. m) Corporate Antivirus / Malware Solution Upgrades. n) Network Switch Replacements. o) Wide Area Network (WAN) Modernisation.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 52 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Preliminary Stages p) Human Resources Systems/Payroll - Online Self-Service Kiosk. q) Wembley Golf Course (WGC) Payroll Integration. r) Endpoint Systems Management. s) Legacy Router Replacements. t) Firewall Replacement / Intrusion Prevention.

3. Office of the CEO:

As a result of the Organisational Restructure in 2019, the CEO has responsibility for the overall strategic direction of the Town’s IT system. The day –to –day operational matters are the responsibility of the Director Corporate and Community Services, with the Manager Corporate Business having operational supervision of the IT section. The CEO will:

1. Will plan, develop and set an IT Strategic Plan for the next four (4) years; 2. Guide resources, both human and capital, to warrant future IT Projects have the capacity and capabilities to achieve pre-determined outcomes; 3. Establish ongoing IT Training to ensure Corporate IT knowledge is enhanced across the organisation, resulting in IT Systems, Applications and Packages being utilised to their full potential; and 4. Establish an internal Control Group for each major IT Project undertaken, with the appropriate Business Area personnel appointed accordingly.

The Chief Executive Officer strongly recommends that the Council approve of engaging an external consultant to assist the Town to provide an overall strategic vision for the Town’s IT system.

Unfortunately, the appointment of a Business Improvement Coordinator was not successful- mainly due to a lack of suitable applicants, as this person would assist the CEO in the strategic direction of the Town’s IT system. This position is on-hold as all vacant positions have been frozen as part of the Council’s COVID-19 decision to request the CEO to save costs.

For many years and for a variety of reasons, there has been little strategic direction with the Town’s IT system. This has resulted in little upgrade work to the Town’s current IT system. As a result, operations in many areas are hindered and are compromised due to the limitations of the current systems. Much upgrade of outdated software systems is required.

This will be both time consuming and expensive. However, before progressing much further, as a priority, the Chief Executive Officer recommends the engagement of an external consultant to provide advice for the strategic direction.

4. Proposed Future IT Strategic Direction:

In order to better align the Town’s future IT strategies with a strategic and systematic approach to improvement through more modernised and current technology across the IT environment, the following is recommended:

1. Decision to Reinvest in the Technology 1 (Tech One) Suite of Applications and Packages, in alignment to Tech One’s current “Ci Anywhere” platform; 2. Annual Updates of the entire Tech One Environment, which consists of approximately 233 Applications/Packages. This requires annual UAT from End Users within the Town’s Test Environment, prior to implementation into its Production environment; and 3. Development and endorsement of the Town of Cambridge’s ITC Strategic Plan 2020– 2024, through the engagement of a specialised external consultant, to ensure a robust and achievable Plan is created.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 53 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

5. COVID-19 Pandemic Implications:

The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, posed a serious threat to the Town’s IT System and its ability to operate effectively with an increased load placed on it by employees working from home. There were a number of employees approved to work from home by the CEO.

Despite this approval, the vast majority of employees were not provided with Remote User Access (RUA), due to the increased load and memory consumption it would place on the Remote Servers and IT System in general. To facilitate a more effective arrangement, the majority of employees were restricted to email access only, using their own respective internet service, rather than the Town’s Servers and downloading work on USB sticks.

There were, however, approximately 33 users assigned to RUA, with 25 considered essential employees (ie. Payroll, Finance, IT), with the remaining eight (8) being IT service-related servers and external Finance consultant usage.

However, of the 25 employees, only 19 used RUA in some capacity during the working from home arrangements period, with the six (6) non-users (IT Services; CEO Office) having access should working from home for each individual, become a requirement at any stage. In order to alleviate compromised functionality, IT Services requested limited usage by the 19 employees, due to the increased load and memory consumption concurrent usage would place on the Town’s Remote Servers, IT System and Wide-Area Network (WAN).

6. Wide-Area Network (WAN):

As addressed at the February 2020 EMF, the WAN is a crucial component of an organisation and a critical piece of IT technology which interlinks the entire Town’s IT and Communication (ITC) network. Despite being in the 2019-20 Budget for modernisation, it was intimated at the EMF, a WAN was not required in this day and age and the Town should be looking at a more progressive way of conducting IT Services, rather than expending $168,000 on “out-dated” technology.

Unfortunately, it is not that simple to disregard the WAN and the crucial role and requirements it serves within any organisation, as it traverses ITC across multiple geographical locations.

In addition, the WAN provides the connectivity to the internet and without it, the Town would not be able to provide the necessary IT Services and communications to its employees, ratepayers and key stakeholders. During the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown restrictions, the reliance on the Town’s WAN became apparent, as it enabled employees to work from home, while also allowing key messages to be relayed to the Town’s ratepayers.

Regrettably, COVID-19 also seriously exposed the condition of the Town’s WAN, which is approximately 13+ years old, with bandwidth between some sites being extremely low and inefficient.

The Town currently operates on a pre-2007 WAN model, implemented through Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) technology and relies on the old telephone line copper-wire infrastructure, which was predominantly the main internet option, with very limited bandwidth available, at that time.

Bandwidth is the amount of data which can be transmitted and is usually measured in seconds. Megabits per second (Mbps) are generally used to describe the speed of an internet connection, whereas Megabytes (MB) typically refer to the size of a file or storage space. For example, 4 Mbps enables a user to receive up to 4 megabits of data per second. As internet upload and

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 54 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020 download speeds are measured in megabits per seconds, in order to download a 1MB file in one (1) second, a connection of 8 Mbps is required.

