Ordinary Council Meeting 8 March 2016

File Code: OR.MTG 5/2

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

8 MARCH 2016

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 8 MARCH 2016

ATTENTION/DISCLAIMER

These minutes are subject to confirmation.

The purpose of this Council Meeting is to discuss and, where possible, make resolutions about items appearing on the agenda. Whilst Council has the power to resolve such items and may in fact appear to have doone so at the meeting, no person should rely on or act on the basis of such decision or on any advice or information provided by an Elected Member or employee, or on the content of any discussion occurring during the course of the Meeting. Persons should be aware that regulation 10 of thhe Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 establishes procedures to revoke or change a Council decision. No person should rely on the decisions madde by Council until formal written advice of the Council decision is received by that person.

The Shire of Mundaring expressly disclaaims liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of relying on or acting on the basis of any resolution of Council, or any advice or information provided by an Elected Member or employee, or the content of any discussion occurring during the course of the Council Meeeting.

LEGEND To assist the reader, the following explains the method of referencinng used in this document:

Item Example Description

Page Numbers C1 MARCH 2016 Sequential page numbering of (C2, C3, C4 etc) Council Agenda or Minutes for March 2016

Report Numbers 10.1 (10.2, 10.3 etc) Sequential numbering of reports under the heading “110.0 Reports of 11.1 (11.2, 111.3 etc) Committees” or “11.0 Reports of Employees”

Council Decision C7.03.16 Council Decision number 7 from Reference Council meeting Maarch 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C1 MARCH 2016

CONTENTS

1.0 OPENING PROCEDURES 5

1.1 ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS ...... 5 1.2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE ...... 5 2.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY PRESIDING MEMBER WITHOUT DISCUSSION 6

2.1 RED CROSS BLOOD BANK – RED 25 PROGRAM ...... 6 2.2 UN INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY ...... 6 3.0 DECLARATION OF INTEREST 7

3.1 DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL INTEREST AND PROXIMITY INTERESTS ...... 7 3.2 DECLARATION OF INTEREST AFFECTING IMPARTIALITY ...... 7 4.0 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 7

5.0 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 7

6.0 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 8

6.1 REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE – CR PATRICK BERTOLA ...... 8 C1.03.16 ...... 8 7.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS 9

C2.03.16 ...... 9 8.0 PRESENTATIONS 10

8.1 DEPUTATIONS ...... 10 8.2 PETITIONS ...... 10 8.3 PRESENTATIONS ...... 10 9.0 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES 11

9.1 REPORTS OF AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE MEETING ...... 11 C3.03.16 ...... 11 ARC2.02.16 - APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR ...... 11 C3.03.16 ...... 11 ARC2.02.16 ...... 11 ARC3.02.16 - COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN 2015 – DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ...... 12 C3.03.16 ...... 12 ARC3.02.16 ...... 12 ARC4.02.16 - INTERNAL AUDIT CHARTER ...... 12 C3.03.16 ...... 12 ARC4.02.16 ...... 12

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C2 MARCH 2016

ARC5.02.16 - REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICY HR-01 – EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ANTI- BULLYING ...... 12 C3.03.16 ...... 12 ARC5.02.16 ...... 12 ARC6.02.16 - REPEAL OF POLICY OR-05 – COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ELECTED MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES ...... 13 C3.03.16 ...... 13 ARC6.02.16 ...... 13 9.2 REPORTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING ...... 14 C4.03.16 ...... 14 EAC1.02.16 – REVIEW OF TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 14 C4.03.16 ...... 14 EAC1.02.16 ...... 14 EAC2.02.16 – BIOSECURITY – FOX CONTROL PROGRAM IN THE SHIRE OF MUNDARING ... 14 C4.03.16 ...... 14 EAC2.02.16 ...... 14 EAC3.02.16 – NESTING BOX PROGRAM – BLACK COCKATOO BREEDING SITES ...... 15 C4.03.16 ...... 15 EAC2.02.16 ...... 15 9.3 REPORTS OF CEO PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ...... 15 10.0 REPORTS OF EMPLOYEES 16

10.1 CONCLUSION OF ADVERTISING FOR STRUCTURE PLAN 69 – AREA BOUND BY THORNWICK CRESCENT, BETTY STREET, NORTHCOTE STREET AND OLD NORTHAM ROAD AND SURRENDERING MANAGEMENT OF RESERVE 46307 ...... 16 C5.03.16 ...... 34 10.2 STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN ...... 72 C6.03.16 ...... 75 10.3 PROPOSED MINOR BOUNDARY CHANGE – LOT 239 WILKINS STREET (FORMERLY GOODCHILD OVAL), BELLEVUE ...... 101 C7.03.16 ...... 103 10.4 OMNIBUS AMENDMENT NO.7 – VEGETATION PROTECTION ...... 106 C8.03.16 ...... 112 10.5 CLOSURE OF CROWN RIGHT OF WAY – LOT 66 SWAN ROAD, MAHOGANY CREEK . 120 C9.03.16 ...... 122 10.6 ADOPTION OF HERITAGE PLANNING POLICY AND HERITAGE LIST ...... 133 C10.03.16 ...... 138 10.7 LOT 513 GREAT SOUTHERN HIGHWAY AND LOT 500 GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY, THE LAKES - TWO PYLON SIGNS ...... 217 C11.03.16 ...... 223 10.8 REPEAL OF POLICY OR-03 – PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ...... 233 C12.03.16 ...... 236 10.9 UPDATE OF PURCHASING POLICY AS-04 ...... 243 C13.03.16 ...... 245 10.10 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT – JANUARY 2016 ...... 259 C14.03.16 ...... 262

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C3 MARCH 2016

10.11 PAYMENT BETWEEN MEETINGS – JANUARY 2016 ...... 274 C15.03.16 ...... 275 11.0 ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 299

12.0 URGENT BUSINESS (LATE REPORTS) 299

13.0 CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 299

C16.03.16 ...... 300 13.1 REPORTS OF THE CEO PERFORMANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE ...... 300 CEOPRC1.02.16 – KEY FOCUS AREAS – QUARTERLY UPDATE ...... 300 C17.03.16 ...... 300 CEOPRC1.02.2016 ..... 300 C18.03.16 ...... 301 14.0 CLOSING PROCEDURES 301

14.1 DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF THE NEXT MEETING ...... 301 14.2 CLOSURE OF THE MEETING ...... 301

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C4 MARCH 2016

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBER

1.0 OPENING PROCEDURES

Acknowledgement of Country

Shire of Mundaring respectfully acknowledges Noongar elders past and present and their people (specifically the Whadjuk people who are from this area) who are the traditional custodians of this land.

Recording of Meeting

Members of Council and members of the gallery are advised that this meeting will be audio-recorded.

1.1 Announcement of Visitors

Nil

1.2 Record of Attendance/Apologies/Approved Leave of Absence

Elected Cr David Lavell (President) South Ward Members Cr Patrick Bertola (Deputy President) East Ward Cr Lynn Fisher Central Ward Cr Doug Jeans Central Ward Cr Bob Perks Central Ward Cr John Daw East Ward Cr Stephen Fox East Ward Cr Trish Cook South Ward Cr James Martin South Ward Cr Tony Brennan West Ward Cr Pauline Clark West Ward Cr Tony Cuccaro West Ward

Staff Jonathan Throssell Chief Executive Officer Megan Griffiths Director Strategic & Community Services Mark Luzi Director Statutory Services Paul O'Connor Director Corporate Services Angus Money Manager Planning Services Liam Noonan Manager Design Services Christopher Jennings Senior Strategic Planning Officer Briony Moran Co-ordinator Statutory Planning Adam Olivari Planning Officer Rebecca Noakes Communications Co-ordinator Anna Italiano Minute Secretary

Apologies Nil

Absent Nil

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C5 MARCH 2016

Leave of Nil Absence

Guests Nil

Members of 18 the Public

Members of Nil the Press

2.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY PRESIDING MEMBER WITHOUT DISCUSSION

2.1 Red Cross Blood Bank – Red 25 Program

The President advised that he had attended the launch of the Red 25 Program for the Red Cross Blood Bank. The Red 25 Program is to secure 25% of the blood donations needed in Australia. The Official launch will be held on 1 April 2016. Shire of Mundaring participated previously and through donations of staff 15 lives were saved. Hopefully this year that figure could be improved. The President also invited Councillors to support the program.

2.2 UN International Women's Day

Cr Lynn Fisher advised that the UN proclaimed the 8 March as International Women’s Day in 1977 to promote women's rights and world peace but some form of International Women's Day has been celebrated since the early 1900's. The wearing of purple on 8 March marks International Women's Day. Shire of Mundaring has had 20 women elected to Council since the first one, Jessie Robertson, 1969. The longest serving women Councillors have been Helen Dullard at 15 years and Jenny Johnson and Pauline Clark at 10 years. Olga Wignall was an elected councillor in 1985/86 and she was at that time the only woman on Council. Olga is 94 years old and still a practicing Justice of the Peace. Olga has made a major contribution to the Shire of Mundaring through Mundaring Sharing and in many other ways also. Cr Fisher conveyed a recent discussion she had with Olga regarding her time on Council.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C6 MARCH 2016

3.0 DECLARATION OF INTEREST

3.1 Declaration of Financial Interest and Proximity Interests Members must disclose the nature of their interest in matters to be discussed at the meeting (Part 5 Division 6 of the Local Government Act 1995).

Employees must disclose the nature of their interest in reports or advice when giving the report or advice to the meeting (Sections 5.70 and 5.71 of the Local Government Act 1995).

Nil

3.2 Declaration of Interest Affecting Impartiality Members and staff must disclose their interest in matters to be discussed at the meeting in respect of which the member or employee has given or will give advice (Shire of Mundaring Code of Conduct, Local Government (Admin) Reg. 34C).

The CEO disclosed an Interest Affecting Impartiality for Item 13.1 (Reports of the CEO Performance Review Committee) as the reports relate to him.

4.0 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

5.0 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

15 minutes (with a possible extension of 2 extra 15 minute periods) are set aside at the beginning of each Council meeting to allow members of the public to ask questions of Council.

Public Question Time is to be conducted in accordance with Shire of Mundaring Meeting Procedures Local Law 2015.

Summary of Question Summary of Response

Peter Gavranich – 54 Pittersen Road, Darlington

1. How much do the ratepayers pay The President advised this question monthly to fund "Community Update would be taken on notice. from the Shire President" in four different community newspapers?

2. Why hasn't the Shire (after 3 years) The President advised this question not forced the dumper (who is known) would be taken on notice. to remove the mullock heap on the Crown land in Pittersen Road, yet the Shire reacted very quickly to remove a mullock heap for DRRA in their precinct?

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C7 MARCH 2016

Jenny Johnson – President, Mundaring & Hills Historical Society

1. Is Council aware that the Glen Forrest The Shire President advised that Station Masters House, which is the Municipal Inventory is a living included in the Municipal Inventory list document and will be updated as with a comment 'fair condition' has and when required. been vacant for over 10 years? Given this decay, by neglect, would The CEO advised that if there was a Council consider leasing the property community group interested the to one of the local groups for a Shire would be more than happy for 'peppercorn' rental rather than leave them to approach the Shire to the house to decay to a state discuss how a lease or similar requiring demolition? arrangement may be accommodated. There have not been any approaches that have suited the use of those particular premises but the Shire is open to discussions with any community group if they wish to maintain the building. 2. Is Council aware that as a result of The CEO advised that the Shire the leaking roof at the MHHS would take the question on notice to Museum, which is in partnership with determine what the terms and the Tourist Bureau in the Old School conditions of the lease are to more House, the display lighting which was precisely inform where the installed by MHHS was damaged? responsibility lies. As the damage was caused by the Shire's roof leaking and not by wear and tear by MHHS would Council reconsider carrying out those repairs at no cost to MHHS?

6.0 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

6.1 Request for Leave of Absence – Cr Patrick Bertola

Cr Bertola has advised of his request for leave of absence from 19 March 2016 to 23 March 2016 (inclusive).

COUNCIL DECISION C1.03.16 MOTION

Moved by: Cr Daw Seconded by: Cr Martin

That Cr Bertola be granted leave of absence from all meetings of Council from 19 March 2016 to 23 March 2016 inclusive.

CARRIED 12/0

For: Cr Lavell, Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan, Cr Cook, Cr Fox, Cr Jeans, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Perks

Against: Nil

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C8 MARCH 2016

7.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

COUNCIL DECISION C2.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Fisher Seconded by: Cr Perks

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held Tuesday 9 February 2016 be confirmed.

CARRIED 12/0

For: Cr Lavell, Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan, Cr Cook, Cr Fox, Cr Jeans, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Perks

Against: Nil

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C9 MARCH 2016

8.0 PRESENTATIONS

8.1 Deputations

(1) Members of the public may, during the deputations segment of the order of business and with the consent of the Presiding Member, make a public statement on any matter that appears on the agenda for that meeting provided that – a) the deputation is limited to a maximum of 3 minutes, unless otherwise determined by the Presiding member; b) the deputation is not offensive or defamatory in nature, providing that the Presiding Member has taken all reasonable steps to assist the member of the public to phrase the statement in a manner that is not offensive or defamatory; and c) no discussion or questions relating to the deputation are permitted, unless otherwise determined by the Presiding Member. (2) Fifteen minutes is to be allocated for deputations. (3) Once all statements have been made, nothing prevents the unused part of the deputation time period from being used for other matters. (4) If the 15 minute period set aside for deputations is reached, Council may resolve by resolution that statement time be extended for no more than two 15 minute extensions.

8.2 Petitions

(1) A petition is to – a) be addressed to the President; b) be made by electors of the district; c) state the request on each page of the petition; d) contain the legible names, addresses and signatures of the electors making the request; e) contain a summary of the reasons for the request; f) state the name of the person to whom, and an address at which, notice to the petitioners can be given; and g) not contain offensive or insulting language. (2) On the presentation of a petition – a) the member presenting it or the CEO is confined to reading the petition; and b) the only motion that is in order is that the petition be received and that it be referred to the CEO for action. (3) At any meeting, the Council is not to vote on any matter that is the subject of a petition presented to that meeting, unless – a) The matter is the subject of a report included in the agenda; and b) The Council has considered the issues raised in the petition.

8.3 Presentations

Nil

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C10 MARCH 2016

9.0 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

9.1 Reports of Audit & Risk Committee Meeting

Please note: The full reports of the Audit and Risk Committee to be considered by Council are contained within the unconfirmed minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 9 February 2016 (see ARC Minutes). The ‘Attachments’ referred to in the following Committee recommendations refer to the minutes of the Committee meeting and not the Council meeting.

COUNCIL DECISION C3.03.16 MOTION

Moved by: Cr Bertola Seconded by: Cr Martin

That, by absolute majority, recommendations from the Audit and Risk Committee ARC2.02.16 to ARC6.02.16 be adopted en-bloc.

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 12/0

For: Cr Lavell, Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan, Cr Cook, Cr Fox, Cr Jeans, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Perks

Against: Nil

ARC2.02.16 - Appointment of Auditor

COUNCIL DECISION C3.03.16 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ARC2.02.16

That Council, by absolute majority -

1. Appoints Messrs David Tomasi, Greg Godwin and Wen-Shien Chai of Moore Stephens as the Shire of Mundaring’s external auditors for the financial years ending 30 June 2016, 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018;

2. Agrees to the quoted prices of $20,000 (ex GST), $21,000 (ex GST) and $22,000 (ex GST) for each of the respective years of the audit engagement; and

3. Writes to Anthony Macri of Macri Partners, the Shire’s previous auditors, and thank him for services rendered.

CARRIED BY EN-BLOC COUNCIL DECISION 3.03.16

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C11 MARCH 2016

ARC3.02.16 - Compliance Audit Return 2015 – Department of Local Government

COUNCIL DECISION C3.03.16 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ARC3.02.16

That Council -

1. adopts the completed 2015 Compliance Audit Return for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 as presented in ATTACHMENT 6; and

2. submits the completed Compliance Audit Return for the Shire of Mundaring to the Department of Local Government and Communities after the Joint Certificate is signed by the Shire President and Chief Executive Officer.

CARRIED BY EN-BLOC COUNCIL DECISION 3.03.16

ARC4.02.16 - Internal Audit Charter

COUNCIL DECISION C3.03.16 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ARC4.02.16

That Council adopts the Internal Audit Charter in ATTACHMENT 7.

CARRIED BY EN-BLOC COUNCIL DECISION 3.03.16

ARC5.02.16 - Review of Council Policy HR-01 – Equal Opportunity and Anti- Bullying

COUNCIL DECISION C3.03.16 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ARC5.02.16

That Council -

1. Notes that Policy HR-01 “Equal Employment Opportunity” has been renamed to “Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-Bullying“, reviewed and amended; and 2. Adopts Policy HR-01 as attached. CARRIED BY EN-BLOC COUNCIL DECISION 3.03.16

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C12 MARCH 2016

ARC6.02.16 - Repeal of Policy OR-05 – Communication between Elected Members and Employees

COUNCIL DECISION C3.03.16 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ARC6.02.16

That Council repeals Policy OR-05 – Communication between Elected Members and Employees (ATTACHMENT 10).

CARRIED BY EN-BLOC COUNCIL DECISION 3.03.16

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C13 MARCH 2016

9.2 Reports of Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting

Please note: The full reports of the Environmental Advisory Committee to be considered by Council are contained within the unconfirmed minutes of the Environmental Advisory Committee meeting held on 16 February 2016 (see EAC Minutes). The ‘Attachments’ referred to in the following Committee recommendations refer to the minutes of the Committee meeting and not the Council meeting.

COUNCIL DECISION C4.03.16 MOTION

Moved by: Cr Brennan Seconded by: Cr Fox

That recommendations from the Environmental Advisory Committee meeting EAC1.02.16 to EAC3.02.16 be adopted en-bloc.

CARRIED 12/0

For: Cr Lavell, Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan, Cr Cook, Cr Fox, Cr Jeans, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Perks

Against: Nil

EAC1.02.16 – Review of Terms of Reference

COUNCIL DECISION C4.03.16 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EAC1.02.16

That Council adopts the reviewed Terms of Reference of the Environmental Advisory Committee as attached to this report (refer AMENDED ATTACHMENT 9) including proposed amendments.

CARRIED BY EN-BLOC COUNCIL DECISION C4.03.16

EAC2.02.16 – Biosecurity – Fox Control Program in the Shire of Mundaring

COUNCIL DECISION C4.03.16 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EAC2.02.16

That Council lists for consideration an amount of $11,000 in the 2016/2017 financial year for a fox control program.

CARRIED BY EN-BLOC COUNCIL DECISION C4.03.16

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C14 MARCH 2016

EAC3.02.16 – Nesting Box Program – Black Cockatoo Breeding Sites

COUNCIL DECISIOIN C4.03.16 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EAC2.02.16

That Council confirm its ongoing support for the Nesting Box Program – Black Cockatoo Breeding Sites as it strengthens the population of the threatened Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo in the Shire of Mundaring.

CARRIED BY EN-BLOC COUNCIL DECISION C4.03.16

9.3 Reports of CEO Performance Review Committee Meeting

Please refer to Item 13.1.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C15 MARCH 2016

10.0 REPORTS OF EMPLOYEES

10.1 Conclusion of advertising for Structure Plan 69 – area bound by Thornwick Crescent, Betty Street, Northcote Street and Old Northam Road and Surrendering Management of Reserve 46307

File Code PS.TPS 4.3.069 Location / Address See ATTACHMENT 1 Landowners Various Applicant Statewest Planning Zoning LPS4 – Residential R5 and Residential R2.5 (Lot 382 only) MRS – Urban Area Approximately 18.5 hectares Use Class N/A Ward East Author Christopher Jennings, Senior Strategic Planning Officer Senior Employee Mark Luzi, Director Statutory Services Disclosure of Any Nil Interest

SUMMARY

Advertising has recently been completed for Structure Plan 69. Council is now required to consider the merits of the subdivision framework proposed.

It is recommended that Council supports Structure Plan 69 and refer its resolution to the WAPC for final determination subject to modifications aimed at, amongst other things, improving tree retention in private property and road verges.

It is also recommended that Council surrender management of Lot 382 (Reserve 46307) and advise the DoL of its decision.

BACKGROUND

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS/EXPRESSIONS

Acronym/Abbreviation/ Meaning Expression BAL Bushfire Attack Level DCP Development Contribution Plan DoL Department of Lands DoP Department of Planning IIP Infrastructure Implementation Program

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C16 MARCH 2016

LPS Local Planning Strategy LPS4 Local Planning Scheme No. 4 LSIP Local Subdivision and Infrastructure Plan Planning framework The combination of planning controls relevant to the proposal POS Public Open Space Regulations Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 ROW Right-of-Way SAT State Administrative Tribunal Scheme Local Planning Scheme Shire Shire of Mundaring SSO State Solicitors Office UXO Unexploded Ordnance WAPC Western Australian Planning Commission WSUD Water Sensitive urban Design

Site

The subject properties are bound by Old Northam Road, Northcote Street, Betty Street and Thornwick Crescent in the suburb of Chidlow (refer to ATTACHMENT 1).