As the following table shows, some of the Town’s WAN Links are actually slower than a private home NBN Plan (@12Mbps/1MB):

Site A Site B Bandwidth Administration Building Library / Boulevard 100/100MB Administration Building Internet 20/20MB Administration Building Vocus VRF Realm 4/4MB Administration Building Quarry Amphitheatre 133/133MB Administration Building Bold Park Aquatic Centre 10/10MB Administration Building Works Depot 10/10MB Library / Boulevard Internet 20/20MB WCC Vocus VRF Realm 4/1MB

Pre-COVID-19 and as the above table shows, the Town’s internet bandwidth connection was approximately 20 Mbps, which is one of, if not, the main factor that limited RUA to the select number of employees and significantly compromised concurrent user operability and effectiveness.

7. IT Services Achievements During COVID-19 Restrictions:

At the beginning of the COVID-19 restrictions and in order to isolate the essential IT Services Team from the rest of the Administration workforce, the Team was relocated to the Town’s Reception Room, in an endeavour to protect this critical function to ensure employees were able to continue their work, either from home and/or in the office.

Despite spending a considerable amount of time dealing with RUA and working from home issues, the IT Services Team also undertook and completed some significant pieces of work since mid-March 2020, namely:

1. Remote User Access – 99 employee Covid-19 Temporary RUA forms were received and assessed by IT for compatibility and security purposes, with 33 employees granted access.

2. Tech One 2019B Environment Upgrade – Tech One’s 2019B platform was successfully installed in the Town’s Test environment, with UAT on all 233 Packages/Applications (Packages - Ci modules; Applications - Ci Anywhere modules) currently underway, prior to implementation in the Production environment. a. 2019B ensures the Town remains on a Tech One supported product release and is current with its latest versions (2019A and 2019B).

3. Intramaps Version 8.0 to Version 9.7 Upgrade – Operating on a legacy and unsupported version for the past few years. a. Automated weekly cadastral updates, via Shared Location Information Platform (SLIP) download, had not been functioning since 2015-16. b. Asset Finda Data brought into alignment with the latest Version release. c. Tree Asset Data rationalisation. d. Implementation of new base contour layers for Planning.

4. Graffiti Inspection Module – Overhaul and Updated from 2015 to 2019 Version Release.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 55 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

5. Plotter – New Plotter installed in Customer Services (CS). a. Planning and Development Applications can be scanned/copied at the CS Front Counter in real time while the customer waits.

6. Vocus – Internet Upgrade from 20 Mbps to 50 Mbps. a. Site-to-Site replication link upgraded to 100 Mbps, which will result in a reduced risk to “Recovery Point Objectives” (maximum tolerable period to limit potential data loss due to a major incident). b. Network Termination Units replaced at the Library due to being unserviceable for higher connection speeds. 7. WAN – Internal Review for Development of Request for Tender (RFT) Specifications. a. Request for Quote (RFQ) issued through Common Use Arrangement (CUA) to five (5) Service Providers, who all failed to submit an Offer. With external providers restricting their employees from entering other organisations due to COVID-19, the Town subsequently approached Insight Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd (Insight) to ascertain their ability to conduct a WAN Review externally. b. In conjunction with Outcomex Pty Ltd, Insight provided a quote for the agreed body of work required in order for a comprehensive WAN Review to be conducted and a subsequent RFT document developed. c. The externally conducted WAN Review is booked for the week commencing 18 May 2020 and is expected to be completed within 10 business days, with draft documentation presented to the Town.

8. IT Services Capital Budget Item Requirement 2020-21:

Based on the information presented at February’s EMF and in order to provide a more strategic and economic approach to undertaking and achieving IT Capital-related Projects during 2020-21, a number of modifications have been made from the 2019-20 IT Capital Budget Items. This endeavour is to ensure a number of unachievable Carry Forward Items are not rolled over for another year, given the lack of veracity surrounding their original, ongoing allocated funding.

IT Services have designed responsible IT-driven; focused; prioritised and achievable, both in resource and capital, Budget Items for 2020-21, which will assist in driving the Town to a more modernised, up-to-date and relevant IT System and environment.

This approach will ensure the Cost versus Value mentality is fundamentally shifted to a model based on efficacy and IT life-cycle sustainability.

It is recognised the modernisation of the Town’s IT Systems and environment will require some significant funding in the initial instance moving forward, however this funding will be utilised to acquire new and modern technology – as opposed to the current “keeping the lights on” model, which focuses on continual efforts of patching, fixing and rectifying broken, significantly modified legacy IT systems, applications and environments.

The major IT Services Capital Budget Items proposed for 2020-21, are provided in Attachment 1.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

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

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 56 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS:

High: Failure to implement a strategic IT approach with the modernisation of the Town’s key and critical IT Services infrastructure, is a high risk, which will only result in poor and expensive long-term outcomes moving forward.