Gradients are around 3-5% (10% in limited areas). The location contains a large amount of native regrowth vegetation.

Soils near the watercourse are identified as Yarragil with the balance of the site identified as Dwellingup. According to Structure Plan 69, Dwellingup soils are capable of assimilating effluent and provide a suitable construction foundation for houses and roads.

Surface water has been found which will require some amount of filling and sub- soil drainage in the south west corner of the site to accommodate the disposal of effluent. The location has a low Acid Sulfate Soil risk.

A Parks and Recreation Reserve exists to the north and east, residential subdivision to the south and a local conservation reserve, Parks and Recreation Reserve and child care centre to the west.

LSIP 213

LSIP 213 was endorsed under the Shire’s Town Planning Scheme No. 3 and approved by the WAPC in February 2000.

LSIP 213 covered the same area as that proposed by Structure Plan 69 when under the former R5 residential code, but excluded the properties at 2660 (Lot 269), 2770 (Lot 268) and 2940 (Lot 267) Old Northam Road.

The following table provides a development timeline of LSIP 213 which highlights development themes consistently applied to the land. Council should be cognisant of these themes in making its determination.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C17 MARCH 2016

Development history

Date Action July 1994 Council identifies the subject properties as one of a collection of properties requiring an LSIP to be prepared. January 1995 LSIP 213 lodged March 1995 Council considered LSIP 213 for approval and recommended that the LSIP be amended to identify building envelopes, define remnant vegetation and orchards and undertake a survey of all existing structures. February 1997 Aboriginal Archaeological Heritage Survey undertaken on former Reserves 31779 and 17713. No archaeological sites were discovered for either of the two lots.

Reserve 31779 and 17713 were formerly in a position now covered by the residential lots fronting Thornwick Crescent. March 1997 Assessment of fauna values undertaken on Crown Reserves 31779 and 17713. The findings of the report were that fauna were in the reserves due to their mobility, but species are likely to move outside the limits of the reserves. Older trees were noted for their habitat value for black cockatoos. May 1997 Flora study undertaken on former Crown Reserves 31779 and 17713. The main finding of that report was that “…it is highly unlikely that any priority or declared rare flora exist on either title.” September 1997 WAPC provides comment on LSIP 213 that the Public Access Way and drainage easement be constructed as a firebreak. June 1998 Report presented to Council to consider submissions on LSIP 213. Information relevant to the consideration of Structure Plan 69 included:  2940 (Lot 267), 2770 (Lot 268) and 2660 (Lot 269) Old Northam Road, Chidlow excluded from LSIP area pending further geotechnical investigation and assessment. It was noted that the land contained a high groundwater table.  WSUD principles should be applied to ensure subdivisions are designed to avoid direct drainage into a watercourse.  Applicant was required to prepare a modified plan for the cul-de-sac to show how drainage management can be achieved by treating runoff at the source.  Emergency fire access was required in the event of a bushfire, due to the proximity of the large bushland reserve to the east. February 1999 An amended copy of LSIP 213 to reflect Council’s decision was submitted by the applicant and referred to the WAPC.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C18 MARCH 2016

June 1999 In response to the advice of the WAPC, LSIP 213 was modified to show:  Subdivision potential for Reserves 31779 and 17713.  Widening of the western end of the cul-de-sac for a compensating/detention basin.  ROW linking the proposed cul-de-sac with Onslow Street for use as an emergency access. November 1999 A letter was sent from the Shire to the Department of Land Administration (now Landgate) accepting management of Reserve 17713 as POS (now Lot 382 Thornwick Crescent – Reserve 46307). February 2000 WAPC resolved to adopt LSIP 213 subject to modification to show the ROW as an underwidth road. September 2007 At some point, Reserve 31779 (currently 915 (Lot 381) Thornwick Crescent) changed from Unallocated Crown Land to a private lot.

In summary, key issues raised during the previous structure planning include: 1. Identification of building envelopes to protect environmental values; 2. Identification and protection of Aboriginal Heritage; 3. Examination of flora and fauna (including black cockatoos); 4. Fire protection and access arrangements; and 5. Soil suitability for effluent disposal

Local Planning Strategy

The Shire’s LPS sets out the long-term planning directions for the Shire over the next ten to fifteen years and is to be read in conjunction with LPS4.

In particular reference to the subject properties, the LPS states:

An opportunity has been identified to increase residential density of some land between Northcote Street and Ash Road from R2.5 to R5, where primarily cleared and suitable for closer development. This will help ensure that the existing Residential zoned land in Chidlow is sufficient to cater for the village’s growth throughout the life of this Strategy, without the need to expand into adjacent land.

The preparation of Structure Plan 69 is the first stage in advancing the subdivision of the subject properties under the new residential code conferred by LPS4.

Structure Plan 69

The following is a summary of the contents of Structure Plan 69:

 Structure Plan 69 is contained in ATTACHMENT 1;

 POS has been designated around a waterbody and a scarred tree that has Aboriginal heritage significance as areas for passive recreation. Weed eradication and bush fire sensitive revegetation programmes are proposed.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C19 MARCH 2016

POS is examined in more detail in the ‘Comment’ section of this report;

 An IIP has been included in Structure Plan 69 to equitably distribute costs among the various landowners during subdivision. Structure Plan 69 has examined landowner responsibilities to service the structure plan area and has concluded that an IIP is required to share costs for the following items: o Reticulated water supply; o Re-alignment of Thornwick Crescent intersection with Old Northam Road; o Stormwater drainage; o POS; o Strategic firebreaks; and o Administration (Council) costs.

This report assesses the IIP in greater depth;

 Technical studies include: Bushfire Management Plan, Botanical Assessment, Effluent Disposal Assessment, Local Water Management Strategy and Aboriginal Heritage Survey;

 The Botanical Assessment identifies that most of the vegetation on the subject properties is degraded, although areas of good quality vegetation are found in the north-east corner of the site. One ‘Mouse Ears’ (Calothamnus rupestris) was found and has, according to the Structure Plan 69 text, been protected by design. Potential black cockatoo habitat was noted on Lot 382 and within the Thornwick Crescent road reserve. Some remnant vegetation was observed around the watercourses on Lots 267, 268 and 269;

 The Aboriginal Heritage Survey found two quartz pieces which were not classified as artefacts. A scarred tree also exists adjacent to Betty Street road reserve and was referred to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. To ensure protection of the land containing the scarred tree has been identified for POS;

 Reserve 34766 was used as an army camp during World War II. Some of the activities of the camp extended onto Lots 382 and 289 including two building pads (store room and shower) and two broken building pads. Structure Plan 69 indicates that an extensive field validation survey was undertaken by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services around 2008. Two or three spent small arms cartridges (.308 calibre) were found and the risk assessed as “minimal.” Further advice was that if subdivision works uncover further UXO that the standard protocols of police and defence forces should apply. None of the properties in the subject area are registered in the Shire’s Municipal Inventory;

 Thornwick Crescent is intended to be upgraded so that it meets Old Northam Road at right angles to ensure save access to the proposed lots. Sections of Northcote Street road reserve which passes over a waterbody is not intended to be constructed.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C20 MARCH 2016

Betty Street is intended to act as a strategic firebreak and emergency access. Proposed subdivisional roads are intended to be constructed by the owners whose lots front that road; and

 The following services are available to the site: above-ground power, reticulated water which will need to be upgraded and telecommunications. Connection to the reticulated sewer system is not available but on-site effluent disposal is possible.

Development potential

With the exception of Lot 382, all of the properties were rezoned from Residential R2.5 to Residential R5 by LPS4 upon its gazettal.

The rationale for the change was explained in a report to Council on 12 July 2012:

“The subject land has an Extreme bushfire hazard. However, it is accepted that compliance with the Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines (2010) will result in most vegetation being removed, which will reduce the bushfire hazard for the subject land.

It should be noted that it is the expectation of the Shire that subdivision of the subject land will require a new structure plan, and that the requirements of Planning for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines (2010) will apply, with possible implications for setback of dwellings from adjacent bushland north of Thornwick Crescent and east of Betty Street and for construction standards of houses on the subject land.

It is accepted that the subject land is within the Chidlow townsite, providing access to existing facilities and services within the townsite and that additional residential development may assist in retaining or improving viability of facilities and services in the townsite over time.

Accordingly, upcoding from R2.5 to R5 is supported. For the same reasons, the two adjacent lots to the west of the subject land, Lot 293 (3070) Old Northam Road and Lot 292 (89) Northcote Street should also be included in the upcoding.

However, the three westernmost lots in the street block, Lots 267 to 269 Old Northam Road, should remain coded R2.5 due to presence of a watercourse on those lots.” (emphasis added)

Relative to the westernmost lots, the Minister resolved to rezone them from R2.5 to R5 against the recommendation of Council. The applicants have since prepared Structure Plan 69 as the basis for future subdivision.

Advertising

Structure Plan 69 was advertised in accordance with the Regulations. The following advertising methods were used:

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C21 MARCH 2016

 Letters sent to affected residents, agencies, Ward Councillors and Ratepayer’s Associations;  Signs placed around the site;  Notice placed in a local newspaper;  Placed on the Shire’s website; and  Made available at the Shire Administration Centre

A total of 28 submissions were received within the advertising period. Responses included letters of support, objection and advice. ATTACHMENT 1 and CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 2 contain a schedule of submissions and officer responses.

Sale of Lot 382

The executive of the Department of Lands has agreed to sell Lot 382 (Reserve 46307) to Uzbek Pty Ltd who are the main landholder within the Structure Plan 69 area. Lot 382 is a 1.7 hectare site located in the north easternmost lot (see ATTACHMENT 1).

For the sale to progress, DoL has invited the Shire to surrender its management and provide a statutory declaration that Lot 382 has not been contaminated during the Shire’s management period. Should Council decide not to surrender management control, the Minister may revoke the management order without Council’s consent and proceed with the sale.

Crown land is typically ‘reserved’ for the benefit of the public. Lot 382 is unique in that it is zoned Residential R2.5 and can be subdivided into three lots – which is reflected in the current Structure Plan 69 design. DoL does not provide financial assistance to the Shire to manage the site and if sold, will retain the proceeds from the sale.

It is the intention of Uzbek Pty Ltd, subsequent to acquiring the site, to rezone Lot 382 to Residential R5 and amalgamate it with 805 (Lot 298) Thornwick Crescent – creating a single, contiguous property with additional subdivision potential. If the sale proceeds, the owner would have the option to lodge a rezoning proposal which would be subject to a future Council determination.

While there is good quality bushland on the site, protection is limited given it is already committed for residential development under LPS4.

Given DoL’s decision to sell the land, and the status of the vegetation as ‘committed’ for residential subdivision, it is logical that Council agree to surrender the management of Reserve 46307 and advise the DoL accordingly.

Developer Contributions - Methods

The State’s planning framework is set up to ensure that subdivision costs are equitably shared amongst all subdividers. The initial subdivder is usually responsible for installing ‘lead in’ infrastructure which future subdivisions will connect into. As ‘lead in’ infrastructure is to the benefit of future subdividers, it is equitable for these costs to be shared as subdivision occurs.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C22 MARCH 2016

The usual mechanism to have these costs collected and disbursed is via a DCP. A DCP is placed into a Scheme by way of Scheme amendment and is applied as subdivision/development stages to pay for infrastructure costs above ‘normal’ requirements.

They usually cover large districts (e.g. single/multiple suburbs), are administered by local governments with administration costs covered through the DCP.

The IIP is proposed by Structure Plan 69 intends to operate similarly to a DCP – but for a much smaller area and only for infrastructure considered required as a standard rather than above the normal requirements.

IIPs have not been implemented in the Shire previously. Therefore, some uncertainty surrounds the possible administrative burden and legal implications to the Shire. Officer level advice from the DoP is that development contribution plans should be implemented by way of an amendment to LPS4 and that the IIP is not supported.

Based on the legal advice supplied by the applicant subsequent to DoP officer’s advice, the Shire is cautiously open to considering such a plan.

A recommendation of this report is that the contents of the IIP are finalised prior to the WAPC determining the structure plan.

STATUTORY / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

LEGISLATION

Title Purpose Local Planning Scheme No. 4 Sets out local objectives for subdivision design and implementation Planning and Development (Local Sets out the procedures for structure Planning Schemes) Regulations plans 2015

Appeal

There is no appeal right against Council’s recommendation to the WAPC regarding Structure Plan 69. However, if the decision of the WAPC is appealed, Shire officers would defend Council’s position which may require attending SAT.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Structure Plan 69 has been advertised for the maximum period of time and using all prescribed methods under the Regulations and consistent with the Shire’s Draft Advertising Planning Applications Policy

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Staff time costs would be incurred if the SAT required the attendance of the Shire to an appeal on the WAPC’s decision.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C23 MARCH 2016

Introducing IIPs within LPS4 could poses ongoing operating costs.

Residential land with subdivision potential increases the likelihood of expanding the number of rateable properties within the Shire. Relinquishing management control of Lot 382 reduces the Shire’s ongoing management responsibilities.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The Shire’s Corporate Business Plan 2015/16-2018/19 contains four ‘Strategic Themes.’ Three of these Strategic Themes relate to Structure Plan 69 – ‘valued natural environment’, ‘balanced development’ and ‘thriving community.’

Relative to the theme of “valued natural environment”, development should

“…contribute directly to preserving and enhancing the natural environment”

And

“…ensure a direct link to understanding that decisions and actions within the built environment impact on outcomes in the natural environment.”

If approved by the WAPC, Structure Plan 69 would result in the creation of approximately 67 residential lots and two parcels of POS. The POS is identified around a waterbody and a scarred tree of Indigenous heritage importance in the north-east.

Removal of some trees and understorey is expected as a result of subdivision works and compliance with fire requirements (Firebreak and Fuel Load Notice 2015/2016 and Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas). The vegetation in question is within the Local Natural Area category “Limited Protection/Already Committed by Zoning.”

The allocation of POS around the waterbody and a heritage feature responds to the theme of balanced development. Balanced development involves:

Contribut(ing) directly to promoting and encouraging environmentally sustainable development to maintain and enhance the unique environmental characteristics of a vibrant hills lifestyle and promote…transport improvements.

The protection of heritage features is an important element of creating a sense of place and supporting a ‘hills lifestyle.’

Additionally, the creation of POS around the waterbody would allow public access and facilitate weed removal and revegetation.

As POS would be created for the purposes of conservation/recreation, it is considered to support the tenet of “thriving community.” A thriving community is supported by:

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C24 MARCH 2016

“Provid(ing) opportunities and support for the community to enjoy a vibrant, sustainable and rich mix of hills lifestyles.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

Refer to Strategic Implications.

RISK IMPLICATIONS

Refer to Statutory/Legal Implications

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

Pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 20 of the Regulations, the Shire’s report to the WAPC on Structure Plan 69 is required to include:

 a list of submissions considered by the Shire;  comments made by the local government in respect of those submissions; and  a schedule of any proposed modifications to address issues raised in the submissions.

ATTACHMENT 1 fulfils these requirements.

COMMENT

Structure Plan 69 has been assessed against the relevant parts of the planning framework and is generally compliant, with the exceptions identified below.

LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4

Requirement / Clause Assessment / Comment Clause 5.7.8.2(a) and (b) – all street Structure Plan 69 (map) should be frontages should be landscaped to a amended to show a landscaping strip depth of 3 metres using primarily local either side of all road frontages and indigenous and low water-use the fire management plan amended species. accordingly. Clause 5.7.12.3 – vegetation can be Structure Plan 69 (map) should be removed unless the tree or vegetation amended to include an annotation is required to be preserved as a requiring the preparation of a tree condition of subdivision approval. preservation plan at subdivision stage. Clause 5.7.12.5 – A tree and Structure Plan 69 (map) should be understorey vegetation protection amended to show a ten metre wide corridor of 10 metres along Old strip of landscaping abutting of Old Northam Road is required. Northam Road and the fire management plan amended accordingly.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C25 MARCH 2016

Clause 6.5.2(c) & 6.5.14(c) – An The table below contains a separate objective of the Bush Fire Hazard assessment of Structure Plan 69 Special Control Area is to encourage against the Planning in Bushfire the improvement of vehicular access Prone Areas. and egress for residents and fire fighting vehicles in bush fire prone areas.

The Shire is to have particular regard to avenues of escape in the event of a bush fire, and the level of hazard associated with any vehicular access facilities.

Clause 6.5.5 – A satisfactory BAL assessment is to form part of a structure plan proposal.

Clause 6.5.12 – Subdivision is to comply with the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines (2010). PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (LOCAL PLANNING SCHEMES) REGULATIONS 2015 – STRUCTURE PLAN FRAMEWORK

Requirement / Section Assessment / Comment Appendix 1 – Contains the format of Structure Plan 69 was prepared prior a structure plan. Specifically, it to the operation of the Regulations. explains that a structure plan is to To ensure that the format of Structure conform to the following format: Plan 69 complies with the Structure Part One contains: Plan Framework, it should be  the structure plan map; formatted to comply with the  an outline of requirements Structure Plan Framework prior to applied at subdivision and being referred to the WAPC. development stages e.g. staging

Part Two contains:  background and explanatory information;  technical studies and how they are to be implemented

Appendix 4 – Contains the mapping standards for structure plans.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C26 MARCH 2016

LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS (2009)

Requirement Assessment / Comment Requirement 25 – areas of high bush The table below contains a separate fire hazard should provide for streets assessment of Structure Plan 69 that are designed, located and against the Planning in Bushfire connected to allow safe and efficient Prone Areas. movement of emergency vehicles.

Requirement 68 – streets abutting areas of high bushfire hazard on the long-term urban edge should be designed to provide adequate access to fire and other emergency vehicles particularly under conditions of poor visibility. Requirement 46 – street design Structure Plan 69 (map) should be should respond to landscape features, amended to include an annotation vegetation and landforms requiring road design to protect vegetation within the road reserve where possible. Requirement 17 – lots should be There are no Acid Sulphate Soils shaped and oriented in response to known within the location. acid sulphate soils. Requirement 27 – lots should be Structure Plan 69 (map) should be oriented to front parkland and natural amended to include an annotation areas. requiring houses on lots fronting POS to be oriented to front the POS Requirement 31 – lots along arterial except for those lots fronting Old roads should front those roads. Northam Road.

Requirement 28 – lots with Structure Plan 69 (map) should be boundaries that abut parkland should amended to include an annotation be provided with uniform, appropriate requiring fencing abutting POS to be fencing. of a metal post and wire construction. Requirement 4 – a minimum 18300.8 sqm of POS is required to be contribution of 10% POS must be provided within the Structure Plan 69 given up free of cost by the subdivider. area - 18388 sqm of POS is proposed. The requirement for POS Regulation 42 - The WAPC may has been achieved. require that the public open space for the entire subdivision application be The topic of POS is covered in more met entirely from the first stage. detail under the heading “Public Open Space/Foreshore Reserve.”

Due to the fragmented ownership within the Structure Plan 69 area, it is not possible to reasonably expect all POS to be ceded in the first stage of subdivision.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C27 MARCH 2016

GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING IN BUSHFIRE PRONE AREAS

Requirement Assessment / Comment Acceptable Solution 2.1(g) – fences Structure Plan 69 (map) should be within the Asset Protection Zone are amended to require all fences constructed using non-combustible abutting POS to be constructed of a material. metal post and wire type. Acceptable Solution 3.3 – A cul-de- Structure Plan 69 does not propose sac and/or a dead end road should be to link Northcote Street between avoided in bushfire prone areas. Betty Street and Old Northam Road Where no alternative exists, the and also proposes the use of a following requirements are to be ‘hammer-head’ style cul-de-sac. achieved:  Requirements in Table 4, An explanation for this outcome is Column 2 met provided in the applicant’s report:  200 metres maximum length  Turn-around area “This would require crossing the open requirements, including a drain and significant earthworks up a minimum 17.5 metre diameter steep embankment that supports the head. constructed intersection of Onslow and Northcote Streets.”

Infrastructure Services confirm there are practical limitations in connecting Northcote Street between Betty Street and Old Northam Road. It is recommended that an 18 metre diameter cul-de-sac head be required for consistency with road design standards in the Shire. Note: The Bushfire Management Plan forming part of Structure Plan 69 has been prepared in in accordance with the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines (2010, Edition 2). It is recommended that this plan be revised in accordance with the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (December 2015).

The recommended modifications, if endorsed by the WAPC, will ensure that subdivision conditions can be applied and result in development compliant with the LPS4.

Although some of these modifications can be dealt with simply as subdivision conditions – with no modification required to the structure plan – the WAPC is inclined to apply model conditions to subdivision approvals unless there are specific subdivision outcomes stipulated on a structure plan.

The WAPC’s model conditions are broad and do not relate to specific requirements within local planning schemes. To ensure that the intent of LPS4 is carried through to subdivision stage, it is recommended that Structure Plan 69 be modified to address detailed planning matters normally addressed at subdivision stage.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C28 MARCH 2016

Infrastructure Implementation Program

The applicant has prepared an IIP to provide for the equitable distribution of subdivision costs amongst all of the landowners within the Structure Plan 69 area.