The Town must invest in a solid IT environment foundation to ensure modern capabilities, such as Cloud transformation, can occur on reliable, resilient and operable platforms, otherwise it will never be in a position to effectively deal with situations similar to those experienced during COVID-19. The engagement of an external consultant will be essential going forward.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no Financial Implications related to this Report.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The proposed IT Strategic direction put forward in this Report, supports the following goals within the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2018 - 2028, specifically:

Our Council

Goal 9 Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and knowledge

Goal 11 An efficient local government Strategy 11.1 Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 57 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

11. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

12.1 SOUTH CITY BEACH KIOSK

Submission by Cr McKerracher

That the Council:

1. NOTES that:

1.1 $180,000 is listed in the Town’s budget for the concrete soffit works and if this amount is not acquitted this financial year COUNCIL directs that this is to be carried forward into the 20/21 Budget;

1.2 the state of the South City Beach Kiosk building with its hoarding and non-use has made it a target for anti-social behaviour and vandalism and its physical condition has deteriorated and continues to deteriorate;

2. For the avoidance of any doubt, RE-CONFIRMS its unanimous decision of 19 December 2017 (which has not been revoked) that the building known as the South City Beach Kiosk and Toilets is to be retained;

3. REQUESTS the CEO to:

3.1 obtain quotes by 23 June 2020 for the costs of conservation works required to repair the concrete soffit and exterior of the South City Beach Kiosk on the basis that material changes and internal structural or fitout changes are not required and the public toilets in the building are not to be re-commissioned at this stage;

3.2 notify the Elected Members as soon as those quotes have been obtained and provide a copy of the quotes to them in order for the Mayor or any of them to consider calling a Special Council Meeting for Council to urgently consider for approval any unbudgeted expenditure that may be required from the Endownment Lands Account to carry out the works listed in item 4 and to consider authorising the works in item 4 to commence or a request for tender (if necessary);

3.3 provide to Council by the Ordinary Council Meeting of June 2020, the proposal for a community use beach shelter/BBQ area for consideration pursuant to the Council resolution of 19 December 2017;

3.4 prepare a report on the cost of erecting and the proposed content for a heritage plaque at the South City Beach Kiosk explaining its history and significance to the community;

3.5 review the security and safety arrangements for the South City Beach Kiosk and if necessary take appropriate measures to minimise the risk of further vandalism of the South City Beach Kiosk; and

3.6 report to Council on what steps need to be taken (if any) to provide the Heritage Council with the information and advice requested by the Heritage Council’s letter to the Town dated 19 January 2018 regarding City Beach.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 58 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

BACKGROUND provided by Cr McKerracher:

At an Ordinary Council Meeting of Council on 22 November 2016, Council resolved to:

• seek community consultation on the South City Beach Kiosk prior to making any decision to proceed to demolition • allocate $5,000 in the draft 2017/18 budget to engage a consultant to record and prepare a heritage record of the building; and • allocate funding of $40,000 in the draft 2018/18 budget to demolish the South City Beach Kiosk.

In April 2017, Peritas Engineers undertook a structural assessment of the building for the Town.

Their conclusions were:

“Overall the structure is in average condition. The load bearing walls and columns are in good condition and are showing no signs of structural dmage. The top of the roof is in good condition, only requiring minor maintenance work.

The area with significant structural damage is the slab soffit which is exposed to the environment. The delamination survey highlighted that concrete degradation due to corrosion of the reinforcement has taken place to over sixty percent of this area”.

See summary in Annexure C.

In mid-August to mid-September 2017 the community was consulted on the future of the South City Beach Kiosk and Toilets. Respondents were asked if the building should be demolished or retained, as well as any suggestions as to future use.

In the survey material respondents were advised that the costs to repair the roof alone would be more than $150,000 and that if the building was retained but its purpose or structure changed, there could be significant financial implications on top of the cost of roof repairs. (A Copy of the community survey is Attached as Annexure A).

A Report was provided to Council on 26 September 2017 (CR 17.143) A total of 1,354 on-line surveys had been received by the Town. 90% of these indicated that the building should be retained.

The Report tabled to Council in September 2017 stated the following:

“The high level of response and the majority preference to retain the building suggests that this is an appropriate decision for Council to make.”

“It is considered that it is appropriate to separate a decision to repair the building from a decision to repurpose the building. It is also considered appropriate, given the high level of community interest, that a decision is made now to retain the building rather than defer the decision pending finalisation of the community survey report. It is recommended that the Town proceed to document and tender for repair work to the soffit (which is the major structural repair needed to maintain the integrity of the building) as well as paint the external surfaces to present a neat façade.”

Estimated costs to do those works was stated to be in the range of $180,000- $220,000 inclusive of works, fees and contingency.

On 19 December 2017 (CR 17.183) a further report was presented to Council on the Outcomes of the Community Survey.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 59 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

The Report advised that the Town had received 1,360 responses to its survey and 91% would like to see the building retained. Respondents rationale for retaining the building were:

• it is an important part of City Beach’s history (35%), • it has great potential (23%), • it is an important piece of brutalist/modernist architecture (21%) • it provides a necessary service/function for the community (8%) • they identified with it personally (6%).

Only 3% said it was a building no longer needed, 2% said it was an eyesore and 2% said costs to ratepayers to restore was too costly.

By unanimous decision Council resolved in 19 December 2017 that:

(i) The building known as the South City Beach Kiosk and Toilets is to be retained;

(ii) The public toilets part of the building remains closed and be available as floor space for any future use of the building (which may include a smaller toilet area);

(iii) Expressions of interest be sought in February/ March 2018 for proposals to operate at the building;

(iv) The Town prepares a proposal for a community use beach shelter/BBQ area for consideration; and

(v) No major investment be made in repairing the soffit until such time that Council has determined the nature and timing of new use for the building.

On 5 January 2018 the Town published media releases on the Town’s facebook and web page regarding the South City Beach Kiosk and Amenities Building Update. The heading of the article was:

“ You spoke and we heard! South City Beach Kiosk is set to stay!”. (Copy attached as Annexure B.)

The Town then undertook an Expression of Interest process which was reported to Council in Confidential Report 13.2 at the Ordinary Council meeting of 22 May 2018.

It is noted $180,000 was subsequently listed in the Town’s 19/20 budget to undertake the concrete soffit works at the South City Beach Kiosk.

On 11 February 2020 an Elected Member Forum was held at which the future of the South City Beach Kiosk was discussed. Six options were presented to Elected Members for consideration. Due to confidentiality constraints, I cannot list them here – but you will recall what they were.

The Elected Member Forum (at which decisions cannot be made) was the last time the issue of the South City Beach Kiosk was considered.

Local Government Inventory

Since December 2017 at which it was resolved to retain the South City Beach Kiosk, the Town has also adopted its Local Government Inventory and Heritage List.

The Heritage List dated October 2018 includes the South City Beach Kiosk (Place Number 5) as “Category 2 Management Category”.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 60 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Its statement of significance is stated as follows:

• The place has aesthetic value as a rare intact example of a concrete building exhibiting Late 20th Century Brutalist Influences in an organic style;

• Together with the remaining Floreat Kiosk, the pair has aesthetic value as landmarks on the beach front which exhibit unusual form and construction;

• The place has historic value for its association with a period of innovation and experimentation in building design in the 1960s;

• The place has historic value for its association with prominent architects in Western Australia during the1960s and1970s; Paul Ritter and Tony Brand;

• The place has social value for many members of the community from the Town of Cambridge and the wider Perth metropolitan area for its association with visits to the beach since 1970.

A Category 2 Management Category means a place is of “Considerable Significance” – Very important to the heritage of the locality, High degree of integrity/authenticity and the desired outcome is that conservation of the place is highly desirable. (See page 14 of Local Government Inventory).

The Place record for the South City Beach Kiosk in the Local Heritage List is attached as Annexure C.

Since the time of completion of the Heritage List further recognition of the South City Beach Kiosk has occurred in the broader context of the Nation of Australia in Australian architecture.

For example a book titled “Australia” modern architectures in history by Harry Margalit was published in 2019. The South City Beach Kiosk is a topic at pages 186-187 in the chapter titled “ The Very Good Times” 1962-1980.

State Heritage

Whilst not currently listed on the State Register as a place, the South City Beach Kiosk is currently listed for an assessment for likely entry on the State Register as forming part of the place City Beach (P9108).

On 19 January 2018 the Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA) wrote to the Town explaining this was to occur. A copy of the HCWA’s letter is attached as Annexure E.

When considering an individual nomination of the South City Beach Kiosk for the State Register, HCWA determined that the kiosk did not in itself reach the threshold for registration but it determined that P9108 City Beach is likely to have cultural heritage significance at a state level and advised that P9108 City Beach has been added to the Heritage Council’s assessment program for entry on the State Register. HCWA advised it would notify the Town when the assessment will be undertaken.

HCWA also attached its preliminary review for the place City Beach. See HCWA # P9108 in Annexure E attached.

Note that the South City Beach Kiosk is extensively referred to in that preliminary review as a specific element of the place City Beach and is noted as having a high level of rarity. The curtilage of the place City Beach has been extended to capture the South City Beach Kiosk within the likely registered area.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 61 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

HCWA requested any documentation the Town may have about P9108 City Beach as well as the Town’s views regarding its cultural heritage significance and possible registration.

HCWA also said it would appreciate advice as to whether there are any current development approvals or pending applications over the place and any applications that the Town receives in the future.

A convention has been established between HCWA and local governments whereby proposed changes to places on HCWA’s assessment programme are referred to HCWA for non-statutory advice.

Attached is a recent search of the Inherit Database showing that South City Beach Kiosk is listed as a child place of City Beach Place Number 9108 and under Heritage Council Decisions and Deliberations shows the place record of City Beach as “RHS To be assessed.”

Coastal Erosion

The Town as part of the redevelopment of the City Beach precinct commissioned a report in 2013 on anticipated seal level change and storm surge events. It advised that the Kiosk was assessed as a Medium Risk of Loss by 2020 and High Risk of Loss by 2062.

However, in 2019 the State Government undertook a state-wide assessment of the extent and scale of coastal erosion in WA. The Assessment of Coastal Erosion Hotspots identified 55 locations – 15 metropolitan and 40 regional – where coastal erosion is expected to have a significant impact on public and private property or infrastructure in the next 25 years.

The assessment was commissioned by the State Government and undertaken by Seashore Engineering Pty Ltd.

City Beach was not identified as a Coastal Erosion Hotspot. Copy of the Coastal Erosion Hotspots is attached in Annexure F.

REASON PROVIDED BY CR MCKERRACHER:

The South City Beach Kiosk was designed by Mr Tony Brand working with Forbes and Fitzhardinge and built in 1970. He is now regarded as a prominent Australian architect and his works are now applauded in Australian architecture. He is described by some as producing “the most exuberant works of the era in Perth, and perhaps Australia.”

The structure is regarded as unique as it represents one of the first buildings designed so close to a beach showing how most Australians had grown and embraced and connected with beachlife as part of their lifestyle and national identity.

The Kiosk is now in its 50th anniversary year at its lowest ebb of its life which I personally find very sad.

Knowing it would be expensive, the community has overwhelming expressed its view that the South City Beach Kiosk should be retained.

The Community was consulted and informed as to costs and possible “significant financial implications on top of the cost of roof repairs”. The Community responded in high numbers (more than on the recent LPS survey) and overwhelmingly responded to not demolish the building and retain it.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 62 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Since Council’s 2017 decision to retain the South City Beach Kiosk, the South City Beach Kiosk is still fenced off with temporary fencing and has continued to be the subject of some vandalism and most recently damage to the stacks on the Kiosk’s shell roof has occurred. It continues to stand in a state of disrepair and appears incongruous to the multi million dollar restaurant establishments on the beachfront.