The IIP has been prepared pursuant to Clause 5.17.6.1(e)(x) of LPS4 which states that a proposed Structure Plan is to contain the following details:

…the proposed method of implementation including any cost sharing arrangements and details of any staging of subdivision and development.

The fact that Clause 5.17.6.1(e)(x) is replaced by the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations is discussed later.

There are a number of pieces of infrastructure and studies that the applicant indicates benefit all subdividers for which a contribution arrangement is being sought, as per the table below:

PROPOSED CONTRIBUTIONS

Infrastructure  Intersection of Thornwick Crescent and Old Northam Road  Construction of two drainage basins.  Lead-in water main from Clifton Street where it crosses the Mundaring-Kalgoorlie pipeline.  Any water main brought by a subdivider past another property ahead of that property being developed  Revegetation of watercourse  Construction of a strategic fire service access. Studies  Aboriginal Heritage Survey  Local Water Management Strategy  Bushfire Management Plan  On-site effluent Disposal Assessment  Botanical Assessment  Structure Plan 69 report Administration  Converting land to road reserve  Council management of collecting and distributing funds

It is the intention of the IIP that the Shire take on an administrative or “banker” role for the management and disbursement of funds.

The applicant has supplied legal advice in support of the IIP (CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 3). In summary, the legal advice states that if the WAPC imposes a condition on each subdivision approval implementing the IIP there is a:

"…good prospect that the Condition will withstand challenge from a subsequent subdivider upon whom the Condition is imposed…"

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C29 MARCH 2016

As a point of clarification, the legal advice does not assert that contributions may be sought for studies involved in the preparation of Structure Plan 69 (it refers only to infrastructure costs).

It is the view of the Shire that the distribution of costs related to the mains water ‘lead-in’ should be an arrangement between the developer and Water Corporation, being the agency ultimately responsible for the provision of this infrastructure.

In the absence of advice on these two matters and to the extent that the IIP proposes to include technical studies, it is recommended that the IIP not be supported.

With regards to the proposed role of the Shire, it is technically feasible and relatively low risk for the Shire to manage funds associated with completing subdivision within the Structure Plan 69 area as there are only seven landowners (six if Reserve 46307 is sold to Uzbek Pty Ltd).

The Shire’s Corporate Services have advised that the process involved would include the creation of a trust account into which subdivision funds would be transferred by subdividers and dispersed to those subdividers responsible for installation of shared infrastructure. The Shire would not be responsible for contribution toward the account.

The principle of equitably distributing costs amongst all subdividers through an IIP has planning merit and can be lawfully implemented pursuant to the legal advice supplied by the applicant. It is therefore recommended that Council support the inclusion of an IIP within Structure Plan 69.

Following is a discussion the detailed planning and legal merits of the IIP.

Legal advice supporting the IIP was prepared four days before the Regulations came into effect. The Deemed Provisions of the Regulations replace the structure plan provisions of LPS4 on which the IIP (and legal advice) was based.

Under the contemporary planning framework and with specific reference to structure plans, the WAPC explain that pursuant to the new Regulations, structure plans are to contain information found in Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 16. Among these requirements is information on:

the extent to which the plan provides for the coordination of key transport and other infrastructure.

The Structure Plan Framework – an explanatory document prepared by the WAPC – states that:

In determining if additional information to that submitted with the structure plan is needed the local government is to consider whether:

 the additional information is required for a planning purpose relevant to the structure plan;  is required by a State Planning Policy;

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C30 MARCH 2016

 the additional information is able to be provided in a timely manner; and  it is fair and reasonable to request the additional information in the particular circumstances.

The principle of an IIP within a structure plan appears to be supported by Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 16 of the Regulations notwithstanding that the Regulations replace Clause 5.17.6.1(e)(x) of LPS4 on which the IIP was based.

As the legal advice supplied by the applicant addresses the four dot points above, it is considered that the inclusion of an IIP within the structure plan is reasonable and possible under the current planning framework.

Public Open Space/Foreshore Reserve

Requirement 4 of Liveable Neighbourhoods states that 10% of the gross subdividable area of a lot is to be ceded as POS. Requirement 9 explains that the area of a foreshore reserve is to be excluded from the gross subdividable area for the purposes of calculating POS and is to be provided in addition to the standard 10% POS requirement.

Shire officers required further investigation of the waterbody to determine whether it was required to be included as foreshore reserve above the 10% POS requirement, pursuant to Requirement 9 which states:

Non-perennial streams and drainage channels may not always require foreshore reserves.

To this purpose, the applicant had prepared an assessment of the waterbody by Bayley Environmental Services. The conclusion of a detailed investigation of the history, morphology, vegetation and ecological values is that:

…the drain is wholly artificial, flowing in constructed channels and through farm dams. At no point does the drain constitute or resemble a natural waterway.

And

There is no vegetation that would suggest that the drain is a natural waterway or has developed the characteristics of a waterway since its construction.

The study goes on to recommend a number of ways to provide physical, vegetation and water quality protection/restoration normally required at subdivision stage. As the upgrade of POS is a matter specifically dealt with by the WAPC’s model conditions, it is not considered necessary to provide any further detail on this matter within Structure Plan 69.

Based on these studies, it is recommended that the waterbody transecting Lots 267, 268 and 269 Old Northam Road be shown as located within POS rather than foreshore reserve.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C31 MARCH 2016

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

RECOMMENDATION

That Council –

A. Pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 19 of the Regulations considers all submissions made on Structure Plan 69;

B. Resolves that the following modifications are required to be made to Structure Plan 69:

1. An annotation being included on the plan requiring:

a. A three metre wide landscaping strip along all road frontages and ten metre wide tree retention area along Old Northam Road; b. The preparation of a tree preservation plan at subdivision stage incorporating the use of alternative firebreaks to protect significant vegetation; c. Road design and service provision and alignment to protect vegetation within the road reserve where possible; d. Houses on lots fronting POS to be oriented to front the POS except for those lots fronting Old Northam Road; e. Fencing abutting POS to be of a metal post and wire construction; f. Northcote Street, east of Onslow Street, should be constructed and sealed as part of Stage 1 of the subdivision; and g. Investigation and protection of heritage values on Lot 267 prior to subdivision;

2. Pursuant to “1” the Fire Management Plan and Infrastructure Implementation Plan being amended accordingly and revised to comply with the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (December 2015);

3. The Infrastructure Implementation Plan removing reference to contributions for technical studies and mains water lead-in costs;

4. Prior to approval of Structure Plan 69, the IIP being implemented to the satisfaction of the Shire and WAPC; and

5. The report being formatted so as to comply with Appendices 1 and 2 of the WAPC’s Structure Plan Framework;

C. Pursuant to Resolution B and Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 19(1)(d) of the Regulations, considers that the modifications do not require re-advertising;

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C32 MARCH 2016

D. Pursuant to resolutions A, B and C and Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 20 of the Regulations, refers this report to the Western Australian Planning Commission for determination with a recommendation for approval; and

E. Advises the Department of Lands in writing that, pursuant to Clause 50(1)(a) of the Land Administration Act 1997, it agrees to revoke management of Reserve 46307.

MOTION

Moved by: Cr Daw Seconded by: Cr Cook

That Council defers consideration of Local Structure Plan 69 in North Childlow because Council needs legal advice regarding the following:

1. Risk implications to Council and affected resident ratepayers in the LPS 69 of the proposed IIP;

2. Risk implications of the EPBC (Commonwealth Act) in that potential habitat for an endangered species is known at this early stage on an around reserve 46407;

3. The requirement of LPS69 to be readvertised because of local community dissatisfaction with the timing of the previous advertising period.

LOST 5/7

For: Cr Daw, Cr Martin, Cr Fisher, Cr Cook, Cr Jeans

Against: Cr Bertola, Cr Clark, Cr Brennan, Cr Perks, Cr Fox, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Lavell

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C33 MARCH 2016

COUNCIL DECISION C5.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Bertola Seconded by: Cr Perks

That Council –

A. Pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 19 of the Regulations considers all submissions made on Structure Plan 69;

B. Resolves that the following modifications are required to be made to Structure Plan 69:

1. An annotation being included on the plan requiring:

3. The Infrastructure Implementation Plan removing reference to contributions for technical studies and mains water lead-in costs;

4. Prior to approval of Structure Plan 69, the IIP being implemented to the satisfaction of the Shire and WAPC; and

5. The report being formatted so as to comply with Appendices 1 and 2 of the WAPC’s Structure Plan Framework;

C. Pursuant to Resolution B and Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 19(1)(d) of the Regulations, considers that the modifications do not require re-advertising;

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C34 MARCH 2016

E. Advises the Department of Lands in writing that, pursuant to Clause 50(1)(a) of the Land Administration Act 1997, it agrees to revoke management of Reserve 46307.

CARRIED 7/5

For: Cr Bertola, Cr Clark, Cr Brennan, Cr Perks, Cr Fox, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Lavell

Against: Cr Daw, Cr Martin, Cr Fisher, Cr Cook, Cr Jeans

Next Report

7.57pm Senior Strategic Planning Officer left the Council Chamber and did not return 7.57pm Director Statutory Services left the Council Chamber 8.00pm Director Statutory Services returned to the Council Chamber

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C35 MARCH 2016

Attachment 1

Report 10.1

35 Pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C36 MARCH 2016

Location Plan SCALE 1:4000

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C37 MARCH 2016

SCALE 1::4000 Lot 382 (Reserrvve 46307)

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C39 MARCH 2016

Schedule of Submissions Structure Plan No. 69 – Thornwick Crescent, Betty & Northcote Streets & Old Northam Road, Chidlow

SUBMISSION COMMENT 1. Department of Mines & Petroleum a) The Geological Survey of a) The submission is noted Western Australia (GSWA) has assessed this proposal on behalf of the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) with respect to access to mineral and petroleum resources, geothermal energy and basic raw materials. The GSWA has no concerns with the proposed Structure Plan No. 69. 2. Department of Transport a) The Department of Transport a) The submission is noted has no comment to provide. 3. Atco Gas Australia a) We have reviewed the proposal a) The submission is noted as you have provided and the areas where these proposed changes will occur. ATCO Gas has no objection to the proposed structure Plan # 69. 4 Department of Fire & Emergency Services a) The Department of Fire and a) Pursuant to section 6.8 of State Emergency Services of Western Planning Policy 3.7, the technical Australia (DFES) advises that the advice of DFES was sought in Shire of Mundaring are the relation to Structure Plan 69. Authority regarding fire protection Under the Guidelines for Planning in matters in this instance and Bushfire Prone Areas: would be expected to apply any condition requiring compliance “Decision-makers are reliant on the with the Department of Fire and Department of Fire and Emergency Emergency Services of Western Services to provide formal, technical Australia (DFES) and the fire-related advice used to help guide Western Australian Planning decision-making on planning Commission (WAPC) Planning proposals and development for Bush Fire Protection Guidelines Edition 2 - May 2010

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C40 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 4 Department of Fire & Emergency Services (Cont’d) applications.” The advice supplied by DFES does not provide technical fire-related advice and makes reference to the former Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines which has replaced by the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas. It is recommended that, in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 20(2) (b) of the Regulations, the Shire advise the WAPC that technical, fire related advice has not been provided by DFES. The Shire has undertaken an assessment of Structure Plan 69 against the provisions of the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas which is included in the contents of the report.

(These Guidelines replace DC 3.7 Fire Planning and Planning for Bush Fire Protection, which were released by the WAPC and DFES in December 2001) and clause 6 of State Planning Policy 3.4 Natural Hazards and Disasters (SPP 3.4). 5 Water Corporation a) The servicing information a) The submission is noted contained in the amendment report is noted. Wastewater services are not available in the locality. Water services can be provided to the proposed lots by the sub dividers undertaking extensions and upgrades of the existing water reticulation network. The Corporation has previously provided preliminary advice regarding the likely water upgrades, which is reflected in the amendment report. The full

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C41 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 5 Water Corporation (cont’d) extent and staging of the upgrades will need to be determined at the subdivision stage in consultation with the Corporation Land Servicing Team.

6 Housing Authority a) The Department of Housing has a) The submission is noted reviewed the documentation and raises no objection to the proposal. 7 Submitter No. 7 a) I choose Chidlow to live in for the a) Structure Plan 69 identifies lot sizes pure reason not to live in a consistent with the zone of the metropolitan city is a country subject properties. town and I want it to remain that way I fully object that this proposal for building should never go ahead. this is my final answer. NO 8 Department of Environment Regulation a) DER has no comment to make on a) The submission is noted the on the application in reference to regulatory responsibilities under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. 9 State Heritage Office a) I wish to advise that we have no a) The submission is noted comment in relation to the proposal as it does not appear to impact upon any place of cultural heritage significance.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C42 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 10 Submitter No 10 a) Firstly I would like to comment on a) The timing of advertising for the timing of the issue of this Structure Plan 69 was a result of two letter. This was at the very start factors: of the break up for the Christmas  the date that additional, technical holiday period and due to there information was received from the being no postal deliveries on applicants; and either 25th or 28th Dec. I did not receive the letter until 29th. Also  the advertising requirements of the the Shire offices were closed Regulations. th th from 3pm on 24 until 9am on 4 The Shire resolved to exercise the Jan so there was no chance to maximum level of advertising get further information should it allowed under the Regulations due have been required. There is to the holiday period. This involved: surely a case for the 28 day period to have been extended  advertising Structure Plan 69 for thereby giving people a proper 28 days to landowners; opportunity to seek views and  publishing notice of the structure advice. In fact I believe you plan in two newspapers; should do that now.  publishing notice of the structure plan on the Shire’s website; and  placing signs near the subject land. The Shire also resolved to consider late submissions in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 4, Clause 19(1) (b). b) Secondly, I do not recall ever b) The subject properties were rezoned have seen any publicity at all on from Residential R2.5 to Residential the rezoning of the area shown R5 under Local Planning Scheme on the plans from R2.5 to R5. No. 4, the draft version of which was Perhaps you could comment on publicly advertised in accordance that point. with the Regulations. c) Turning now to the application c) Refer to 7(a) being made. I was aware that there were plans to develop part of the area shown but I have to say that I was totally taken aback when I saw the extent of the latest plan. What is being proposed is totally out of keeping

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C43 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 10 Submitter No 10 (cont’d) with the Chidlow semi-rural lifestyle and seems to cover an area almost as big, if not bigger, than the Village centre itself. On the face of it, It looks like something you would expect in a suburban estate. d) There are other concerns. Such d) Environmental impacts have been an extensive development would examined by the applicant within the have a huge Impact on the flora Botanical Assessment and assessed and fauna in the area. Small by the Shire. mammals would be forced out and the colony of Black The Shire referred Structure Plan 69 Cockatoos which are in to the following environmental residence in the area would also agencies for comment: be severely affected. There is  Department of Environmental little evidence in the reports Regulations; submitted to the Shire as to how  Department of Parks and Wildlife; the impact will be mitigated. Nor and is it clear as to what steps will be  Environmental Protection taken to protect mature trees. I Authority. appreciate it is early days but nevertheless I would have Comments from agencies are expected reassurance and more included in this Schedule of clarity on these items. Submissions.

The outcome of this assessment is that the environmental impacts of assessment may be mitigated. e) Also information on the following e) The purpose of a structure plan is to points are extremely sketchy guide future subdivision. Road  It is not clear when the so construction requirements and called "Dedicated Road" will staging are matters normally applied be constructed although there at the subdivision stage of is mention of a new junction development. being created at Thornwick Structure Plan 69 proposes POS Cres / Old Northam Road. Will around a waterbody consistent with that be the main access to the the following objective of the Shire’s site at Phase One stage? Local Planning Strategy:

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C44 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 10 Submitter No 10 (cont’d)  The provision of Public Open “Pursue a range of measures to Space seems to have been an maintain and improve water quality afterthought using land and the overall environmental health unsuitable for anything else. In of watercourses and waterbodies any case that space would within the Shire.” only become available at a The staging of POS provision largely very late stage. What provision depends on the participation of is being made at Phase One landowners in subdivision. The Draft Stage? version of Liveable Neighbourhoods  The Water supply gives me makes the following provision: great concern bearing in mind “The public open space contribution that the supply to my property for the entire subdivision is given up and those of neighbours, is in the first stage of subdivision poor - low pressure and erratic where: supply. This is a matter of ongoing correspondence with  the ceding of public open space the Water Corp. who seem will become the responsibility of unable to solve the problem. I another landowner; therefore have great concerns  a public open space staging plan over how a supply to, has not been approved; potentially 67, additional properties will affect existing  the balance of the public open homes. space requirement may place an unreasonable burden on adjoining  There is no mention at all as to landowners; and what steps will be taken to minimise the impact on  an agreement has not been existing properties. reached with adjoining landowners Presumably the Shire will set about the sharing of public open down guidelines. space responsibilities.”  Will the Shire have a say as to In relation to water supply, refer to the nature and size of any Submission 5. properties built? In relation to house construction, the Shire is responsible for issuing planning approvals and building permits for residences. In residential zones, the design of houses is guided by the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia. d) To summarise. I have no d) The submission is noted objection "per se” to redevelopment only to the scale of what is being proposed which, as I have said, is totally out of keeping with the semi-rural lifestyle enjoyed in The Hills area.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C45 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 10 Submitter No 10 (cont’d) Something with less impact would be more appropriate. e) I trust my views and comments e) The submission is noted will be considered by the appropriate bodies. In the meantime I would appreciate your response to the points raised in the opening paragraphs above. 11 Main Roads a) The Structure Plan is not in the a) The submission is noted vicinity of a transport corridor and has a low residential zoning. Therefore, Main Roads has no comment. 12 Submitter No. 12 a) I have received your letter and a) POS and roads are normally attached plans regarding provided as requirements of application for structure plan 69. subdivision. If a landowner does not I understand that the proposals apply to subdivide their property, the regarding a Public Open Space land identified in a structure plan for on my property and a paved road POS and roads (as they relate to the across my property will only landowner’s property) are not apply, if I should decide to sub- normally compulsorily acquired. divide my property. While the Shire is granted powers to compulsorily acquire property, it does not intend to acquire the POS and road reserve in question. b) My partner and I have spent b) The submission is noted decades of hard work and financial investment to create one of the best, if not the best 2 ha garden (wildlife habitat) in Chidlow. When designing the garden, I have particularly considered wildlife, by providing plants (e.g. staggered flowering and seed production) that will give year- round food and shelter. It has now become a habitat for numerous species of birds, quendas, race-horse and bobtail goanna and at least 5 species of frogs and numerous beneficial

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C46 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 12 Submitter No 12 (cont’d) insects. There are activities of smaller nocturnal marsupials in the denser planted areas. This is also partly due to strictly not using fertilizers or insecticides and dis-allowing cats, dogs or grazing animals on the property. I adhere strictly to the prescribed fuel reduction guideline and my numerous trips

to the green-waste tip will clearly show on your tip records. With strategic planting of trees and bushes, the property has also become an effective wild-life corridor for kangaroos and wallabies coming to drink and feed seasonally. Wild ducks and geese come to breed and a heron pair comes to feed every

winter. c) My property would be one of the c) Structure Plan 69 should be modified oldest, if not historically the to require investigation of heritage oldest in Chidlow. The original values on the property. Chidlow's Well is located here. The well was used for watering horses for the stage-coach to York in the early 1800's.The 2 original rooms in the cottage would have been built in the 1890's with pressed metal walls and ceilings and an antique fireplace. There was a time in the 1990's when primary school teachers brought their classes to view the historical well. d) I feel more like a custodian d) An owner whose land is shown as rather than the owner of my having subdivision potential within a property and no amount of structure plan is not compelled to financial gain would entice me to subdivide their property. sub-divide this very unique place. My children and grandchildren also support this view. Therefore, I would like you to express my wish in your

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C47 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 12 Submitter No 12 (cont’d) Structure Plan that the property The subdivision potential of a is not to be subdivided and that property cannot be removed by a the proposed Public Open Space structure plan. Only an amendment and paved road across my to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 can property is not to be proposed or alter the subdivision potential of a implemented. Your written property. confirmation in this regard will be much appreciated. 13 Submitter No 13 a) I received the correspondence in a) Refer to 11(a) relation to this Structure Plan on December 24th 2015. No comment, written, or verbal, has been able to be made owing to the Shire closing for the Christmas Holidays. Surely this Structure Plan has been on the drawing board for some considerable time prior to local residents being informed, and the Shire holidays have impaired residents opportunity to voice their approval or non- approval prior to the closing date of January 19th 2015. b) Question 1. b) Refer to 11(a) Why was this correspondence sent out prior to the Shire holidays? c) Question 2, c) Refer to 11(a) Why was this correspondence not sent out earlier? d) Question 3 d) Refer to 11(a)

Residents have had NO

opportunity to contact the Shire in

between the holidays? e) Question 4 e) Refer to 11(a) With the holidays mentioned, the constructive comment period has been reduced to approx 10-12 days, is there a reason for this?