The slab soffit is exposed and continues to be exposed to the environment. Its condition continues to deteriorate each year, particularly at winter and the longer it is left exposed to deteriorate with concrete degradation and exposed rio the more expensive it is likely to become to repair and retain as desired by the community.

In 2018 the Town made representations to the community that the fate of the Kiosk had been determined by Council and that it was to be retained.

As indicated in correspondence from the HCWA it is likely the Kiosk will be assessed for entry on the State Register as part of the place City Beach. That does not occur unless a place is considered after a preliminary review by HCWA to be of considerable significance and likely to be placed on the State Register in time.

As part of the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028 consulted on with the community and adopted by the Town, the Town resolved to place more focus on retaining our highly valued built heritage and charm. The retention and preservation of the Kiosk would be a live example of Council responding to its community’s desire to retain a structure considered by the community as part of the Town’s heritage and charm.

Frequently, including in September 2019 and more recently this month, ratepayers have contacted me requesting advice on what the Town is doing with this building expressing concern that the building is deteriorating due to what they perceive as “demolition by neglect” on the part of the Town.

There therefore still appears to me strong community interest in retaining the Kiosk.

The Town does not have appeared to communicated with its ratepayers in respect of the Kiosk since the media release in January 2018.

Another winter is approaching and it is likely that will result in more adverse impacts on the unrepaired roof of the Kiosk as well as continue to cause costs of repair to continue to increase as evident from constant revising up of costs from the $180,000 included in the budget last year.

It is prudent for Council to make a decision on this matter in order to conserve the integral part of the building being the roof from further deterioration and vandalism, provide clear direction to the Town’s administration as to the Council’s view on the priority and urgency of these works and in order to mitigate the risk of the building failing further due to omission to take remedial action as desired by the community.

The conservation works necessary to keep the roof and structure in sound condition should be carried out to reduce the risks of further deterioration and resultant increase in repair works required in the future.

From its category 2 listing on the Town’s Heritage List and its location within a precinct on HCWA’s assessment programme, the Kiosk is unquestionably a heritage asset that is highly valued by the community.

The Town only owns approximately 4 places listed as Category 1 places in the whole of the Town and approximately 5 in category 2. The overwhelming number of places on the heritage list in categories 1 and 2 are in private ownership (approximately 36). The Town expects those owners

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 63 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020 to respect and observe heritage requirements so as an owner of a category 2 place, it is in my view incumbent on the Town to lead by example and do the same.

In its 50th year, the South City Beach Kiosk should be an icon for the Town and celebrated by being preserved to serve as that beacon of what the community regards as all that is good about our past and worth preserving for our future generations.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 64 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

12.2 PROPOSED WORKS TO MEDIAN STRIP CONFIGURATION ON BROOKDALE STREET – OCEANIC DRIVE INTERSECTION UNDER DELEGATION 1.2.13 PRIVATE WORKS ON, OVER OR UNDER PUBLIC PLACES

Submission by Cr Timmermanis

That Council:

1. ACKNOWLEDGES receipt of correspondence from lawyers Castledine Gregory representing the owners of 129 Brookdale Street, Floreat and 23 Oceanic Drive, Floreat received and circulated on 26th February, 2020 by the CEO;

2. NOTES the opposition of the affected landowners to any proposed extension of the median strip on the South side of the Brookdale Street – Oceanic Drive intersection intended to prevent right turning from the service road used by 23 Oceanic Drive, Floreat;

3. DIRECTS the CEO to ensure:

3.1 No works to extend the median strip or to prevent right turn entry or exit to the aforementioned access road commence without the express written permission of the affected land-owners as required by delegation 1.2.13 Private Works on, over or under Public Places. 3.2 No development approval reliant on a condition for the prevention of right turn entry or exit to the aforementioned access road, be given without the express written permission of the affected land-owners as required by delegation 1.2.13 Private Works on, over or under Public Places.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION PROVIED BY CR TIMMERMANIS:

On 6th February, 2020, the MetroWest JDAP granted an approval for a proposed childcare development on 130 and 132 Brookdale Street, Floreat. A condition attached to this approval required the extension of the median strip on the southern side of the Brookdale-Oceanic intersect to be extended to prevent right turning exit and entry into the slip road used as access for 130 and 132 Brookdale Street along with 23 Oceanic Drive. The extension would also prevent right turning exit and entry to 129 Brookdale Street.

At the Metrowest JDAP meeting, the Panel was advised the Town’s officers had the required authority to agree to such a condition. It is presumed they may have been referring to an authority provided under delegation 1.2.13 Private Works on, over or under Public Places. However, the affected land-owners have clearly indicated they do not give their permission for any such works and further appear to have advised the Town of this prior to the Metrowest JDAP meeting held on the 6th February,2020.

The absence of the written permission from the affected adjacent and adjoining land-owners as required by delegation 1.2.13 precluded the possibility of any direct or implied authority for the officers to agree to such a condition . Therefore this resolution is intended to provide clarity on this matter and any other similar matters which may involve the application of delegation 1.2.13 Private Works on, over or under Public Places. It is also to ensure that no works commence until the required consultation is conducted and relevant permissions are obtained.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 65 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer may, if time permits, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared.