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C48 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 13 Submitter No 13 (cont’d) My wife and I have already taken some time to drive through the proposed areas and we both consider that this is possible f) To begin with, f) This intersection is approximately According to the provided plan, a 100 metres from the bend and sight new road will, apparently, enter lines are adequate for traffic to enter into Old Northam Road, just after onto Old Northam Road Liberton Road, which will almost certainly create a very dangerous intersection considering the existing curve in the road. g) How will the existing, or lack of, g) Refer to14(b), 14(c) , 25(c), 25(d), infrastructure cope with a 25(e) and 25(g). possible 67 dwellings, plus occupants, plus traffic? h) We already suffer little public h) Structure Plan 69 has been referred transport, transport alternatives to the Public Transport Authority for (none), local amenities (?) are comment. next to none, so what is going to be provided to accommodate this increase in population? i) How are we going to cope with i) Criminal and antisocial behaviour are the possible increase in crime, police matters. vandalism, break-ins, vehicle tyre burn outs, speeding etc when our local (Mundaring ) police station cannot cope, handle, solve, or sometimes cannot even attend until hours later than requested, to cope with current population numbers, let alone a significant increase? j) This proposed Structure plan, we j) The submission is noted believe, is definitely NOT to the advantage of our local community, and therefore, should not even be considered.

14 Submitter No 14 a) Please find below our comments a) The submission is noted on the Application for structure plan no 69 - Thornwick Crescent,

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C49 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 14 Submitter No 14 (cont’d) Betty street Northcote street and Old Northam road, Chidlow. b) Concern 1: Safety of b) Construction traffic can be restricted our school children walking to Thornwick Crescent entry. There and cycling to school during are 67 residential lots that will have the Infrastructure four points of entry, one of which is Implementation stage. Onslow Street which connects to Chidlow Street, Tottenham Street, Willcox Street and Ash Road. Given this distribution the increase in traffic on each street will be well within the capacity of these roads to cater and would not require any road or footpath upgrades apart from the sealing of the identified sections. Safety of our school children walking and cycling to school during the Infrastructure Implementation stage as their route along Northcote, Onslow and Clifton streets is severely compromised by the movement of heavy machinery and construction vehicles along this route. There is no footpath and the road surface is extremely narrow in sections. We also foresee a large increase in traffic volumes along this route further affecting the safety of their journey to school and back. Due to the lack of a footpath and walking along the verge of the road amongst the grass is not an option (as the verge is not maintained and numerous snakes have been encountered over the past few years). Our children are forced to walk on the road amongst the traffic. c) Concern 2: Whether c) Northcote Street east of Onslow unsurfaced section of should be constructed and sealed as Northcote Street east of part of Stage 1. Onslow will be widened and surfaced prior to the development of proposed stage1.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C50 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 14 Submitter No 14 (cont’d) The inference in the IIP is that construction would be undertaken by lot 292, however it should be done in Stage 1 together with Thornwick Street. Approximately 19 lots are in proposed Stage 1 that would access Northcote Street and Thornwick Street. The traffic is therefore well within the capacity of Northcote and Onslow Street to handle. The implementation of Stage 1 of the development raises the concern of whether the unsurfaced part of Northcote street east of Onslow will be widened and surfaced as there is no specific mentioned made of this in the LSP. (Refer to section 3.4 Movement Network). It is stated that Thornwick Crescent will be upgraded as well as the section of Northcote street that intersects with Old Northam road. No mention of any upgrades or work to Northcote street east of Onslow street can be found in the LSP. According to the stage 1 plan, two southern access roads will lead from Northcote street east of Onslow; does this imply that all the construction vehicles will move along Northcote street during construction of stage 1? If so and there is no upgrade to this section of Northcote Street then this could create various hazards to the local residents. d) Concern 3: Will the road d) Refer to 14(c) network upgrade of existing roads be completed before subdivision commences?

In section 3.7 of LSP it is mentioned that all roads will be ultimately be sealed, but there is

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C51 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 14 Submitter No 14 (cont’d) no clear indication whether this will be done before subdivision takes place and construction vehicles move onto site as we interpret it as its dependant on Local Government discretion as "ultimately" could be interpreted as "Before / During / After". Will the upgrade of Thornwick Crescent form part of the proposed stage 1? e) Concern 4: Notification of any e) The process for modifying structure amendments to the proposed plans, and the various scenarios in subdivision plan which modifications are made, are set out in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Generally, major modifications are required to be publicly advertised and there is discretion to advertise modifications not considered “major.” Whether a modification is considered “major” or otherwise is discretionary and addressed in the Shire’s Draft Advertising Planning Applications Policy.

We would like to know what procedure will be followed should this subdivision process / plan alter, will we have a right to comment on any further changes / amendments? If any concerns raised in this communication is unclear, please feel free to contact us for more detail We appreciate your acknowledgement of this submission and response regarding our concerns.

15 Department of Education a) The Department of Education a) The submission is noted has reviewed the document and advises that it has no

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C52 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 15 Department of Education (cont’d) objection to this proposal. The anticipated student yield from the residential development can be accommodated at the nearest local primary school.

16 Department of Aboriginal Affairs a) It is understood that the a) Structure Plan 69 does not propose Structure Plan 69 has been to rezone the subject properties. prepared by the landowners to coordinate the subdivision of the area for residential areas (the Proposal). The activity of rezoning land, in "itself, does not pose a risk to an infringement under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA). However, the activities which may be permitted as a result of the amended land zoning may pose a risk to the impact or damage of a place to which the AHA applies. All Aboriginal heritage sites, to which the AHA applies, are protected in Western Australia. Some Aboriginal heritage sites may not have been reported to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA). b) The DAA has undertaken a b) The submission is noted review of this location and confirms there are no Aboriginal heritage sites or places on the DAA heritage database at this location. It is noted that a heritage survey of the proposed area was undertaken in 2014. As a result of this archaeological and ethnographic survey, one place, a scarred tree, was identified outside of the planned subdivision area, and it is stated in the heritage

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C53 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 16 Department of Aboriginal Affairs (cont’d) survey report (Randolph, 2014) that information pertaining to this place was submitted to the DAA. c) Based on the results from the c) The submission is noted heritage survey, it is unlikely that the activities planned in the construction of residential area will Impact on Aboriginal heritage. d) It is recommended that d) The submission is noted developers undertaking activities within the area for the proposal, are familiar with the State's Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Guidelines. These have been developed to assist proponents to identify any risks to Aboriginal heritage and to mitigate risk where heritage sites may be present. The guidelines are available at: http://www.daa.wa.Qov.au/aloba lassets/pdf-fHes/ddq. If, after reviewing these guidelines, the developer has any queries regarding their responsibilities regarding the AHA, they should contact the DAA in the first instance.

17 Submitter No. 17 a) In response to the letter we a) The submission is noted received in regard to Structure Plan 69. We have many concerns about the proposal to subdivide this area. b) We are not intending to subdivide b) Refer to 7(a) and 10(d) our lot as we moved here to enjoy the natural environment of this area. When we purchased our block the block next door (lot 381) was a reserve which gave us the impression this land would not become a built up residential area.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C54 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 17 Submitter No. 17 (cont’d) This is a list of some our concerns

 the development will have huge

impact on the environment.

 another reserve to be lost.

 don't want block next door

divided into six .

 don't want road behind us.

 lot 381 & lot 298 should be at

least 4000sqm to maintain

environment. c) As for other lots closer to town 268, c) The submission is noted 269, 292, 291,290 & 289 seem better suited to the smaller (2000sqm) blocks. We have been informed that owners of lot 267 do not intend to subdivide. Also ok with Northcote Street being joined up.

18 Department of Health a) Thank you for your letter dated 22 a) The submission is noted December 2015 requesting comment from the Department of Health (DOH) on the above proposal. Considering the geotechnical report of the site prepared by McDowall Affleck, lots proposed In the Structure Plan meet the minimum site requirements and lot size for unsewered subdivision under the Government Sewerage Policy - Perth Metropolitan Region. The DOH has no objection to the proposed Structure Plan subject to the on-site wastewater systems being of the type as recommended by McDowall Affleck Consulting Engineers. Accordingly, notification on land titles would be necessary in requiring proposed lots within Lots 60 - 66 to install an ATU wastewater system.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C55 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 19 Telstra a) Thank you for the above advice. At a) The submission is noted present, Telstra Corporation Limited has no objection. I have recorded this in our Development database and look forward to further correspondence in the future. Should you require any more information regarding Telstra’s new infrastructure policy, please read below or contact me.

20 Submitter No. 20 a) We support the proposed structure a) The submission is noted plan and believe the design addresses the relevant issues and allows for development of the land in an orderly manner. b) The submission is noted b) The Structure Plan takes into account the natural land constraints with the provision of a consolidated public open space, while giving consideration to potential bushfire issue present in the area. c) The land was rezoned in the Shire c) The submission is noted of Mundaring Town Planning Scheme 4 and proposed structure plan 69 allows for the development of the land and the continued growth of the Chidlow township.

21 Department of Parks and Wildlife a) The department provides the a) The submission is noted following comments: Threatened Fauna b) Parks and Wildlife is aware that the b) Structure Plan 69 is an “action” subject area contains potential under the Environmental breeding, roosting and feeding Protection and Biodiversity habitat for Camaby's cockatoo, Conservation Act 1999. An action which are classified as Endangered is defined broadly in the Act and under the Environment Protection includes: “a project, a and Biodiversity Conservation Act development, an undertaking, an 1999 (EPBC Act). There are a activity or a series of activities, or number of large jarrah and marri an alteration of any of these trees referred to in the botanical things.” assessment associated with this proposal, particularly within Lot 382,

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C56 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 21 Department of Parks and Wildlife (cont’d) 381 and along Thomwick Crescent. The federal Department of the These trees may be used by Environment requires actions to threatened black cockatoos as be referred to the Minister before nesting or roosting trees and must commencing. Actions are required be protected where ever possible. to be referred by the person/s The botanical assessment also undertaking the action. refers to areas of high quality foraging habitat for black cockatoos. The zone of the subject properties The locations of all habitat trees is predominantly Residential R5 should be mapped and protected (2000 sqm lots). Where possible, from impacts associated from the trees will be protected by way of development of this site where ever subdivision condition – having possible. regard to the clearing requirements under the Shire’s Firebreak and Fuel Load Notice 2015/2016 and the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas. c) If it is likely that the proposed c) Refer to 21(b) development may result in one or more of the following:  clearing of any known nesting tree,  clearing of any part or degradation of breeding habitat,  clearing of more than 1 hectare of quality foraging habitat, or  clearing or degradation (including pruning the top canopy) of a known roosting site, then the proposal should be referred to the Commonwealth for assessment under the EPBC Act as it is likely to significantly impact upon a matter of national environmental significance. The "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 draft referral guidelines for three threatened black cockatoo species: Camaby's cockatoo (endangered) Calyptohynchus latirostris, Baudin's cockatoo (vulnerable) Calyptohynchus baudinii, forest red- tailed black cockatoo (vulnerable) Calyptorhynchus banksii naso" (Commonwealth of Australia 2011)

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C57 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 21 Department of Parks and Wildlife (cont’d) will provide further information on this requirement. d) Threatened flora d) It is understood that access onto Lot 267 and 293 was not possible It is noted that the botanical during the preparation of Structure assessment did not extend to two of Plan 69. It is usual for subdivision the lots (Lot 267 and 293) subject to conditions to be applied to this proposed structure plan. As investigate and, where relevant, there is a high potential for protect native flora and fauna not threatened and priority flora species otherwise identified in the to be located within this bushland, a structure plan. Structure plans, targeted flora survey is required which guide subdivision, allow for within these lots to ensure potential variations to protect significant impacts are known and can be environmental features. managed prior to development taking place.

22. Department of Water a) The Department of Water (DoW) a) The submissions is noted. has assessed the referral and has the following advice to provide: The DoW has assessed the associated District Water Management Strategy prepared by Bayley Environmental Services dated November 2015, and is satisfied the proposal can proceed to the next planning stage.

23. Environmental Protection Authority a) Please be aware that that the EPA a) The submission is noted. does not generally provide comment on structure plans. If you believe that this development will have a significant impact on the environment the Shire can formally refer the proposal to the EPA under section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Information on what might be considered significant can be found on the EPA’s website in the Referral Information guide at http://www.epa.wa.gov.au unless they are referred to the EPA under Part IV of the EP Act.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C58 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 23. Environmental Protection Authority (cont’d) b) However, the Office of the b) Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Authority Bulletin No. 20 is (OEPA) provides you with the complementary to the following comments. environmental protection The OEPA notes that the subject provisions contained within area is currently zoned Local Planning Scheme No. 4. Residential. The EPA has developed a guideline for planning and development for urban and peri-urban areas titled Environmental Protection Bulletin No. 20 - Protection of Naturally Vegetated Areas through Planning and Development. This guideline provides advice on the integration and consideration of naturally vegetated areas during all stages of the planning process, to meet the EPA’s environmental objectives for vegetation and flora, and terrestrial fauna. For site specific information and comments regarding impacts to conservation significant species and the retention of native vegetation, the OEPA suggests that you contact the Department of Parks and Wildlife. 24. Submitter No. 24 a) I have just become aware of the a) Refer to 10(a) proposal for redevelopment for the area between Betty St, Thornwick Crescent and Old Northam Rd in the northern area of Chidlow and have several points which I wish to raise with you and the planning department of Mundaring Shire. These arise out of my background in landscape and riparian management, conservation biology and peri-urban ecology - and my long-time residence in Chidlow. The means by which the proposal was "advertised" strikes me as being rather underhanded.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C59 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 24. Submitter No. 24 (cont’d) The period during which public submissions could be placed, is, as you well know, the time when holidays, absences and general busyness preclude the level of attention that such a proposal demands. b) A notice in the local paper, the b) Refer to 7(a), 10(a) and 10(d) Chidlow Chatter, would have brought appropriate scrutiny, rather than obscure notices on an less used road, where speed signs and road curves have higher priorities for drivers. The talk of transparency in Council matters thus seems more verbal than actual However, in terms of the land itself. if the wholesale clearing that has gone ahead on the Shire's watch, in the Stone St, Bramwell Loop, Stokers Court and Lilydale Road developments are a gauge, there is likely to be at best only a ragged fringe of trees and thickets left in place. Established and mature trees and other vegetation essential to the conservation of local species which the Shire may require to be kept, will almost invariably suffer and usually die due to the changes in drainage, (particularly with our drying and warming climate), direct damage to root structure and the consolidation of hardpans when such vehicles enter, depart and park and the concomitant construction vehicle damage.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C60 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 24. Submitter No. 24 (cont’d) "Half-acre" blocks of 2000 sqm combined with average house sizes of 250 sqm and the Shire and FESA's requirement for a 20m buffer zone around each house prevent existing vegetation from being kept at all, so 4000 sqm blocks should be mandated in this area c) Several questions arise. c) Refer to 10(d). Additionally, the Shire required the preparation of a Has there been an ecological Local Water Management inventory conducted on the site, Strategy to examine the creekline including on the creek line and the and provide recommendations for exponential increase in storm water its protection and ongoing runoff? management (e.g. weed control). Does the Shire consider the new developments which I have mentioned above to be a success and how is that measured? Will the areas left undeveloped be the best examples of the remnant vegetation and will they have links with existing reserves? Are weedy species to be managed and, considering the potential for downstream invasions, will future owners have planting lists made available to them?

25. Submitter No. 25 a) Thank you for agreeing to extend a) The submission is noted. the time for the submission of comments on the above proposed development. Our concerns about this development are as follows:

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C61 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 25. Submitter No. 25 (cont’d) b) Potential large scale destruction of b) Refer to 7(a), 10(b), 10(d) and existing bushland. The reduction 16(a) of proposed block size to 1/2 acre blocks will result in most of the existing bushland being cleared. We do not understand how the Shire of Mundaring can continue to support the large scale clearing of trees and understory plants by developers i.e. the development in Lilydale Road, resulting in destruction of wildlife habitats, increasing temperatures and decreasing rainfall. c) Sewerage disposal for 67 houses - c) When applications are made to The proposed development is on a construct houses, separate slope and is not far from a creek. applications for effluent disposal How will this issue be managed? systems are required to be The local hairdresser had to wait approved by the Shire. Approval months to be allowed to wash hair for effluent disposal systems in her salon and has to abide by ensures that the land is capable of strict product requirements because appropriately assimilating wastes. the Shire of Mundaring had concerns about the production of waste water, chemicals etc. This proposed development, with 67 houses of people washing their hair, is just down the road. How is this suddenly okay? The Shire cannot exert any control over the products / chemicals that these households use. d) Further pressure on water supplies. d) The application was referred to 67 new homes need a lot of water. Water Corporation (submission 5). We had cause recently to contact the Water Authority to enquire about the costs involved in connecting scheme water. As part of this discussion we were told that the Water Authority is extremely unhappy about the way

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C62 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 25. Submitter No. 25 (cont’d) development has occurred in Chidlow. We were told that developers have repeatedly been given the go ahead to sub-divide and develop land without any corresponding requirement to upgrade water supplies. This has resulted in a significant drop in water pressure in Chidlow. The Water Authority (using taxpayers money) is now paying to upgrade the supply. e) Ground water levels in Chidlow are e) Structure Plan 69 was referred to already dropping, bores and dams the Department of Water which is are drying up that never have the agency responsible for issuing before. 67 new homes with a permits for bore installation (refer potential 67 new bores will make to submission 22). this worse. Many people in Chidlow, especially those on the eastern side do not have access to scheme water. Ground water is not a luxury for these properties, water does not come out just because a tap is turned on. How will this be managed? Our enquiries have suggested that anyone can have a bore (assuming there is water) all you need to do is pay for a licence (but there are no monitored restrictions on usage). f) Access and egress in the event of f) Refer to 4(a) bushfires. Old Northam Road is only one road but it will be the only way out. How will this work? It does not really matter if the development has through-roads or Cul-de sacs, all traffic will end up on Old Northam Road.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C63 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 25. Submitter No. 25 (cont’d) g) Lack of infra-structure both in g) Structure Plan 69 was referred to Chidlow and further afield in the Department of Education Mundaring. (submission 15). Can Chidlow Primary School really cope with the potential influx from 67 new homes? and if it cannot does it have room to expand? Mundaring Medical Centre is extremely busy already . 67 new homes and the corresponding people that live in them are enough to put a huge increase in pressure on existing services, but not necessarily enough to encourage new professionals (the average GP needs at least 1500 people to have the basis of a good general practice) and the space for one. Chidlow does not have a first response (ambulance) centre. Ambulances need to come from Mundaring or Wundowie. h) We are not unreasonable people. h) The submission is noted. We understand that people will always need somewhere to live. What we ask is that development is done in a sensitive way both in terms of its effect on the environment but also on the people around it. Chidlow is a small village in the Hills. That is part of what makes it charming.

26. Submitter No. 26 a) This is a submission concerning the a) The submission is noted. structure plan number 69, at the northern end of Chidlow. b) Thank you for allowing this extra b) The submission is noted. Refer to couple of days of extension given 10(a).

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C64 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 26. Submitter No. 26 (cont’d) for submission. However I do believe that more time is needed to properly inform the residents of Chidlow, as the Chidlow Progress Association has not yet publicised the facts of this proposed structure plan because of the timing it was received: members of the Chidlow Progress Association were all on holiday. After speaking with diverse members of the Chidlow

community, I discovered that most

of them were not aware of the

development and felt threatened by

it. One mentioned calling the shire

10 or so years ago, before buying

her town house in Chidlow,(Clifton

street) to be assured that the the

village would remain a rural setting.