On 15 April 2020, the Town has received a development application for 130-132 Brookdale Street, Floreat, which is currently being reported to the JDAP. The DA seeks to obtain approval for new conditions as follows:

5. "Prior to commencement of use, the existing raised island median strip within the Brookdale Street road reserve which adjoins the service road entrance shall be extended north within the existing line marked median strip (as shown on Figure 1, ‘Recommended Access Plan’ of the Consolidated Traffic Report (prepared by Uloth and Associates and dated 15 November 2019)) to physically restrict vehicle movements from the service road to a left-in/left-out only configuration at the landowner(s) full cost (including all traffic management costs) to the satisfaction of the Town."

5B Within 28 days of receipt of request from the landowner, the Town of Cambridge shall provide the cost of constructing the median strip extension (the cost) and any dispute as to the reasonableness of the cost may be referred by either party to arbitration by an expert engineer appointed upon the request of either the Town or the landowner, by the President of Engineers Australia, at the joint cost of the Town of Cambridge and the landowner, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties”

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 66 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

12.3 ABBOTSFORD VERGE LANDSCAPING

Submission by Mayor Shannon

That Council DIRECTS the CEO to landscape the verge outside the Abbotsford Hospital with 3 mature canopy trees in the centre of verge with wood chips and ecozoned planting across the entire verge, which is to be planted by no later than June 2020.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MAYOR SHANNON:

The Abbotsford Hospital formerly known as Niola has been in operation since the early 1920’s. It was a maternity hospital and as Niola provided care to patients in the field of mental health ranging from eating disorders, depression anxiety and PTSD to drug and alcohol services. In 2010, the hospital underwent a major $7 million dollar redevelopment which included changing its name to Abbotsford Private Hospital. In 2012, there were alterations to the Abbotsford Hospital to include a new 30 bed inpatient facility.

The Town has an identified medical precinct which is to the west of the Abbotsford Hospital in an area bounded by McCourt St and Station Street. In Feb 2015 a ‘Hospital Special Purposes’ land use at 61-69 Cambridge Street, West Leederville was an “X”use within the Residential zone and was not permitted.

In February 2015, the Town received an application from TPG on behalf of the owners at that time of the Abbotsford Hospital which sought an additional use “Hospital Special Purpose” to allow future discretion for approving development. The applicant confirmed the purpose of applying for the subject scheme amendment was to “legitimise the current land use” and assured the Town that there would be no further upgrades to the building in the foreseeable future.

The Town indicated that the proposed land use was suitable for the location due to its longstanding operational status and noted that since the last major redevelopment the use had continued to operate without any known complaints. The proposal was not considered to adversely affect the amenity of the properties abutting the Residential zone. As with a number of scheme amendments which were initiated in 2015 without due consideration of the long term implications, the Town recommended the initiation of an additional use to be included on the subject site for the use of ‘Hospital Special Purpose’.

The applicant in 2015 sought the additional use on the basis that the additional use provided the Town with discretion to approve and allow for greater development control via specific planning conditions relating to the operations and built form of that use. The application for the additional use was noted as exceptional in the residential precinct however the Town was assured that any future proposal would require individual assessment, and would always be limited due to the parking constraints in the area.

The expansion of hospital was given an approval by JDAP to redevelop into a 6 storey facility with 81 beds in October 2019, directly abutting a residential zone.

The impact of the hospital on the local residential street is likely to be significant particularly as there are minimal setbacks to the building therefore the use of the verge directly adjacent to the Abbotsford Hospital for landscaping and therefore ecozoning and canopy trees will ameliorate the impact of the 6 storey commercial structure in the residential zone and is consistent with our community plan which seeks liveable neighbourhoods.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 67 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MAYOR SHANNON:

The Delegation of Authority is pursuant to Reg 17 of the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996. Reg 17(4)(e) of the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996 states that the permission may be cancelled by giving written notice to the person to whom the permission was granted.

Given the fact we have been discussing seeking an opinion to legally appeal this JDAP approval since Nov 2019 until this month - it seems premature to have exercised the delegation last week.

It doesn’t follow that since the delegation has been exercised the Notice of Motion cannot be achieved.

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

The JDAP condition for the Abbotsford Hospital DA contains the following condition for the Applicant:-

“A plan shall be submitted to, and approved by the Town, prior to the commencement of the development detailing the location and specifications of three on-street embayment car parking bays on Abbotsford Street to be constructed at the cost of the developer. The car parking bays shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans prior to the occupation or use of the development.”

The Town’s Infrastructure and Works Directorate has assessed the plans and specifications and recommended approval, as they meet the Town’s specifications and requirements.

Accordingly, as there were no valid reasons to withold approval of the proposed works, the proposal was approved by the Town’s Administration, subject to a number of standard conditions.

The applicant has also been advised by the Town’s Planning Section.

As this matter has already been actioned, the Notice of Motion may not be achievable, as this would conflict with the Town's approval.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 68 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

12.4 ARTIFICIAL HOCKEY TURF – LAKE MONGER POWIS ST CARPARK

Submission by Mayor Shannon

That Council:-

1. DECIDES that the Town’s preferred site for artificial hockey turf facilities is at the Powis Street end of Lake Monger immediately adjacent to Powis Street.

2. DIRECTS the Administration to undertake immediate consultation with Hockey WA and YMCC to progress the development of the plan for an artificial hockey turf at the Lake Monger site, directly adjacent to Powis Street, Glendalough by:

(a) undertaking a geotechnical survey of the site; (b) preparing draft plans for an artificial turf with toilets and basic changerooms; (c) compile a report with indicative costings; (d) ensure the development of the plan includes engagement with local schools including Lake Monger Primary, Wembley Primary, West Leederville Primary and the Bob Hawke College seeking expressions of interest for pupils to use the hockey turf as part of their physical education program; (e) present an update report to the June meeting; and (f) the project be allocated to the Director of Infrastructure to manage on behalf of the Town: and

3. The draft plan be presented to an EM Forum to elected members with invitations extended to interested stakeholders.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MAYOR SHANNON:

YMCC Hockey club has been seeking a suitable site for a full sized hockey pitch for many years. When Alderbury Reserve was rejected by the Town as a suitable site, the carpark at the northern end of Lake Monger was suggested as an alternative site. The site is a former tip site which must remain capped.