One lady said she vaguely

remember receiving something but

was mostly away at the time, and

six other individuals had no idea

about it and didn't want their home

town to become suburban. c) Those are my points of opposition: c) Refer to 10(a), 10(d), 13(f), 14(b), 21(d), 25(c), 25(d), 25(e) and 25(g). The topic of traffic noise has been examined in the contents of the report.  The advertising Period was totally inadequate: the fact that it included both Christmas/New year, and the 2 first weeks of the January holidays was in itself insufficient in time. I cannot remember seeing anything on the Chidlow Chatter regarding this matter. The advertisement panel on the corner off Northcote street and Old Northam road was partially hidden under branches. I drove

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C65 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 26. Submitter No. 26 (cont’d) hidden under branches. I drove past it for the last two months without even noticing it (please see photos attached). There was no consultation with the broader community of Chidlow concerning such an added growth of population and its consequences.  We have witnessed the extent of extreme vegetation loss following the R5 subdivision development on the corner of Stone St and Lilydale Rd. Too many trees and under-storey vegetation will be lost unless the shire changes its policy! Conditions need to be applied at subdivision stage to reduce the level of clearing as seen on this other development in Chidlow?  The population increase from an additional 67 possible lots will put pressure on Chidlow's road network. Old Northam road has a blind turn just between Thornwick crescent and the other unnamed street that will be created. In case of an emergency such as a fire, most people might be pushed to use only one side of the development to escape and it might result in a dangerous situation. I believe that it is not a safe place to create such a big housing development.  To fit such a residential area, the road seal will need to be upgraded to a quieter one. Or the noise impact will be affecting all

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C66 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 26. Submitter No. 26 (cont’d) other residents nearby. A condition of approval needs to be applied regarding an upgrade to this section of Old Northam road.  As the development is sited in between two beautiful reserves, the developer need not to touch or affect any of the surrounding trees in the bush reserve. Enough of it would have to be cut in the development itself. Some of the trees are very old, and offer habitat to bigger species of birds and marsupials. The development would need to utilise their own land to widen Thornwick crescent and Betty street. This would spare the trees of the road reserves.  The clearing, the added road infrastructure plus the density of the housing built in such developments creates heat islands. Chidlow has reached 44 degree Celsius this summer, and is one of its driest years on record. More heat created and more clearing is synonymous with lesser rainfall. This doesn't fit in with the shire commitment to sustainability policy to help with global warming.  The sewerage capacity in regard to the topographic slope of the land is a big issue. This is the base of a stream line with underground water. (This is very near the place where Chidlow's well use to be located). 67 houses will highly likely produce a lot of pollution for the underground water, and I am sure that it is not an adequate

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C67 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 26. Submitter No. 26 (cont’d) place for such an extensive development unless there is a proper disposal of the sewerage. This can contaminate the water for the people who use bore water locally on their vegetable garden.  The size of Chidlow and its level of services is not adequate to cope with such an increase in population (seeing that there are already more developments that just happened in Chidlow). We need more police, will need a bigger school, more doctors, more water pressure etc... Is all this taken into consideration when such planning is under way?  I strongly believe that the number of housing needs to be reduced to a maximum of 40. This and the other development off Lilydale road will create an overall of 100 new houses in Chidlow. More than that would bring a spirit of suburb into our village.  More public open space needs to be created with an on site appreciation of old growth trees that would take 2 to 300 years to be replaced so as to keep them and value them. This is the least we can do for future generations. Then shire needs to put a condition to retain all old growth trees on site on the structure plan.  Clearing increases salinity. This area cleared will produce salinity as is known to happen with land clearing.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C68 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 26. Submitter No. 26 (cont’d) I insist on the point that we need a public consultation and an accountable process where all of the Chidlow population is properly consulted. Too few people know about this large scale structure plan. Developments of such size need to be properly advertised. 27. Submitter No. 27 a) We have just become aware of the a) Refer to 7(a) proposal for redevelopment for the area between Betty St, Thornwick Crescent and Old Northam Rd in the northern area of Chidlow and am very disappointed to think that a large area of beautiful, intact bushland will need to be cleared to make room for the development. Surely there are areas that have already been cleared that would be just as suitable? b) We live locally and are aware of the b) Refer to 10(d) bushland being used by threatened species such as the Red-tail and White–tail Black Cockatoos for feeding and nesting. Will a flora and fauna survey be undertaken, across seasons, to help determine what other threatened flora and fauna are in the proposed area before making a decision to go ahead or not with the proposed development? c) I’m also not sure that Chidlow can c) Refer to 25(e) cope with another development on this scale after recent developments on Stone St, Lilydale Rd and what sort of rigour will be put into determining what infrastructure will be needed and also the effects and pressure on the ground water system? Will bores be allowed to be sunk? Existing dams and bores are already drying up in the Chidlow area.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C69 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 27. Submitter No. 27 (cont’d) d) Like ourselves, we’re not sure that d) Refer to 10(a) many people are aware of the proposed development and ask that you extend the period of time for submissions and publicise the intent more widely – is it just a few signs on the road that are used to inform residents in the Shire?

28. Chidlow Progress Association a) The CPA has recently been a) The submission is noted approached by a number of

concerned ratepayers regarding the

Shires presentation of the proposed

Structure Plan 69. b) Before I table these comments, I b) The submission is noted might point out my own notification of your letter PS/TPS 4.3.069 dated 22 December 2015. This letter was read to me mid-January. The 23,d November was the last time the CPA met before adjourning to the next meeting 22nd January. c) Refer to 7(a), 10(a), 10(d), 13(f) c) Rate payer's comments include the and 25(c) following points.

 Poor timing due to Christmas and New Year holiday break.

 Poor information distribution with obscured signage and public awareness through your preferred media outlet.

 New street marked 267 is proposed to adjoin the Old Northam Road at the most dangerous part of the Old Northam Road, this location already being a bone of contention.

 Storm water drainage has been highlighted which is destined to flow in a north westerly direction towards Stone Street and the localised effect of flooding at Stone St location.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C70 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 28. Chidlow Progress Association (cont’d)

 Block size has been criticised with preferred block size no less than 4000m2 (heat Island effect)

 Lack of detail regarding revegetation and continued preservation of existing flora and fauna.

 Fire and Emergency egress planning and impact.

 Localised impact of sewerage disposal from 67 homes to the local groundwater network. Thank you for your kind attention.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C71 MARCH 2016

10.2 Strategic Community Plan

File Code OR.CMA 16 Author Jan Byers, Organisational Development Officer Senior Employee Megan Griffiths, Director Strategic and Community Services Disclosure of Any Nil Interest

SUMMARY

The Strategic Community Plan 2016 – 2026 (SCP) is the second plan to be developed since the inception of the State Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (IPRF), which came into effect for local governments on 1 July 2013.

The plan clearly demonstrates the community vision, our strategic direction, and priorities for action over the next 10 years and links the community’s aspirations with the Council’s vision and long-term strategy.

The SCP will drive the development of the 4-year Corporate Business Plan (CBP) through “activating” the long term community aspirations into priorities within a context of long term financial planning, workforce planning, asset management and annual budgets.

This report recommends that Council adopts the Shire of Mundaring 2016-2026 Strategic and Community Plan (refer ATTACHMENT 4).

BACKGROUND

Section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) “Planning for the Future” requires a local government to plan for the future of the district and to make plans in accordance with the regulations. Regulations came into effect 1 July 2013 requiring all local governments in Western Australia to have developed and adopted a Strategic Community Plan (SCP) and a Corporate Business Plan supported and informed by resourcing and delivery strategies. Through a process of continuous improvement local governments should be better able to plan for and meet the needs of their communities.

The IPRF is designed to ensure more effective delivery of the local government’s strategic intentions, and to provide a process to:

 Ensure community input is explicitly and reliably generated;  Provide the capacity for location specific planning where appropriate;  Inform the long term objectives of the local government with these inputs;  Identify the resourcing required to deliver against the long term objectives; and  Clearly articulate long term financial implications and strategies

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C72 MARCH 2016

It will deliver:

 A long term strategic plan that clearly links the community’s aspirations with the Council’s vision and long-term strategy;  A corporate business plan that integrates resourcing plans and specific Council plans with the strategic plan;  A clearly stated vision for the future of the local government area

Officers are concurrently working on the other aspects of the IPRF including the Workforce Plan, the Long Term Financial Plan, Asset Management Plans, and the Corporate Business Plan.

Community engagement to develop the Strategic Community Plan was undertaken in September to November 2015. The draft plan was then opened for public comment from 11 December 2015 through until 5 February 2016. The draft plan, including public comments, was presented at a Council presentation and workshop 16 February 2016.

STATUTORY / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to plan for the future of its district in accordance with any regulations made.

Regulation 19C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 requires that “A local government is to ensure that a strategic community plan is made for its district in accordance with this regulation in respect of each financial year after the financial year ending 30 June 2013.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Formal adoption of the Strategic Community Plan will be the basis from which the Corporate Business Plan and the Long Term Financial Plan are developed and from which the annual budget will be derived.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The Strategic Community Plan will be the foundation strategic document for the Shire of Mundaring that articulates community long-term vision, values, and aspirations.

It establishes the community’s vision for the Shire’s future, and its aspirations and service expectations. It drives the development of other informing strategies such as workforce, asset management, operations and service plans and supporting strategies.

It will supersede the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C73 MARCH 2016

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

 Social

The Strategic Community Plan will establish the community’s vision for the Shire of Mundaring’s future and articulate community aspirations and service expectations.

RISK IMPLICATIONS

The extensive community engagement involved in drafting the Plan has created an expectation that it will be finalised and endorsed by Council. Following the community engagement the Shire invited public comment on the Draft Strategic Community Plan. Consequently there are reputational risks from failing to adopt the Strategic Community Plan. There are also compliance risks from failing to do so.

There is a likelihood that some community members disagree with parts of the Plan. It may fail to satisfy some community members’ or groups’ expectations of what is included in or excluded from the Plan. Consequently there are also reputational risks from adopting the Strategic Community Plan. This can be mitigated through a communication strategy to explain how the Plan was developed and how the community had input.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

The Draft Strategic Community Plan was developed from an extensive public consultation process undertaken from September to November 2015. It was also informed by numerous other strategy documents which were developed with their own public consultation processes.

The results of the community engagement were discussed at a joint workshop with elected members and community representatives on 24 November 2015.

The draft was open for public comment from 11 December 2015 through until 5 February 2016 and was widely publicised by:

 Direct invitation to comment to all community members who registered for the community engagement workshops in September to November;  Direct invitation to comment to all residents and ratepayers groups and progress associations;  Invitation to comment via email databases such as businesses, sporting groups, fire brigade, and environment groups;  Promotion in the Community Focus page in the Echo and the Hills Gazette;  Advertisements in local newspapers including the Chidlow Chatter and the Darlington Review;  Posters inviting public comment in Shire offices, libraries, Brown Park Recreation Centre, The Hub of the Hills, Swan View Youth Centre and local shopping centres; and  Promotion via social media

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C74 MARCH 2016

Community members were encouraged to comment via Your Voice Mundaring which is an electronic engagement system. For those who did not have access to the internet, they were directed to the Libraries for assistance.

COMMENT

It is important to have the Strategic Community Plan finalised and adopted in adequate time to ensure that it can drive the development of the Corporate Business Plan which is scheduled to be adopted on 14 June 2016.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Absolute Majority

MOTION RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Brennan Seconded by: Cr Clark

That Council, by absolute majority, adopts the Shire of Mundaring 2016-2026 Strategic Community Plan as at ATTACHMENT 4.

The mover withdrew his motion.

COUNCIL DECISION C6.03.16 MOTION

Moved by: Cr Brennan Seconded by: Cr Clark

That the matter be deferred and Councillors submit proposed amendments to the CEO to enable Council to consider any amendments.

CARRIED 8/4

For: Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan, Cr Perks, Cr Cook, Cr Jeans

Against: Cr Cuccaro, Cr Bertola, Cr Fox, Cr Lavell

Next Report

8.18pm Cr Cook left the Council Chamber 8.18pm Cr Cuccaro left the Council Chamber 8.18pm Director Strategic & Corporate Services left the Council Chamber 8.18pm Communications Co-ordinator left the Council Chamber 8.19pm Cr Cook returned to the Council Chamber

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C75 MARCH 2016

Attachment 4

Report 10.2

24 Pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C76 MARCH 2016

mundaring 2026 a sense of place, a sense of space

Strategic Community Plan Contents

A Message from the Shire President 3

A Snapshot - Mundaring 2026 4

The Shire 5

The Process 6

What you told us 9

Vision and values 12

Our Priorities 13

The Shire’s Role 21

Resourcing the Plan 22

How this Plan will be used 23

Alternative formats of this document are available upon request. A message from the Shire President

Welcome to Shire of Mundaring’s 2016 - 2026 This year we extended consultation to an online Strategic Community Plan, Mundaring 2026. forum, in addition to community workshops, attendance at local events and a telephone Mundaring 2026 is based on input from our community survey. and is the driver for everything we do. I would like to thank all community members It has a long-term focus and achieving the shared who took part in the Mundaring 2026 process. vision will require collaboration by all levels of Your support and contribution is vital to ensure government, community groups and residents. our planning supports the community’s vision, values and aspirations for the next 10 years. We will use this Plan to create a Corporate Business Plan which lists priorities for specific services, I look forward to leading Council and working operations and projects to be delivered over four-year with Shire employees to achieve key priorities cycles. covered in this Plan.

Mundaring 2026 was developed as a result of an Cr David Lavell extensive consultation process.

Page 3 A Snapshot What you told us

Community vision A sense of space, a sense of place

What we value A peaceful lifestyle with amenity Living in a safe place Being part of a resilient, supportive and inclusive community Living sustainably Respect for the heritage and history of the area Engaged, responsible leadership

Our Priorities 1. Governance 3. Natural Environment A fiscally responsible Shire that prioritises A community that manages water sustainably spending appropriately A place where the environment is well managed Transparent and engaged processes for Shire A great place to immerse yourself in nature decision making

2. Community 4. Built Environment A place that is connected, safe and easy to A community that is prepared for bush fire move around Residents of all ages, needs and Community needs are considered in planning backgrounds are engaged and supported for the future by their community Reliable digital services and power supply A strong and local community spirit A place of vibrant culture and arts Flourishing local business

Page 4 The Shire

Shire of Mundaring is located on the eastern fringe Forrest, Gorrie, Greenmount, Helena Valley, Hovea, of Perth, approximately 35 kilometres from the Mahogany Creek, Malmalling, Midvale (part), Perth CBD. Mount Helena, Mundaring, Parkerville, Sawyers Valley, Stoneville, Swan View (part), The Lakes and The original inhabitants of the Mundaring area Wooroloo. were the Nyungar Aboriginal people. Mundaring is thought to be an Aboriginal word meaning “a high Shire of Mundaring has an Estimated Resident place on a high place” or “the place of the grass Population of 40,046 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, tree leaves”. 2014). From 2006 to 2011, the population increased by 1437 people (4.1%). The shire is a predominantly rural area, with residential areas in numerous townships. It The largest industries are education and training, encompasses a total land area of 644sqkm, of manufacturing, construction and retail trade. There which nearly half is National Park, State Forest or are 3153 registered businesses as of 2014, creating water catchments. 10,645 local jobs.

Townsites and locations include Bailup, Beechina, There are 21,149 employed residents (National Bellevue (part), Boya, Chidlow, Darlington, Glen Institute of Economic and Industry Research 2014).

Shire of Mundaring

Page 5 The Process

Mundaring 2026 is the result of a community invited from a statistically valid, stratified selection visioning process which used both broad-based of households. A youth workshop was also held. and targeted engagement tools and aimed to A minimum of two representatives from each of answer: the workshops subsequently attended a summit Where are we now? Where are we going? workshop with councillors in late November 2015. Where do we want to be? How do we get there? The workshops, facilitated by independent consultants to ensure objectivity, were attended by The engagement tools used included community 201 community members. workshops (both open and by invitation), an online engagement platform, and a community During the early workshops, extensive data about perceptions survey. the values and aspirations of the community was brainstormed, collected, themed and prioritised. Community workshops Eight community workshops were held during This data was then verified with participants of the October and November 2015. One workshop was ensuing workshops. They also identified strengths, open to all community members, followed by six weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and workshops with participants who were randomly- developed a vision statement and priorities.

Page 6 Online engagement In September 2015, the Mundaring 2026 online engagement platform was launched. This platform enabled access to the consultation process for those community members unable or unwilling to attend a workshop.

Data was collected using surveys, brainstorm tools, quick polls and guest books with the results of workshops being continuously fed back into the data collection process.

The site also contained a library of consultation reference documents both as records for those who attended workshops and to ensure up-to-date access for those who had not.

Throughout the consultation period there were approximately 1000 visits to the Mundaring 2026 site with an average engagement rate of The key elements of this draft were made available 30%, and an average informed rate of 70%. These for public comment via the Mundaring 2026 site for rates are significantly higher than average for eight weeks (mid December 2015 to early February online engagement. 2016). The online engagement platform was promoted via flyers, the Shire’s website, social media sites, email The comments were collated and discussed in a and newspaper advertising. workshop with Council in mid-February, before the revised document was submitted for final Council Informing documents endorsement in March 2016. Informing documents used during the process were Engagement level the 2015 Community Perceptions Survey, State of the Shire report, Long Term Financial Plan and The methodology used for Mundaring 2026 Capital Works Plan. meets the Intermediate Standard of community engagement as described in the WA Government’s Draft Strategic Community Plan Integrated Planning and Reporting Standard. A draft Strategic Community Plan was created from The minimum number of residents involved was the data and ideas gathered during the consultation greater than 500 and more than two documented process. engagement mechanisms were used.

Page 7 Some Big Ideas

Workshop Attendance

Page 8 What you told us

Living in Mundaring Fire safety, and effective management of fire risks in a changing climate, emerged as one of the Large block sizes and the natural environment are primary concerns of residents. This was coupled a major attractor to people who choose to live within with an apprehension about increasing regulations the shire. The local atmosphere and living close to and restrictions to accommodate fire safety like-minded people was also a consideration. requirements. Residents are satisfied with most aspects of living There was also a level of concern about the within the shire, particularly the ability to live in adequacy of social and physical infrastructure a small, inclusive and relaxed community that is to accompany the larger population, both for the peaceful and quiet with easy access to the natural young and the old. environment and all it has to offer in the way of fauna, flora, hiking and other outdoor activities. Associated with this was a concern about potential increases in crime and antisocial behaviour if there They enjoy living in a community that has a country is insufficient planning for meaningful engagement feel with little pollution and few security issues, yet of young people. Local economic development also offers city benefits - a sense of ‘being out of was also a priority to give opportunities for local town’ but with not far to travel to access services and employment. facilities. Improved public transport and road infrastructure There was some dissatisfaction with public transport, were identified as being very important for the roads and infrastructure, and cultural facilities and Shire’s future, especially in light of potential events provided in the shire. population growth and increased traffic volumes.

Concerns for the future A need for a focus on road safety for all road users Overall concerns with respect to the Shire‘s future (vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists) was also raised. were around development and the challenge of Lack of digital connectivity was also a challenge, as preserving and protecting the natural environment was reliable power supply in some areas. and the village-like atmosphere of the community, whilst also catering for the demands of population Accompanying all of these concerns was the growth and an ageing population. overall issue of requiring a rates base sufficient to sustain the natural, cultural, social and physical Many residents enjoy the opportunity to live on infrastructure and the needs of the community larger blocks, but in the future there may be a need without becoming an impost on the financial for smaller blocks to cater for those who are getting capacity of residents. older and also those wishing to purchase affordable housing in the area.

Page 9 Living Here Now Online Survey: satisfaction levels for aspects of living in the Shire of Mundaring

Page 10 Community perception Lake Leschenaultia, and sport and recreation facilities. Telephone interviews were held with 400 residents during September 2015 to determine overall High priority areas identified for improvement satisfaction with the Shire, as well as its facilities included raising awareness of roles, and services, and to identify priority areas for responsibilities and actions undertaken by Shire improvement. employees and elected members; planning and building approvals; and footpaths and cycle ways. The survey showed an increasing level of satisfaction with living in the shire (+3%) and a Other areas identified for improvement, over which slight decrease (-2%) in satisfaction with the Shire the Shire has medium to low levels of control, as an organisation, from 2013 survey results. included services for youth aged 12-25; economic development; tourism and job creation; public The survey showed significant increases in transport access; and education and training. satisfaction for verge-side bulk rubbish collections,

Satisfaction - Living in the Shire

Q1. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Shire of Mundaring as a place to live?

Satisfaction - Shire Local Government

Q2. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Shire of Mundaring, the organisation that governs the local area?

Page 11 Vision and values

Community vision for Shire of Mundaring What we value as a community a sense of space, A peaceful lifestyle with amenity a sense of place Living in a safe place Being part of a resilient, supportive and inclusive Within Shire of Mundaring, we will have balanced community development offering a range of semi-rural and Living sustainably urban lifestyles, and will share a focus on safely protecting the natural environment. Respect for the heritage and history of the area Engaged, responsible leadership Our Shire Council and employees will be recognised for listening and responding to the needs of the community.

The preserved bushland in our Shire will be acknowledged as a world-class tourist asset and an opportunity to provide environmental education to others.

The suburbs and unique villages within the Shire will cater to the diverse needs of residents at all stages of life.

We will be focussed on providing local employment by supporting local businesses and products.

We will be a resilient community, where residents will feel engaged in their community and we will have a strong culture of volunteerism.

We will continue to offer an attractive opportunity to live close to nature.

Page 12 Our Priorities 1. GOVERNANCE

1.1 Objective One A fiscally responsible Shire that prioritises spending appropriately No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute 1.1.1 Prudently consider resource Financial resources managed to Shire of Mundaring allocation ensure Shire can responsibly deliver services and infrastructure 1.1.2 Investigate alternative revenue Increased revenue other than rates Shire of Mundaring sources 1.1.3 Provide increased transparency and Spending is targeted to areas of Shire of Mundaring opportunities for community feedback identified community needs Residents on proposed spending 1.1.4 Practise effective governance and Exposure to governance risk and Shire of Mundaring financial risk management financial risk is minimised

1.2 Objective Two Transparent and engaged processes for Shire decision making No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute 1.2.1 Increase transparency of Shire Values, policies and procedures Shire of Mundaring administration processes deliver ethical, transparent and Residents accountable local governance

1.2.2 Increase open and regular The council engages effectively Shire of Mundaring communication between elected with its community, encourages Residents members and the community participation in local democracy and responds appropriately to the community’s views and expectations.