The conversion of the bitumen carpark to a hockey turf would provide a new sporting facility close the city and the freeway maintains the passive open space at Lake Monger and has services already available at the site, which would have to be expanded. The location of the turf will also provide passive surveillance and activity at the northern end of Lake Monger and there is existing parking available in the Dodd St carpark.

The YMCC has indicated that the club is very keen to move forward with their discussions, and have been in discussion with Hockey WA. The Lake Monger precinct meets the objectives of Hockey WA and is viewed by the club as an exciting opportunity for a hockey facility in the northern corridor, and should be progressed as a worthy project for economic stimulus post COVID- 19.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MAYOR SHANNON:

This motion isn’t an approval - it is an indication of Council’s preferred site to allow some draft costings and plans to be prepared.

The Town incurred expenditure to undertake draft plans for the artificial turf at Alderbury (Reserve).

With regards to the geotechnical survey, I understand that the Telethon Speech and Hearing have already undertaken a geotechnical report in relation to the site as part of their pre-

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 69 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020 construction, so I would expect it will be a matter of obtaining the geotechnical report and reading it and then reporting on the geotechnical report to the June meeting. If the report is not available to the Town, then we would need to amend the motion on Tuesday to push the date out.

With regards to the engagement - The engagement with local schools is to ensure they are part of the ultimate user groups who are considered as part of any funding proposals and grant applications. It is not envisaged that the schools would be consulted at this early draft stage.

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 2 requires Approval by an Absolute Majority decision, for the following reasons:

1. The Council has not approved of this project: 2. The Council has not approved of any funds for this project and it would incur unbudgeted expenditure. 3. An amount of the funds needs to be specified.

A report by June 2020 is considered very tight, for the following reasons: a) the engagement of a Geotechnical consultant to carry out a geotechnical report is required to follow the Town’s Procurement process. This normally takes several weeks to obtain necessary quotations. b) The Geotechnical survey would take several days and a report needs to be submitted- A turn-around of several weeks is realistic and more reasonable. c) To carry out engagement with local schools and seeking EOI’s for them to use the hockey turf does not allow sufficient time for this to be properly carried out.

If the Council desires to support the Notice of Motion, it is recommended that the following additional clause 4 be included:-

4. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to reallocate $250,000 for the unbudgeted works, specified in clause 2 above.

The Town’s Administration provides the following indicative costings:-

1. Geotechnical survey and report - $20,000 (Scanning and or excavation, and report) 2. Building and hockey pitch designs a. Structural Engineer (footing designs for the floodlighting, hockey pitch and building) - $30,000 b. Civil Engineer (contaminated site remediation, car park, hockey pitch levels, drainage, earthworks) $30,000 c. Electrical Engineer (Site main DB, Sub-boards, floodlighting, surrounds, building, etc) - $30,000 d. Hydraulic Engineer (includes, pitch surface water drainage, sewer, scheme, bore and irrigation recycling plant) - $30,000 e. Specialised consultancy service (Hockey Pitch) - $30,000 f. Landscaping - $5,000 g. Heritage consultant (Aboriginal Heritage Survey) - $10,000 h. Architect (head consultant) - $60,000

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 70 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

3. Quantity Surveyor - $5,000

The Geotechnical survey and report would be done first. The works would not progress further if this report indicated significant site rectification works which could increase the cost of the project by more than 20%.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 71 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

12.5 COVID -19 PANADEMIC RESPONSE- SECOND WAVE

Submission by Mayor Shannon

That Council:-

1. ENGAGES a suitably qualified IT consultancy to provide Council directly with an independent report to improve the Town’s IT system functionality to consider improvements including:

(a) replacement of servers with virtual servers and the upgrade of SQL databases; (b) consider use of platforms with cloud connectivity; (c) with the implementation of improvements by no later than 30 August 2020;

in order to provide staff have significantly improved data access from home including the migration of the Town’s data to the cloud to allow for remote access.

Procurement quotations be obtained from IT consultancies including AWS, and Azure or Google with the brief to be finalised by a panel consisting of a representatives from Corporate Services, IT and Cr ______and Cr ______;

2. ENGAGES a suitably qualified accounting consultancy to undertake financial modelling for the Town of various potential Covid 19 scenarios especially Stage 3 restrictions of 100 people at hospitality facilities and other Town owned facilities, and the impact on the Town’s cashflow and income.

Procurement quotations be obtained from:

1. Jeff Robson at Access Analytics; 2. Russell Brown at Moore Stephens and 3. RSM and 4. Synergies.

The Mayor, Cr Timmermanis and the CEO are appointed to a panel to select a suitable candidate as soon as possible to undertake the financial modelling work urgently for the Town.

3. The CEO provide the draft report prepared by Natalie Lincoln of Price Consulting which reviewed the Bold Park Pool and other Town-owned facilities as part of the organisational review to all elected members within 48 hours of the May meeting.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 72 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

BACKGROUND INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MAYOR SHANNON:

The importance of the ability to work remotely has been highlighted by this pandemic. The Town’s IT system has limited capacity to support the remote work of its employees. The Town had already identified this operational weakness however the prioritisation of this work has become more urgent in the current circumstances. The Council needs an urgent report on the failings of the current IT system, and a strategy to remediate the IT system.