Page 13 Our Priorities 2. COMMUNITY

2.1 Objective One A community that is prepared for bush fire No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute

2.1.1 Reduce fuel loads on both private Reduced impact of bush fires on built State Government and public land and natural environment Shire of Mundaring Private landowners 2.1.2 Support local volunteer bush fire Confidence that local bush fire Volunteer bush fire brigades to do their job effectively brigades can be effective in their brigades and efficiently efforts to keep community safe Shire of Mundaring State Government Volunteers 2.1.3 Encourage and celebrate successful Acknowledgement for bush fire Shire of Mundaring bush fire preparedness ready residents, local brigades and Bush fire brigades volunteers Volunteers Community is well informed about Residents bush fire preparedness

2.2 Objective Two Residents of all ages, needs and backgrounds are engaged and supported by their community No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute

2.2.1 Encourage opportunities for Increased number of intergenerational Shire of Mundaring interaction between generations activities and gatherings available for Aged care providers residents to attend Community groups Schools 2.2.2 Facilitate awareness of people Vulnerable residents receive support Community groups with vulnerabilities and promote and are aware of support services if Shire of Mundaring opportunities to support those who they require it Residents need it 2.2.3 Encourage and promote volunteer Residents can find appropriate help Shire of Mundaring and support services easily; resources are available and Community groups being used Service providers Residents 2.2.4 Facilitate increased multi-cultural Increased awareness of multi-cultural State Government awareness issues and available services Community groups Shire of Mundaring

Page 14 2.3 Objective Three A strong and local community spirit

No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute 2.3.1 Provide community venues and Increased usage of community venues Shire of Mundaring facilities for different demographics and facilities for different demographics State Government eg seniors, youth, children etc Community groups Service providers 2.3.2 Advocate for an expanded range Increased choice of tertiary education State Government of tertiary education options within options East Metropolitan the region Reduced travelling distance to access Regional Council education options City of Swan Shire of Mundaring 2.3.3 Explore local sharing initiatives Increased opportunities to share and Shire of Mundaring exchange local products, resources and Community services groups Residents 2.3.4 Encourage local neighbourhood Neighbours feel increased connection to Shire of Mundaring interaction each other State Government Community groups Residents

Page 15 2.4 Objective Four A place of vibrant culture and arts No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute 2.4.1 Encourage, promote and support Increased number of local events Shire of Mundaring existing and new community Community events assisted to source Community groups events sponsorship, insurance and/ or funding Local businesses and increased participation by local Insurers residents and businesses Media Residents 2.4.2 Support not-for-profit arts and Existing and new not-for-profit groups Shire of Mundaring cultural groups operate on a sustainable basis State Government Federal Government Community groups

2.5 Objective Five Flourishing local business No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute 2.5.1 Encourage community to support Increased patronage of local businesses Shire of Mundaring local businesses Maintain or increase occupancy rate of Local businesses commercial premises Residents 2.5.2 Encourage the development Increased visitor expenditure Shire of Mundaring of new and improved visitor State Government attractions that are consistent Local businesses with the nature and character of Residents the area

Page 16 Our Priorities 3. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Objective One A community that manages water sustainably No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute 3.1.1 Support and encourage the re-use A higher percentage of facilities State Government of water incorporate water re-use technology Shire of Mundaring Local businesses Residents 3.1.2 Support and encourage a reduction Reduced usage of mains and ground State Government in mains and ground water water Shire of Mundaring consumption A higher percentage of properties have Local businesses rainwater tanks Residents 3.1.3 Encourage preservation of clean Reduced pollution in local waterways Shire of Mundaring local waterways State Government East Metropolitan Regional Council Local businesses Residents

Page 17 3.2 Objective Two A place where the environment is well managed No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute

3.2.1 Identify and mitigate threats to the Reduced impact from threats to the Shire of Mundaring natural environment environment State Government Community groups Residents 3.2.2 Develop greater recycling Increased recycling and decreased land State Government opportunities fill Shire of Mundaring East Metropolitan Regional Council Residents 3.2.3 Encourage and promote Increased involvement of community Shire of Mundaring environmental education and groups in environmental management State Government stewardship by local community Increased collaboration and co- Community groups groups ordination between local environmental Residents groups Schools 3.2.4 Encourage renewable energy use Increased renewable energy use State Government by residents and businesses Shire of Mundaring Community groups East Metropolitan Regional Council Residents

3.3 Objective Three A great place to immerse yourself in nature

No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute 3.3.1 Encourage environmental tourism Increased numbers of nature based Tourism operators by supporting nature based tourism activities Shire of Mundaring activities State Government Community groups

Page 18 Our Priorities 4. BUILT ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Objective Two A place that is connected, safe and easy to move around No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute 4.1.1 Improve safety on road, cycle and Reduced number of traffic crashes Shire of Mundaring footpath networks Increased length of footpaths and cycle State Government ways Community groups Residents 4.1.2 Lobby for improved public Improved public transport services State Government transport services within and to Shire of Mundaring key connections outside Shire Neighbouring councils boundaries Residents 4.1.3 Maintain and improve bus stop Improved amenity for users of public Shire of Mundaring facilities are maintained and transport facilities State Government improved 4.1.4 Reduce the impact of heavy vehicle Reduce heavy vehicle traffic through State Government transport through the Mundaring the Mundaring town centre Federal Government town centre Transport operators Shire of Mundaring Residents

4.2 Objective Two Community needs are considered in planning for the future

No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute 4.2.1 Promote and facilitate the planning Decreased number of residents leaving Developers and development of affordable the Shire as they get older Shire of Mundaring residential options, without Increased number of first home owners Aged care providers compromising amenity of area buying in the Shire Residents 4.2.2 Promote sustainability in design Increased number of buildings with Shire of Mundaring and development for buildings sustainability principles incorporated Developers Residents

Page 19 4.3 Objective Three Reliable digital services and power supply

No. Strategy Community outcomes Who will contribute 4.3.1 Lobby to achieve comprehensive Improved internet and mobile phone Federal Government and reliable digital connectivity coverage Telecommunication across the Shire companies Shire of Mundaring Residents 4.3.2 Advocate to improve reliability of Decreased number of power outages State Government power supply Power utilities Shire of Mundaring Residents

Page 20 The Shire’s Role

In the context of the Strategic Community Plan, • public health (eg licensing and monitoring food it is important to recognise that the Shire will not premises) be able to achieve the aspirations articulated • the appropriateness and safety of new buildings, by the community alone and that it will require and the use of land. collaboration by all levels of government, as well These areas are subject to regulation to ensure as the community, to achieve the shared vision. a minimum standard is adhered to, as well as to minimise the potential to impose costs or adverse The Shire’s role, which is limited, is described effects on others (eg food poisoning, injuries or below. hazardous activities too close to population). Delivery of facilities and services Enabling and facilitation The Shire delivers a broad range of facilities and The Shire assists, supports and enables community services such as: groups and other strategic partners to develop and • parks and gardens deliver solutions that meet the needs and aspirations of • roads and footpaths the community. • drainage and waste management • recreation and cultural facilities This occurs through activities such as provision of • events grants programs, volunteer support programs and • social services, such as family support. provision of community facilities. Some of those services are based on infrastructure, for instance parks and Education playgrounds, roads and buildings. Maintenance The Shire has a role in providing information and and renewal of those infrastructure assets is educational campaigns that assist the community a vital part of the Shire’s service delivery role. to identify the healthiest, sustainable and more Some services are non-asset based, such as economical choices. Bush fire prevention is a good provision of events like Trek the Trail. example of this.

Regulation Civic leadership and advocacy The Shire must fulfil statutory obligations as The Shire provides civic leadership with a broad required by the State and Federal Governments, and deep view of relevant trends and issues. This which are vital for community well-being. includes engaging and leading the community in its For example, we have a regulatory and development; wise stewardship of community assets; enforcement role in: advocacy to State Government for recognition, funding or policy support.

Page 21 Resourcing the Plan

To support the community’s objectives as It ensures the Shire can effectively meet and expressed in this plan, a longer term resourcing respond to the broad challenges of the future strategy is required as part of the Integrated through the effective use of one of its key assets - Planning and Reporting Framework as required by its employees. the State Government. The Asset Plans define current levels of services This serves to both inform and test the aspirations and the processes used to manage each major expressed in the Strategic Community Plan, and asset class. how the required actions which are consistent with the Shire’s role might be achieved. The resourcing Costs for the principal activities undertaken by strategy is composed of three components: the Shire, including continued provision of current Workforce Plan, Asset Management Plans and services at the appropriate levels necessary to Long Term Financial Plan. meet the objectives of the community, are brought together in the Long Term Financial Plan, which is The Workforce Plan ensures the Shire has the reviewed and updated on an annual basis. capacity to achieve the outcomes of the Strategic Community Plan.

Page 22 How this Plan will be used

The Strategic Community Plan is a 10-year plan, Council is also committed to measuring the quality reviewed every two years with a full review and of its performance in the areas of financial and update every four years. The plan is continuously asset management and will report against legislated looking ahead; therefore it retains a 10-year measures on an annual basis via the Annual horizon at each review date. This Plan updates the Report. previous Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023. The Shire’s Corporate Business Plan translates the How will progress be measured? Strategic Community Plan into priorities for specific services, operations and projects to be delivered The Shire is committed to monitoring progress over four-year cycles. towards achieving the community’s vision and aspirations. As part of each two year review, the This is supported by a number of Informing Shire will report to the community, providing an Strategies and drives the Annual budget process. update on its progress in achieving the objectives These documents are publicly available on the articulated in Mundaring 2026. A biennial Shire’s website www.mundaring.wa.gov.au. community survey will be a key input to this report.

Page 23 7000 Great Eastern Highway Mundaring WA 6073

T: 9290 6666 E: [email protected] W: www.mundaring.wa.gov.au

10.3 Proposed Minor Boundary Change – Lot 239 Wilkins Street (formerly Goodchild Oval), Bellevue

File Code PS.TPS4.3.074 Author Danielle Courtin, Governance Co-ordinator Senior Employee Mark Luzi, Director Statutory Services Disclosure of Any Nil Interest

SUMMARY

This report recommends that Council resolves to lodge a joint submission with City of Swan to the Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) to realign the boundary between City of Swan and Shire of Mundaring to incorporate Lot 239 Wilkins Street, Bellevue, currently in City of Swan, within the district boundary of Shire of Mundaring.

A map illustrating the current and proposed boundary is included as ATTACHMENT 5 of this report.

BACKGROUND

Shire of Mundaring initiated discussions with City of Swan regarding a minor local government boundary realignment for Lot 239 Wilkins Street, Bellevue, in accordance with Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), as the site is primarily located within the Shire of Mundaring boundary.

The land along with Lot 800 Katherine Street, which is located in the Shire of Mundaring, is subject to the same Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) amendment for rezoning to urban. This land is owned by the same landowner who has proposed a structure plan across the entire area that is awaiting assessment by both the Shire of Mundaring and City of Swan.

On 20 January 2016 Council of the City of Swan resolved to - 1. Lodge a joint submission with the Shire of Mundaring to the Local Government Advisory Board to include Lot 239 Wilkins Street (former Goodchild Oval) within the locality boundary of the Shire of Mundaring; and 2. Inform the Shire of Mundaring and the landowner of its decision.

STATUTORY / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Local Government Act 1995 Schedule 2.1 - Provisions about creating, changing the boundaries of, and abolishing districts.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

There are no Policy implications evident at this time.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C101 MARCH 2016

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed boundary change is likely to result in an additional 40 residential lots in the Shire. While this would generate additional rate revenue, there would be additional costs associated with waste services, maintaining roads, and the delivery of other key services to the new residents.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The site forms a small part of a larger landholding subject to draft Structure Plan 74 (SP74). SP74 will provide the framework for subdivision in the locality and will be subject to a future Council decision.

In a scenario where the local government boundary remains unchanged, SP74 will need to be assessed by the City of Swan and the Shire. The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) will be compelled to consider the recommendations of both local governments (relative to the land within their jurisdiction) prior to determining SP74. Hence, supporting the lodgement of a joint submission to adjust the local government boundary will ultimately add weight to the Shire’s recommendation to the WAPC on SP74.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

RISK IMPLICATIONS

Nil

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

Planning staff from City of Swan and Shire of Mundaring have extensively discussed this proposal.

COMMENT

The reasons for the proposed minor boundary re-alignment can be summed up as follows:  The 2ha parcel of land is part of a proposal for a structure plan across the entire area owned by the same landowner who also owns Lot 800 Katherine Street in Shire of Mundaring;  The re-alignment will establish a logical boundary and will clearly delineate responsibilities for service delivery such as waste, road/park maintenance and ongoing planning and subdivision of the land; and  Following boundary re-alignment, should the structure plan be approved, all future subdivision and development of the land will become the sole responsibility of Shire of Mundaring, saving the landowner from preparing documentation for two local governments. The boundary change proposal is considered to be of a minor nature as it will only affect the landowner, who is supportive of the proposal.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C102 MARCH 2016

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

COUNCIL DECISION C7.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Perks Seconded by: Cr Fox

That Council resolves to lodge a joint submission with City of Swan to the Local Government Advisory Board to realign the boundary of Lot 239 Wilkins Street, Bellevue, currently in City of Swan, to incorporate it within the district boundary of Shire of Mundaring.

CARRIED 11/0

For: Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan Cr Perks, Cr Fox, Cr Cook, Cr Jeans, Cr Lavell

Against: Nil

Cr Cuccaro had left the Council Chamber prior to the recommendation being voted on and did not vote.

Next Report

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C103 MARCH 2016

Attachment 5

Report 10.3

1 page

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C104 MARCH 2016

Area proposed to be included within Shire of Mundaring

10.4 Omnibus Amendment No.7 – Vegetation Protection

File Code PS.TPS 4.1.06 Location / Address N/A Zoning N/A Ward N/A Author Angus Money, Manager of Planning Senior Employee Mark Luzi, Director Statutory Services Disclosure of Any Nil Interest

SUMMARY

Following the release of the State’s new Bushfire Regulations, State Planning Policy 3.7 and Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines (Guidelines) in October 2015, an amendment is now required to uphold the intent of the ‘vegetation protection’ provisions within the Shire’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4). Refinements are also proposed to make it easier for the Shire’s solicitors to prove beyond reasonable doubt that unlawful clearing has occurred.

BACKGROUND

The Shire’s LPS4 is unique in that it is one of the only planning schemes within the State that embeds biodiversity mapping into a statutory layer, referred to as Local Natural Areas (LNA).

Following the operation of LPS4 since its gazettal, officers and the Shire’s solicitors have identified provisions that need improvement. CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 6 contains a covering letter from the Shire’s solicitors.

In December 2015, the State introduced the new bushfire Guidelines. Of greatest concern is the requirement for a 20 metre Asset Protection Zones to be established around Building Envelopes. The Guidelines, contrary to Shire submissions, maintain the requirement for 10 metre separation distances between tree crowns. Interpreted literally (and in conjunction with LPS4 clearing exemptions), landowners could legitimately clear/thin large areas of bush recognised as LNA intended to be preserved (see ATTACHMENT 8).

STATUTORY / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Legislation Implications

Planning and Development Act 2005 Provides for amendments to Local Planning Schemes Planning and Development (Local Sets out the detailed process for Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 making amendments to Local Planning Schemes

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C106 MARCH 2016

Local Planning Scheme No.4 Contains the development requirements and objectives Local Government Act 1995 Defines what matters are reasonable to consider behind closed doors.

The introduction of the Planning and Development Regulations (Local Planning Schemes) 2015 requires the Local Government to, within statutory parameters and subject to WAPC endorsement, select one of three amendment pathways including:

 Basic;  Standard; and  Complex

It is recommended that Council initiates the Amendment as a ‘Basic’ amendment as the changes are: a. required to address an administrative anomaly created by the State’s introduction of the Guidelines; b. addresses inconsistencies with the intent and scheme provisions relating to protecting vegetation and particularly Local Natural Areas; and c. will have a minimal effect on the scheme or landowners in the scheme area.

Alternatively, Council could determine that the changes require public consultation. In which case, Council could resolve to initiate the amendment as a ‘Standard Amendment’ thereby triggering the need to undertake consultation. The risks in this approach are outlined within ‘Risk Implications’ below.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Initiating prosecutions which fail due to wording issues could expose the Shire to unnecessary and avoidable legal costs.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C107 MARCH 2016

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The Shire’s role in administrating planning controls to protect bushland and recognised environmental assets is consistent with wider community’s expectation. Administrative anomalies (created by the introduction of the Guidelines) and the experience gathered since LPS4 was gazetted highlights areas where refinements are required to better deliver on this original intent.

Changes proposed are wholly consistent with the intent and direction of the endorsed Community Strategy Plan, Local Planning Strategy and LPS4. In particular, the considerations surrounding vegetation clearing primarily remain unchanged; however the threshold for triggering a planning application is proposed to be broadened. This ensures the Shire is better placed to enforce the scheme where landowners blatantly disregard vegetation protection controls.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

Updating the Shire’s vegetation protection provisions to ensure they remain contemporary and effective is critical to preserve the environmental and social values of the Shire. Protecting environmental values are also important to sustain businesses dependent on celebrating bushland and biodiversity.

RISK IMPLICATIONS

Changes are primarily administrative in nature and respond, in the most part, to the introduction of new Guidelines. The amendment will have minimal impact on the scheme or landowners. Nevertheless, Council may form the view that the amendment should be considered a ‘Standard Amendment’ and the modifications should be advertised.

A risk associated with determining the proposal as a ‘Standard Amendment’ is that - once advertised - some landowners may seize this window of opportunity and excessively clear bush identified as ‘Protection’ knowing the Shire has limited ability to mount a successful prosecution. Worst case scenario, various landowners could become aware and wholesale clearing occurs which could seriously undermine the Shire’s biodiversity – but also the Shire’s reputation as a leading local government in environmental protection.

A Standard Amendment would take approximately 10-12 months whereas a Basic Amendment is likely to take 4-5 months.

Hence, pursuing a Basic Amendment pathway is:  consistent with the intent of the definition of Basic amendment outlined in Clause 34 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;  minimises the environmental and reputational risks; and,  reduces the window of opportunity for excessive clearing of quality bush intended to be retained.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C108 MARCH 2016

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

A Basic amendment would not require consultation.

COMMENT

Changes to 5.7.12 Vegetation Protection provisions within the LPS4 text are outlined below and provided in whole in ATTACHMENT 7.

1. In Clause 5.7.12.1, add a reference to the watercourse protection provisions

A reference to clause 5.7.5 is proposed as that clause currently contains additional requirements relating to the protection of vegetation adjacent to watercourses. The amendment is simply to make residents aware of the requirements of clause 5.7.5 which apply in any event.

5.7.12.1 The provisions of this clause apply in addition to the provisions in this Scheme relating to Local Natural Areas and the provisions relating to watercourse protection contained in clause 5.7.5.

2. In Clause 5.7.12.2, broaden the scope of vegetation protection

Currently, this clause prohibits clearing/modification of vegetation with a stem of at least 150mm and height of 1.2metres unless Shire approval is given, or an exemption applies. Shire’s solicitors advise that this clause is almost impossible to enforce as it requires the Shire to prove - beyond reasonable doubt - that a tree which was cut down, removed or destroyed had at least one well defined stem of a minimum 150mm diameter when measured at a height 1.2 metres above the natural ground level.

Notwithstanding the exemptions for approval, the effect of the proposed deletion is that clause 5.7.12.2 would apply to all trees and vegetation within the Scheme area regardless of the size of the tree. Whether the Shire would take action to enforce clause 5.7.12.2 in relation to smaller trees or those which may have had a stem of less than 150mm diameter at 1.2 metres above ground level, is something the Shire could consider on a case by case basis and is always a matter of discretion for a local government.

Furthermore, Council should note that clause 5.7.12.2 does not absolutely prohibit the removal of trees or vegetation. Rather, it prohibits the removal of trees or vegetation without Shire approval.

5.7.12.2 The ringbarking, cutting down, topping, lopping, removal, injuring or wilful destruction of any tree having at least one well-defined stem of a minimum 150mm in diameter measured at a height of 1.2 metres above the natural ground level, and or the removal of natural vegetation is prohibited unless approved by the Shire or unless the tree or vegetation is exempted from compliance with this provision pursuant to clause 5.7.12.3.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C109 MARCH 2016

3. Exemptions to planning approval in Clause 5.7.12.3 proposed to be narrowed

Removal of the subclause 5.7.12.3 (a) is proposed given the complications faced by the Shire demonstrating that the vegetation cleared was indigenous to the area. This consideration is proposed to be added to Clause 5.7.12.5, which outlines the factors that should be taken into account when applications to clear vegetation are submitted.

5.7.12.3(a) not a local indigenous species.

Subclause 5.7.12.3 (b) effectively exempts the need for planning approval on a Residential lot with a residential density of above R5, or Residential R2.5 (less than 4000sqm). No changes are proposed. It should be noted that the Shire can insist that specific trees and vegetation can still occur via conditions of development, recommended conditions of subdivision, and structure plans wherever practical to do so.

Subclause 5.7.12.3 (c) makes reference to exempting vegetation from protection which is ‘dead, diseased’ or constitutes an ‘immediate threat’. Landowners defending a prosecution could argue that, in their opinion, the bush was cleared as it represented a bushfire ‘threat’.

Many dead or diseased trees still offer important habitat and judgment should be exercised by qualified personal through an application rather than the Shire depending on the judgment of individual landowners.

Changes proposed to 5.7.12.3(c) (below) will improve the Shire’s ability to successfully prosecute landowners that have blatantly cleared bush, without having to prove that the cleared vegetation was dead or diseased. Removing vegetation that represents an immediate ‘danger’ as opposed to ‘threat’ is a subtle but useful distinction.

5.7.12.3(c) dead, diseased or constitutes an immediate threat danger to life or property.

The consideration of whether vegetation is dead or diseased is proposed to be added to Clause 5.7.12.5 which outlines what will be taken into account when proposals to clear vegetation are submitted.

Since the State’s release of the Guidelines, Subclause 5.7.12.3(d) which makes reference to the Guidelines opens a significant loophole requiring immediate attention.

The current exemption states that no approval is necessary where clearing is required to bring the property into accordance with the Guidelines. The guidelines do not actually require the removal of vegetation. That is, a person could not remove vegetation and say they were doing so in order to comply with the Guidelines. Rather, the Guidelines set out a range of principles and requirements that should be met when a person is carrying out development in

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C110 MARCH 2016

bush fire prone areas. Reference to the Guidelines in the exemptions is therefore misleading and could result in undesirable outcomes.

The State (WAPC and DFES) expect tree crowns to have 10 metres separation distance. Allowing this exemption goes well beyond the Shire’s own Fuel load and Firebreak Notice and is not supported by the Shire’s Community Safety team. The Guidelines now require a 20 metre Asset Protection Zone (previously Building Protection Zone) to be provided around existing Building Envelopes. The Shire has a large number of endorsed Building Envelopes, previously determined on the basis that areas outside the envelope were for ‘tree retention’. LPS4 could now be interpreted by landowners as exempting clearing 20 metres around Building Envelopes (see illustration in ATTACHMENT 8). Changes proposed are as follows:

5.7.12.3 (d) required to be removed in order to comply with bushfire safety requirements pursuant to this Scheme, in Planning for Bush Fire Protection or any document(s) successive to that document, or with a Shire approved Fire Management Plan or Fire Management Statement, or any the Shire’s firebreak notice issued under s.33 (1) of the Bush Fires Act 1954; regulation or local law;

No change is proposed to Subclause 5.7.12.3 (e).

Subclause 5.7.12.3 (f) exempts the need for approval if the vegetation is within an approved Building Envelope, which conflicts with the Shire’s LNA provisions. In particular, Clause 5.9.2.1 and 5.9.3 trigger the need for approval to clear vegetation designated as LNA, even if the vegetation is located within a Building Envelope. Subclause 5.7.12.3 (f) is therefore proposed to be removed.

Subclauses 5.7.12.3 (g) (h), (j-o) are proposed to remain unchanged.

Subclause 5.7.12.3 (i) exempts vegetation clearing from approval where it is required to be removed for a vehicle driveway. Under the Guidelines, driveways need to be 6 metres wide and have clearance of 4m vertical clearance.

The challenge with this clause is that significant clearing can often be avoided if the Shire has the ability to influence where a driveway should be located, particularly along existing firebreaks and in degraded areas. Some landowners clear vegetation to create more than one driveway which, in some instances is excessive and could be avoided. Removing this clause will ensure ‘new driveways’ can be more readily scrutinised by the Shire and not subject to an immediate exemption based on the landowner exercising judgement. It also means that, if an applicant is proposing a new driveway, they theoretically would not require approval if they select an alignment which avoids removing/modifying vegetation.

Subclause 5.7.12.5 is proposed to be amended to add those elements removed from the ‘automatic’ exemptions outlined in Clause 5.7.12.3. For example:

5.7.12.5 In considering and determining an application for removal of any tree or vegetation, the Shire shall take into account the following:

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C111 MARCH 2016

(g) Whether the vegetation is dead or diseased;

(h) Whether the vegetation is located within an endorsed building envelope;

(i) Whether it is a local indigenous species.

Changes proposed respond to legal advice and the release of the Guidelines. The changes remain consistent with the intent of the Community Strategic Plan, Local Planning Strategy and LPS4. The proposed Amendment will have minimal effect on the scheme or landowners in the scheme area and is therefore recommended it be initiated as a ‘Basic’ Amendment for the purposes of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations (2015).

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

COUNCIL DECISION C8.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Daw Seconded by: Cr Bertola

That Council –

A. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (as amended) and Section 35(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, resolves to initiate Amendment No. 7 to the Shire’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 by:

1. Replacing clause 5.7.12.1 with the following:

The provisions of this clause apply in addition to the provisions in this Scheme relating to Local Natural Areas and the provisions relating to watercourse protection contained in clause 5.7.5.

2. Replacing clause 5.7.12.2 with:

The ringbarking, cutting down, topping, lopping, removal, injuring or wilful destruction of any tree or the removal of vegetation is prohibited unless approved by the Shire or unless the tree or vegetation is exempted from compliance with this provision pursuant to clause 5.7.12.3.

3. Deleting clause 5.7.12.3 (a) and adjust references accordingly.

4. Replacing clause 5.7.12.3 (c) with:

Constitutes an immediate danger to life and property;

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C112 MARCH 2016

5. Replacing clause 5.7.12.3 (d) with:

required to be removed in order to comply with a Shire approved Fire Management Statement or Fire Management Plan, or the Shires’ firebreak notice issued under s.33(1) of the Bush Fires Act 1954;

6. Removing clause 5.7.12.3 (f).

7. Removing clause 5.7.12.3 (i).

8. Removing clause 5.7.12.3 (i).

9. Adding the following to Clause 5.7.12.5

(j) Whether the vegetation is dead or diseased;

(j) Whether the vegetation is located within an endorsed building envelope; and,

(k) Whether it is a local indigenous species;

B. Resolves that Amendment No.7 represents a Basic Amendment pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as it:

a. is required to address an administrative error/anomaly created by the introduction of the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines (Dec 2015) [Subclause 34(a) of Regulations];

b. addresses inconsistencies with the intent and scheme provisions relating to Local Natural Areas such as Clause 5.7.12.1 and Section 5.7.13 [Subclause 34(b) of Regulations]; and

c. will have a minimal effect on the scheme or landowners in the scheme area [Subclause 34(i) of Regulations]; and

C. Forwards Amendment No. 7 to the Western Australian Planning Commission pursuant to Section 58 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for consideration and Ministerial approval.

CARRIED 11/0

For: Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan Cr Perks, Cr Fox, Cr Cook, Cr Jeans, Cr Lavell

Against: Nil

Cr Cuccaro had left the Council Chamber prior to the recommendation being voted on and did not vote. Next Report

8.22pm Director Strategic & Community Services returned to the Council Chamber 8.22pm Cr Cuccaro returned to the Council chamber 8.22pm Cr Daw left the Council Chamber

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C113 MARCH 2016

Attachment 7

Report 10.4

3 Pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C114 MARCH 2016

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 5.7.12 OF LPS4

5.7.12 Vegetation Protection

5.7.12.2 The ringbarking, cutting down, topping, lopping, removal, injuring or wilful destruction of any tree having at least one well-defined stem of a minimum 150 mm in diameter measured at a height 1.2 metres above the natural ground level, and or the removal of natural vegetation, are is prohibited unless approved by the Shire or unless the tree or vegetation is exempted from compliance with this provision pursuant to clause 5.7.12.3.

5.7.12.3 Clause 5.7.12.2 does not apply to the ringbarking, cutting down, topping, lopping, removing, injuring or destruction of any tree or vegetation which is:

(a) not a local indigenous species;

(b) (a) on a lot zoned Residential and with a Residential Design Code density of R5 or higher, or on a lot zoned Residential R2.5 but less than 4000 m2 in area, unless the tree or vegetation is:

i) within the required setback from a watercourse as set out in clause 5.7.5.1; ii) on land having a slope in excess of 20 percent; iii) identified for preservation on an approved Structure Plan; iv) required to be preserved as a condition of subdivision approval; or v) required to be preserved as a condition of planning approval;

(d) (c) required to be removed in order to comply with a Shire approved Fire Management Statement or Fire Management Plan, or the Shires’ firebreak notice issued under s.33(1) of the Bush Fires Act 1954; bushfire safety requirements pursuant to this Scheme, in Planning for Bush Fire Protection or any document(s) successive to that document, or any firebreak notice, regulation or local law;

(e) (d) required to be removed in order to carry out a development for which planning approval and/or a building licence has been

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C115 MARCH 2016

issued;

(f) (e) within an approved building envelope;

(g) (f) within 3 m of any building;

(h) (g) within 1 m of an existing fence or fence under construction;

(i) required to be removed for a vehicle driveway;

(j) (h) required to be removed for construction of an approved effluent disposal system;

(k) (i) within 2 m of a sewer or water main or effluent disposal system and where the tree or vegetation has caused or is likely to cause damage or blockage to that system or network;

(l) (j) grown for commercial purposes;

(m) (k) within a State Forest;

(n) (l) being removed or disturbed as part of a native vegetation replanting program carried out with the Shire’s approval; or

(o) (m) within the clearance distance from a power line or other power infrastructure as specified in Western Power guidelines or requirements or any other applicable guidelines or requirements.

5.7.12.4 An application pursuant to clause 5.7.12.2 must include a plan adequately identifying the specific tree(s) and/or other vegetation to be removed.

5.7.12.5 In considering and determining an application for removal of any tree or vegetation, the Shire shall take into account the following:

a. the desirability of minimising disturbance to the landscape characteristics of the locality;

b. whether there is a need for removal of the tree or vegetation to facilitate use of the land;

c. the intrinsic value of the tree or vegetation in terms of physical state, rarity and variety;

d. the existing and future amenity of the adjoining land and natural environment of the locality;

e. the effect on the environment of removing trees and/or vegetation; and

f. the desirability of retaining, as far as practicable, a tree and

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C116 MARCH 2016

understorey vegetation protection corridor of 10 m depth adjacent to the road reserves of Alice Road, Brooking Road, Bunning Road, Great Eastern Highway, Helena Valley Road, Old Northam Road, Roland Road, Sawyers Road, Seaborne Road, Stoneville Road and any other roads identified by the Shire as warranting a tree and understorey vegetation protection corridor; and,

g. Whether the vegetation is dead or diseased;

h. Whether the vegetation is located within an endorsed building envelope; and,

i. Whether it is a local indigenous species.

5.7.12.6 In addition to other matters set out in this Scheme, the Shire may impose a condition on any approval for removal of a tree(s) or vegetation, requiring replanting or revegetation elsewhere on the site to reduce or counteract any adverse impact from the removal of the tree(s) or vegetation being approved.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C117 MARCH 2016

Attachment 8

Report 10.4

1 Page

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C118 MARCH 2016

Additional extent of clearing now automatically exempt from Shire approval

House

Not to scale. For illustrative Local Natural Areas or defined Tree purposes only Retention Areas

Building Envelope (2000+ within Shire)

Asset Protection Zone Fuel load no greater than 2 Tonnes/ha

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C119 MARCH 2016

10.5 Closure of Crown Right of Way – Lot 66 Swan Road, Mahogany Creek

File Code Sw 1(66) – Swan Road, Mahogany Creek Author Liam Noonan, Manager Design Services Senior Employee Shane Purdy, Director Infrastructure Services Disclosure of Any Nil Interest

SUMMARY

To facilitate the disposal of the surplus Right of Way (ROW) located behind 23 Swan Road, Mahogany Creek requires the formal closure of the crown land.

The process to undertake this requires community consultation and a resolution from Council requesting the Minister for Lands to close the ROW and in doing so change its classification to unallocated crown land.

BACKGROUND

The crown ROW off Swan Road, known as Lot 66 is located at the rear of 23 Swan Road, Mahogany Creek, refer location plan, ATTACHMENT 9. The right of way was created in November 1973 on plan of survey Diagram Number 45734 and is contained in Certificate of Title, Volume 2770 and Folio 884, (refer ATTACHMENT 10).

The owners of 23 Swan Road (Lot 7) received favourable advice from Department for Lands on the possibility of acquiring the ROW, which also included a Valuer General valuation of $10,500 inclusive of GST valid until 14 July 2016.

Based on this feedback the owners of Lot 7 have written to the Shire requesting the closure of the ROW to enable its acquisition and amalgamation onto their land.

STATUTORY / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The Land Administration Act 1997 section 58 and the Land Administration Regulations 1998 regulation 9 provide the enabling legislation to close ROW’s.

Only the Local Government in which District the ROW falls is able to undertake the appropriate steps required of the legislation.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C120 MARCH 2016

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The applicant, as per the Shire’s fees and charges has paid the $4,400 administration fee to initiate the closure process.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Nil

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

RISK IMPLICATIONS

Any unforeseen risks or community concerns would be identified during the consultation phase.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

The Land Administration Act 1997 and Land Administration Regulations 1998 (Regulations) require a consultation process with surrounding residents, service authorities and Department of Planning to be completed before Council can resolve to request the Minister for Lands to close the ROW.

COMMENT

In accordance with the Regulations a notice for the closure of the ROW was placed in the public notices section of the Friday, 13 November 2015 Hills Gazette edition and the adjoining properties and public utilities were notified in writing.

As there are no utilities in the ROW, no objections were received.

Only one neighbour submission was received, refer CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 11).

The submitter requested that the existing vegetation be retained and protected via a restricted covenant or failing that they too would like to purchase the whole or part of the subject land.

The suggestion for the Shire to place a restrictive covenant on the site to restrict clearing at the rear of the site is not supported. Pursuant to Subclause 5.7.12.3 (b) of the Shire’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4), removal of vegetation on properties zoned Residential (R5) is typically exempt from Shire approval. Sites throughout the locality, including the surplus land in question, are zoned Residential R5.

Any restrictive covenant placed on the title would need to be administered by the Shire of Mundaring and within a limited legislative framework. For example, in a scenario where a restrictive covenant is placed on the title and the landowner starts to clear the vegetation, the Shire’s only course of action would be to lodge an injunction (through the Supreme Court) to prevent the clearing from proceeding. Given such clearing is otherwise exempt; it would be a precarious legal argument to maintain.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C121 MARCH 2016

A restrictive covenant would:

 be cumbersome and expensive for the Shire to administer;  conflict with the vegetation clearing exemptions that otherwise apply to lots zoned Residential (R5); and  be inconsistent with the rights afforded to all other R5 zoned properties, particularly those surrounding the site.

If black cockatoo habitat trees exist on the site, the tree would be protected separately under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The subject land originally formed part of the greater Lot 7 which through subdivision has resulted in the current lot configuration. Any division of the ROW between the two interested land owners would create irregular shaped blocks.

The Department of Planning has advised they support the closure and amalgamation entirely with Lot 7, refer ATTACHMENT 12.

On balance, given the Department of Planning support, undesirable irregular land shape resulting in impractical land area on any division between the two interested parties and the land previously being part of Lot 7 it is considered best to have the whole land parcel amalgamated into Lot 7.

The owners of Lot 7 have initiated the closure of the surplus land, including full payment of the substantial administration fee to initiate the closure process.

It is recommended therefore that the Minister for Lands be requested to close the ROW and the resultant amalgamation of the unallocated crown land be solely into Lot 7.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

COUNCIL DECISION C9.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Martin Seconded by: Cr Bertola

That Council -

1. Approves the closure of the Right of Way, being lot 66 on Diagram Survey Number 45734, pursuant to the Land Administration Act 1997 and Land Administration Regulations 1998;

2. Requests the Minister for Lands to formally close the Right of Way, being Lot 66 on Diagram Survey Number 45734, and

3. Endorses the amalgamation of Lot 66 on Diagram Survey Number 45734 into Lot 7 Swan Road, Mahogany Creek.

CARRIED 11/0

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C122 MARCH 2016

For: Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Brennan Cr Perks, Cr Fox, Cr Cook, Cr Jeans, Cr Lavell

Against: Nil

Cr Daw had left the Council Chamber prior to the recommendation being voted on and did not vote.

Next Report

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C123 MARCH 2016

Attachment 9

Report 10.5

1 page

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C124 MARCH 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C125 MARCH 2016

Attachment 10

Report 10.5

3 pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C126 MARCH 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C127 MARCH 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C128 MARCH 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C129 MARCH 2016

Attachment 12

Report 10.5

2 pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C130 MARCH 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C131 MARCH 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C132 MARCH 2016

10.6 Adoption of Heritage Planning Policy and Heritage List

File Code PS.CDE 5 Ward All Author Angus Money, Manager of Planning Briony Moran, Co-ordinator Statutory Planning Senior Employee Mark Luzi, Director Statutory Services Disclosure of Any Nil Interest

SUMMARY

Advertising of the Shire’s draft Heritage List and Heritage Planning Policy is complete. It is recommended Council adopts the Heritage List and Heritage Planning Policy, and updates five Municipal Inventory place records.

BACKGROUND

Hocking Heritage Studio was engaged by the Shire in January 2015 to:

 Review the 126 place records in the existing Municipal Inventory (prepared in 1997);  Prepare a draft Heritage List for those places of most significance, within the standards recommended by the State Heritage Office; and  Provide advice and assistance in the preparation of a heritage policy and advise whether any areas of the Shire warranted inclusion as formal heritage ‘areas’.

Based on the initial advice from the consultants, the Municipal Inventory (MI) completed in 1997 was considered comprehensive and sufficiently detailed to develop a statutory Heritage List.

At its meeting of 8 December 2015, Council resolved (C17.12.15) to advertise the draft Heritage List recommended by the heritage consultant and four Local Planning Policies. The four Local Planning Policies were the:

 Heritage Planning Policy;  Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy;  Telecommunications Policy; and  Advertising Planning Applications Policy.

Submissions were received during the advertising period and some changes are recommended to the Heritage Planning Policy. No changes are recommended to the Heritage List. Changes are still being considered for the remaining policies and the revised policies will be the subject of a later report.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C133 MARCH 2016

Four places were recently reassessed by the heritage consultants on the advice of the heritage reference group, to confirm their current state and set a clear significance category. These sites were:

 Tomlinson’s/Dr Frasers (Site No. 2);  Chudleigh/Loose Box (Site No. 11);  Bilgoman Well (Site No. 83); and  Gorries (Site No. 277).

The significance of Bilgoman Well was confirmed as ‘considerable’ and no change is required to the entry on the draft Heritage List. Tomlinson’s/Dr Frasers and the Chudleigh/Loose Box site are of ‘moderate’ significance that does not warrant statutory protection by inclusion on the Heritage List. Unfortunately the buildings at Gorries have been demolished and the site now has limited significance.

It is recommended that the Municipal Inventory place records are updated for the four sites noted above. It is acknowledged that a full review of the MI will need to occur in the future.

STATUTORY / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Initially, the draft Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations (2015) proposed the automatic recognition of all places on a municipal heritage inventory, unless the local government had separately adopted a Heritage List. However, the gazetted version of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2 - Deemed provisions for local planning schemes (hereafter referred to as the ‘deemed provisions’) requires that:

‘the local government must establish and maintain a heritage list to identify places within the Scheme area that are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of built heritage conservation.’

The Shire currently has no established/adopted Heritage List. Hence, as a result of the deemed provisions, the Shire has no power to trigger a planning application for any proposed demolition or substantial change to a place on the current Municipal Inventory.

The draft policy was intentionally prepared and advertised in parallel with the Heritage List, to ensure any affected landowners understood the likely development implications.

Procedures for adopting or reviewing planning policies are also specified within the deemed provisions.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

In response to the consultation, minor refinements are proposed to the policy.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C134 MARCH 2016

If Council resolves to adopt the policy then decisions involving improvements or alterations to places on the Heritage List must have due regard to the intent and provisions of the policy.

Advice from the heritage consultants is that the aesthetic value of some of the townsites cannot be technically regarded as significant to local heritage, but are nevertheless socially significant. It is more appropriate that the Shire use location specific Precinct Plans to preserve character in these centres, rather than dedicated ‘heritage areas’.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Some local governments offer heritage conservation grants or other assistance to private owners of places on a Heritage List. This issue was raised in submissions.

There is currently no provision within the Shire budget for a heritage grants program or other assistance. Should Council wish to establish a heritage grants program or similar, this would need to be considered as part of the Community Strategic Planning exercise and budget process. It should also be acknowledged that around 30% of the properties on the Heritage List are actually already managed by the Shire.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The Shire’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 includes a theme relating to “Strong civic leadership and trusted governance”. Adopting a Heritage Planning Policy at the same time as the Heritage List is a transparent and efficient approach.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

Preserving cultural heritage and advocating for the protection of important local history is critical to sustaining the broader social identity of the Shire.

RISK IMPLICATIONS

Risks to the protection of local heritage are outlined within the Statutory / Legal Implications section above. There is an obvious risk to the Shire’s reputation if it is not able to adequately preserve local heritage values.