The Town’s finance staff do not currently have capacity to perform the financial modelling required in order to provide the council with the financial information required in order to make informed decisions on the budget and in the medium term.

The Town’s elected members need to have access to all available relevant information and while the CEO has indicated that the report on the facilities remains in draft, it was prepared a number of months ago and is highly relevant to the budget and the considerations of elected members going forward, and therefore should be circulated to all elected members immediately.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MAYOR SHANNON:

The Council of the Town has sought a strategic plan for IT for a number of years and included this as one of your Key Reporting Areas in your current KPIs because of its importance in terms of risk.

IT has been one of our greatest operational risks and Covid unfortunately has shown the weaknesses at the Town. While I do not believe anyone could anticipate the Covid pandemic needing a majority of staff to work from home, the Council now needs to get independent advice on this issue.

On about 8 May 2018 the Town received an ICT presentation from Steve Platts(former IT Manager) that indicated there was no need to move data to the cloud. We have also been presented with capital requests for budget funds for physical servers when virtual servers are now the norm. I believe it is appropriate for Council to get an independent assessment of the Strategic IT plan.

While eventually Mr Andrews presented to the EM Forum in February 2020, I have been pressing for the presentation since October or November 2019 as I was concerned we would not have a plan in time for the budget.

In my opinion the IT has not been given the priority it deserves and I believe the best way forward is for the Council to engage the consultant directly as I believe the staff have an inherent conflict of interest and potential biases – it’s also a highly specialised area of consultancy – I wouldn’t expect IT staff in a local government to know what is the latest technology available and that may result in a continued lack of progress.

As for clause 3 the report relates to the organisational review and was a discrete part of the review relating to the external facilities that was part of the organisational review. The review was undertaken by you at the request of Council as it involves the resources of the Town and the cost of staffing it is an area that is within the responsibility of the council.

I am sure the Price Consultancy report does not contain personal details of employees. If it does contain personal details – those can be redacted.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 73 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 1 – Engagement of IT Consultancy: -

The engagement of an IT Consultant is already included in the Administration IT report being submitted to Council (Refer Item 10.9).

It is of concern that the motion is requesting a report to be submitted direct to Council and by- passing the Administration. s 5.14 (a) of the Local Government Act 1995 prescribes the functions and duties of the CEO. These are as follows:

5.41. Functions of CEO

The CEO’s functions are to —

(a) advise the council in relation to the functions of a local government under this Act and other written laws; and (b) ensure that advice and information is available to the council so that informed decisions can be made; and (c) cause council decisions to be implemented; and (d) manage the day to day operations of the local government; and (e) liaise with the mayor or president on the local government’s affairs and the performance of the local government’s functions; and (f) speak on behalf of the local government if the mayor or president agrees; and (g) be responsible for the employment, management, supervision, direction and dismissal of other employees (subject to section 5.37(2) in relation to senior employees); and (h) ensure that records and documents of the local government are properly kept for the purposes of this Act and any other written law; and (i) perform any other function specified or delegated by the local government or imposed under this Act or any other written law as a function to be performed by the CEO.

Clause 2 – Engagement of Accounting Consultancy

The engagement of an Accounting Consultancy is unbudgeted funds and therefore would require an Absolute Majority decision of the Council to re-allocate the necessary funds for this consultancy.

If the Council desires to support this motion, it is recommended that the following additional clause be included:-

“APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to re-allocate $...... for the unbudgeted consultancy, specified in Clause 2 above.”

The implementation date of IT enhancements is questionable by 30 August 2020 is very tight.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 74 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

Clause 3 – Draft Report relating to Organisational Review

As previously advised to the Mayor, these reports relating to these facilities and employees are draft and have not been finalised or even discussed with Price Consulting.

There does not appear to be a valid reason for the Elected Members to be provided with the reports, at this point in time.

The CEO is of the view that these reports should remain with the CEO until they have been finalised by Price Consulting and reviewed by the CEO.

The Council approved of the new Organisational Structure in February 2019 and this was at the Directorate and Section level.

The CEO is of the view that he is responsible for employee matters below the Section level - refer s5.14 (g) of the Local Government Act 1995, as this is operational and day to day management..

Once formally received and considered by the CEO, the reports can be provided to the Council.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 75 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

13.1 OCEAN GARDENS (INC) - APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY:

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

“(b) the personal affairs of any person; and (e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal — (iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of a person.”

Elected Members are reminded that they are to ensure the information remains CONFIDENTIAL and should not disclose the content of this report to any other person. To do so would be an improper use of information under s.5.93 of the Local Government Act 1995.

13.2 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE - WEMBLEY SPORTS PARK LATENT CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS: - PROGRESS REPORT NO: 6

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following reasons:

(c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; and

(d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 76 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

13.3 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE BUILDING AND INFRASTRUCTURE – CITY BEACH SURF CLUB LATENT CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS - PROGRESS REPORT NO: 6

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following reasons:

(c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; and

(d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting.

13.4 LICENCE AGREEMENT FOR ROAD RESERVE - GPA PTY LTD – PROGRESS REPORT NO: 3

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following reasons:

(c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; and

(d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 77 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

13.5 TOWN COMMUNITY AND SPORTING LEASE PREMISES – COVID-19 RELIEF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY:

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23 (2) of the Local Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

(c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; (e) a matter that if disclosed would reveal (iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of a person.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 78 COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY 26 MAY 2020

14. CLOSURE

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\20 Agenda\5. May\26 May 2020.docx 79