Planning policies, such as the Heritage Planning Policy, support consistency in decision making and will assist the Shire in managing risks, particularly its exposure to costs by unnecessary State Administrative Tribunal appeals.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

At the commencement of the project, the Shire officers sought interest via local newspapers for community membership on a Heritage Reference Group. A total of seven community members expressed interest and, together with Shire consultants and the Coordinator of Planning Services, helped guide and establish a Heritage List and Heritage Planning Policy.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C135 MARCH 2016

The group was made up of local residents and members of local history groups who shared their knowledge of heritage places and particularly the history of the local area.

Following the completion of a draft Heritage List, Policy and Council endorsement to advertise, the formal consultation process commenced. The documents were advertised for 35 days in a newspaper/s circulating in the area as well the Shire’s website. Owners of places proposed to be included on the Heritage List were notified in writing. The advertising timeframe was extended from 28 days to 35 days in recognition of the Christmas and New Year period.

A total of nine submissions were received. Refer ATTACHMENT 13 and CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 14). One of these was an objection to the inclusion of a property on the Heritage List and another requested refinement of the part of a site included on the Heritage List. The remainder were non- objections with some comments on the draft Heritage List, draft Heritage Planning Policy, and current Municipal Inventory.

Several submissions suggested changes to the draft policy and one suggested that the planning policy should be supported by a broader Shire heritage strategy, not necessarily within the planning framework. Two submissions identified additional sites that should be considered for assessment and inclusion on the Municipal Inventory and possibly the Heritage List.

Additional detailed information and suggested updates to the place record were received from the National Trust of Australia regarding the O’Connor Museum and No. 1 Pump Station at Mundaring Weir (Site No. 56).

COMMENT

Heritage List

The Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 and Part 3 of the deemed provisions require the Shire to establish and maintain a Heritage List. Demolition or substantial change to a place on a Heritage List would then require planning approval.

In accordance with State Heritage Office guidelines, the Heritage List is drawn from the higher conservation priority places within the Shire’s Municipal Inventory (refer ATTACHMENT 15). One submission queried whether the list deliberately selected properties in public rather than private ownership. This was not the case; it is simply that places in the MI with higher conservation priority included a number of halls, schools and churches which have social significance and structures that have remained substantially unchanged.

The Darlington History Group and Mundaring and Hills Historical Society both identified a number of additional sites that, if assessed, may be worthy of inclusion on the Heritage List. Some of these places could be added to the Heritage List in the future if the necessary heritage assessments and notification of affected landowners is undertaken.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C136 MARCH 2016

None of the sites included on the draft Heritage List are recommended to be removed from the final Heritage List. Although an objection was received from the landowners to the listing of the Mundaring Hotel, the assessment of the significance of the site is considered appropriate and the hotel stands within an important grouping of heritage places along Nichol Street in the Mundaring Town Centre area.

Heritage Planning Policy

Conservation of places of cultural heritage value is a matter to be considered by the Shire in determining an application for planning approval. The Heritage Planning Policy has been drafted to clarify the Shire’s expectations and guide planning decisions on places of heritage value, including places currently listed in the Shire’s Municipal Inventory, as well as those proposed to be included on a Heritage List.

It was suggested that the Heritage Planning Policy should be supported by a broader Shire heritage strategy that includes community education, awareness programs such as heritage awards, and landowner incentives. A heritage strategy is not identified in the current Corporate Business Plan. Council may consider preparation of a heritage strategy or other heritage initiatives during the Corporate Business Planning process.

The draft policy was revised based on comments received and is provided in ATTACHMENT 16 and while there were no fundamental changes to the policy framework, some additional text has been added to clarify the intent and use of the policy.

Municipal Inventory

The place records for sites 2, 11, 83 and 277 were revised and updated by Hocking Heritage Studio (refer ATTACHMENT 17) as noted in the Background section above. Updated information and suggested corrections were received from the National Trust of Australia regarding the O’Connor Museum and No. 1 Pump Station at Mundaring Weir (Site No. 56). The place records within the Municipal Inventory will be updated for these five places.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C137 MARCH 2016

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

COUNCIL DECISION C10.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Fox Seconded by: Cr Bertola

That Council -

A. Adopts the draft Shire of Mundaring Heritage List in ATTACHMENT 15 pursuant to Clause 8 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2 - Deemed provisions for local planning schemes;

B. Subject to (A) above, requests the Director of Statutory Services notify the Heritage Council of Western Australia and owners of places included on the Heritage List in accordance with Section 8(4) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2 - Deemed provisions for local planning schemes;

C. Adopts the draft Heritage Planning Policy in ATTACHMENT 16 pursuant to Clause 4 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2 - Deemed provisions for local planning schemes;

D. Updates the place records within the Municipal Inventory for Sites 2, 11, 56, 83 and 277; and

E. Formally writes to the members of the Heritage Reference Group to thank them for their time and valuable contribution to the project.

CARRIED 11/0

For: Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Brennan Cr Perks, Cr Fox, Cr Cook, Cr Jeans, Cr Lavell

Against: Nil

Cr Daw had left the Council Chamber prior to the recommendation being voted on and did not vote.

Next Report

8.24pm Manager Design Services left the Council Chamber 8.24pm Cr Perks left the Council Chamber 8.25pm Cr Perks returned to the Council Chamber 8.26pm Manager Design Services returned to the Council Chamber 8.32pm Cr Daw returned to the Council Chamber 8.33pm Co-ordinator Statutory Planning left the Council Chamber and did not return 8.33pm Cr Clark left the Council Chamber 8.33pm Director Statutory Services left the Council Chamber 8.35pm Cr Clark returned to the Council Chamber

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C138 MARCH 2016

Attachment 13

Report 10.6

39 Pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C139 MARCH 2016

Schedule of Submissions Adoption of Heritage Planning Policy and Heritage List

SUBMISSION COMMENT 1. Water Corporation a) The Water Corporation has ‘no Noted. objection’ to the draft documents. 2. Submitter No. 2 a) I have examined these documents and submit the following comments: The draft Policy provides a sound and sensible basis for protecting the Shire's heritage places and

buildings without overly constraining their modem use. Specifically: • Although the Municipal The individual place records for sites on Heritage Inventory is a State the Municipal Inventory (MI) are available legislation requirement and on the State Heritage Office website can be sourced on the State including the colour photographs. Heritage Council's website, Although it is a very large file to given it is referred to in this download, a copy of the whole of the MI shire policy it would be has been made available on the Shire desirable to be able to access website in the Planning Policies and it from the shire web site; Information Sheets section. • Sections 3 & 4 set out the hierarchy of importance and consequent level of protection between the Municipal Heritage Inventory and the Heritage List that is drawn from the Inventory; however; • After clause 5.1 which As outlined in (2.0) Scope, the policy specifically mentions buildings relates to both Heritage List and the MI. and structures in the Heritage Sections 5 and 6 would apply to heritage List, sections 5 and 6 buildings whether on the Heritage List or generally refer to 'heritage the MI. buildings'. It is not clear if this refers to the Heritage List and/or the Municipal Heritage Inventory;

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C140 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 2. Submitter No. 2 (cont’d) • Heritage Building and Heritage Agreed. The following text has been Place should be defined, added to the policy in response: presumably as buildings or Heritage places can include landscape places of heritage significance features as well as buildings. Not all on the Heritage List; and buildings within a heritage place will be a • If part of sections 5 & 6 are considered as a heritage building. This intended to apply to will be determined by referring to the buildings/places on the place record, together with the heritage Municipal Heritage Inventory assessment where one is provided at the that are not on the Heritage time of proposed development. List this should be made clear. As the draft currently reads only This is correct, with inclusion on the the second and third rows of the Heritage List dependent on the place table in section 4 appear to apply being assessed as either ‘exceptional’ or to buildings on the Inventory but ‘considerable’ significance. not on the Heritage List. 3. National Trust of Australia a) National Trust staff have Noted. reviewed these documents and have the following comments: b) HERITAGE PLANNING POLICY The National Trust supports the Draft Heritage Policy in its current form. As the Shire would be aware, the National Trust's List of Classified Places has extensive information on heritage places across the state including within the Shire of Mundaring. This information provides a record of the State's heritage and supports our education and advocacy activities. The Trust would appreciate receiving details of approvals or proposals which affect places in this list to enable our records to be kept up to date.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C141 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 3. National Trust of Australia (cont’d) Information on Classified places may be searched via the State Heritage Office's 'Inherit' database accessed from www.heritaQe.wa.Qov.au or by contacting the National Trust directly. The Trust is also able to provide comment and advice on heritage issues as the need arises. c) LOCAL HERITAGE LIST: NO. 1 PUMPING STATION Page 1 The owner’s details will need to be updated to: The National Trust of Australia (WA) 4 Havelock Street, West Perth WA 6005 Phone: 9321 6088 Fax: 9324 1571

Lot/Location No.: 14348;

Plan/Diagram: 28784

Page 2 George Temple Poole should be listed as the architect with CY O'Connor the associated person as engineer of the place. Description amendments: There are no longer 'many This additional information has been artifacts and materials' on display added to the property file and can be as the place utilises different incorporated into an updated place interpretative methods to record. communicate its history and significance. The large semi-circular arched opening no longer has protective steel bars.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C142 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 3. National Trust of Australia (cont’d) There are not five stretcher courses to each header course; there is usually four at the bottom, three towards the top. There are three large sections of pipe penetrating the external walls, not just a section for the one pump displayed. The entrance to the pump house was not officially through the northern end (neither was It arched) and this is no longer how visitors gain access. The 'large section of water pipe' was not an actual pipe but rather a timber Interpretation of this structure which no longer exists. Page 3 The history of the pump station only goes as far as the 1960s. The following paragraph is recommended to be added to this section to bring this up to date: In January 1998 the Water Corporation of WA and the National Trust of Australia (WA) reached an agreement whereby all heritage aspects of the former Goldfields Water Supply Scheme would be managed by the National Trust. This agreement included the transfer of a number of decommissioned assets of the original scheme to the National Trust for conservation and interpretation. Consequently No 1’s time as the O'Connor Museum came to an end in April 2000. Renamed No 1 Pump, No 1 Pumping Station was redeveloped

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C143 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 3. National Trust of Australia (cont’d) as a public recreational and educational venue detailing the history of the scheme. According to best practice heritage guidelines, intrusive elements were removed to reveal features and its original function as a pumping station. Conservation works were also undertaken and it reopened in 2003. No 1 Pump Station is the start of a Heritage Drive Trail that follows the journey of a drop of water from Mundaring Weir to its destination in Kalgoorlie, via the sites of the seven other original steam pumping stations. It is also the starting point for walking trails in the Mundaring Weir precinct. No 1 Pump Station is now a popular venue for weekday school excursions and National Trust volunteers open it for the public on weekends for limited hours. History correction: The original Worthington - Simpson No 1 engine was cleaned and restored. It is known as 'A' engine as opposed to No 1 engine as the next engine was B, the third C etc. Page 4 Recommendation/Conservation Strategy amendments: The place has been included on the National Heritage List (23/06/2011) as part of The Goldfields Water Supply Scheme', Race ID 106007 (refer to

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C144 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 3. National Trust of Australia (cont’d) http://www.environment.Qov.au/cQi- bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place detail:place id=106007) Apart from the 1987 Institution of Engineers Australia award (National Historic Engineering Landmark); the No. 1 Pump Station was also recognised by the International Historic Civil Engineering Landmark Award presented in October 2009. Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Snowy River Scheme being the only other two in Australia. 4. Submitter No. 4 a) The general thrust of the Policy is The policy must be given due regard OK although tone and content of during decision making but heritage the policy overall may be a little too will still only be one of a number of rigid especially if left for planning considerations. Planning interpretation by someone with little policies provide guidance and do not heritage background. offer the degree of statutory weight of the LPS4 and can be subject to case- by-case variation where warranted.

Overall there seems to be little Noted. The objectives of the policy acknowledgement of 'adaptive re- have been revised in response, to use' as an acceptable outcome for include: ‘To enable adaptive reuse heritage places. In particular the through appropriate additions or Section 5: Assessment Criteria modifications appears to preclude 'adaptive re- use' as an option and many of the criteria are too narrow in this Specific heritage assessments regard. Similarly Section 6: supplied at the time of proposed Conditions - item e) would seem to development should address the preclude 'adaptive re-use' as an protection of the specific heritage option where instead there should values of a site. be a 'condition' included to This set of potential conditions is a acknowledge and encourage guide and not exhaustive or limiting. 'adaptive re-use' as an acceptable Planning staff and Council must alternative. In summary, 'adaptive consider each application on its re-use' as an option needs to be merits and should apply modified or recognised in the policy overall and different conditions where the make some specific mention in the circumstances warrant a different Assessment Criteria and Condition approach. sections of the policy.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C145 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 4. Submitter No. 4 (cont’d) Item 4.3 (5.3) in the Assessment This criterion was based directly on Criteria is too narrow in stating the advice of the Shire’s heritage additions or alterations should be to consultants. In general, the public the rear of a property. The rear of view and approach to a building is of a property, in terms of the way it greater public interest for protection. may now address the street, might However, the Shire would consider not always have been the rear, and variations to this principle where the the 'rear' may still have significant applicant demonstrated it necessary fabric that needs to be dealt with or appropriate. sympathetically. Perhaps the problem can be overcome by stating that "generally alterations and additions should be located at the rear....". Surely any alterations need to be the outcome of a considered conservation Plan or a management strategy, ideally prepared professionally, and that assesses the best location and appropriate nature of alterations and additions in relation to significant fabric etc. Overall, heritage policies, as with The majority of places on the Heritage any planning policy, need to be List do not currently have a careful not to be too prescriptive, conservation plan or management rigid and predetermining in the strategy. A heritage impact language they use and the criteria assessment submitted as part of the that they establish. Such narrow planning application can address the policies can often prevent more specific proposal and provide creative outcomes and reduce appropriate responses. opportunities for more appropriate solutions. There needs to be As noted above, heritage is one of flexibility in the way that policies many matters to be considered in and criteria are applied so that, assessing and determining proposed whilst heritage significance needs development of heritage places. The to be recognised and appropriately Shire must give due regard to the protected, any alterations and/or intent and provisions of the policy but adaptive uses, if creatively arrived is not bound by it and must also at, can equally become a part of a assess and determine each proposal place's significance into the future. on its individual merits. In all cases, the Shire’s decision would be capable of review by the State Administrative Tribunal if the applicant was aggrieved by the decision.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C146 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 5. Submitter No. 5 a) I would like to state that I purchased a somewhat neglected Parkerville Tavern in 1982 from the then owner and licensee. ………. Ownership was later transferred in 1990 to Richmond Hill Pty Ltd ATF Parkman Trust, of which I am principal Director. Loving the old pub, its site and Noted. architectural exterior, It was not long before I sought approval from the Licencing Court & Shire of Mundaring to commence internal renovations that maintained and improved the integrity and early historical legacy of the premises. Landscaping which later included a family friendly BBQ, spit roasted lamb on Sundays and rear trout fishing pond complimented the makeover with widespread local and public approval and custom. On 1 August 1986, 1 leased out the premises to a Graham and Wendy Harris. Other lessees followed in future years with varying degrees of success until lease expiry on 30 June 2012 when business and licence returned to us. Renovations began the next day with a major landscaping makeover, internal and external repaint, revamp and freshen up. We are happy no proprietor has ever considered altering the Federation free style two story front additions of 1926. For that reason, we are not averse to the building being recognised as of historical significance and placed on the local heritage list. Having stated this, we would make it known that we do not support inclusion of the grounds with the listing. Over three quarters of the site is not part of the licensed area.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C147 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 5. Submitter No. 5 (cont’d) Gardens, watercourses and The place record and statement of children's play areas are more likely significance for the Parkerville Tavern to change to suit current trends as focuses on the building rather than the they vary to assist in the viability grounds. The inclusion of the site on and marketing of the venue. We believe flexibility in this matter must the Heritage List does not prevent be maintained. further improvements to outdoor areas and would be consistent with the intent of the Heritage Planning Policy to enable continued use and enjoyment of heritage places. 6. Submitter No. 6 a) Shire of Mundaring Municipal Inventory - Site No. 39 Mundaring Hotel The above property which is owned by ourselves has been included on the draft Local Heritage List with a significance category 2 - Considerable. b) Whilst we agree that the building Is not considered that the changes has some heritage value and within the last 20 years have conservation of the building is substantially affected the character of desirable we believe nevertheless the building. In particular, the that it has been incorrectly statement of significance is based on classified. The assessment was the ‘very high aesthetic, social and made from a photo that is twenty historical significance for its two storey one years old and there have styling and landmark qualities’ and been significant changes to the site and structure both internally these characteristics and qualities and externally since then which have not changed. has changed the character of the building. c) Further, the building was The 1996 assessment took into extensively renovated in the 1940 account past renovations. - 50' which effectively voided the

integrity of the original building. d) We believe that the more The heritage consultants engaged by appropriate classification is the Shire to prepare the draft Heritage category 3 - Moderate as this will List considered whether classifications reflect the current configuration of for particular sites may have changed the building and will mean that and recommended new assessments this high profile site can be for several places. They did not developed further in the future recommend a new heritage while "reinforcing the significance assessment for this site. of the building.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C148 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 6. Submitter No. 6 (cont’d) e) The Shire currently has adequate Inclusion on a Heritage List does not planning powers to safeguard the prevent appropriate development or moderate heritage value of the additions. This site has considerable building and any further heritage value and contributes to the mandated development character of the Mundaring town assessment criteria will make centre and Nichol Street (which has a improvements to the site much cluster of heritage places). more difficult. 7. Submitter No. 7 (Chidlow Tavern) a) Do I, as the owner, have a choice? The Shire is required by the State Government to establish a Heritage List. b) What are the benefits of heritage Heritage listing is a marker of listing? character and authenticity and often used as a marketing tool for taverns, hotels and accommodation providers c) What will change for me as the As the site was already listed on the owner? Municipal Inventory, heritage would have been a consideration in any future development application. The primary change is that demolition is not permitted without planning approval, and internal changes to the building require planning approval. d) What would be expected of me? Where repairs to the building are necessary, these should be undertaken ‘like for like’. e) Are there grants available? (How?) The Shire does not currently have a grants program for heritage conservation. The State Heritage Office does have a grants program but with specific eligibility criteria. f) What are your (Shire) As noted above, the Shire is responsibilities? responsible for establishing and maintaining a Heritage List. The Shire is also responsible for managing and maintaining a number of places included on the Heritage List.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C149 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 7. Submitter No. 7 (Chidlow Tavern) g) Will this cost me? If demolition, extensions or substantial changes are proposed then the Shire would expect a heritage assessment to be submitted by the proponent, and additions or changes to be completed in a way that maintains the heritage values of this site. 8. Darlington History Group a) The Darlington History Group Inc. is Noted. pleased to be able to comment on the Draft Heritage Policy and Heritage List that has been circulated. We acknowledge the Several changes were made to the comments of Bruce Callow who was draft policy based on those comments. involved extensively in 1996 in developing the Municipal Inventory.

As I’m sure you are aware, since

that time the development of the Darlington History Group has occurred, and with it, a considerable amount of research undertake by its members who have a keen interest in maintaining the public interest in the history of place, the buildings and the significant cultural impact of The Heritage List has been compiled occupation and settlement. from places within the top two The group submits the Darlington categories in the Municipal Inventory History Groups’ recommendations (MI). Places that have not previously for the inclusion of 47 houses and 2 been assessed and categorised could important historic precincts not be considered for inclusion on the (attached) that are considered to be present Heritage List. of Cultural Heritage Significance. The reference for this list is The Shire is required to maintain a submitted with a copy of the Heritage List. Should the Municipal publication by Cliff Burns, Arlene Inventory be updated or additional Collings and research by Lyn Myles individual heritage assessments be called “Darlington and Surrounds completed, Council can make further - Historic Structures and additions to the Heritage List for those Buildings of Darlington 1829 – places meeting the significance 1925” We have found that there will criteria. be additions and deletions from this list that needs to be managed in accordance to a policy framework that can accommodate these changes.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C150 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) To this end, the Group has also reviewed the Draft Heritage Policy and sited suggested amendments.

We would also like to refer to you two documents that were reviewed for this exercise.

The Town of Vincent’s’ Draft Heritage Management –  Amendments to the Municipal The Planning Service has prioritised Inventory – Policy Number 7.6.5 the adoption of a Heritage List in order (Part of which is attached.) to provide greater statutory protection  Shire of Kalamunda’s Municipal from demolition or substantial change Inventory 2015 for those places previously identified The Darlington History Group as most significant within the MI. commends the Shire for reviewing With the exception of certain buildings these policies and would be willing that have been demolished, the to assist in any way possible to majority of places on the MI have not update the Municipal Inventory for undergone substantial change since the Darlington community. the 1997 MI was adopted. b) This list recognises those properties Noted. and places already listed by Callow in 1996 and the Bilgoman Well which has both significance to the Aboriginal people and the early settlers and is a registered historic site. Similarly the Convict Depot

which is located nearby built in 1860. Reference: “Darlington and Surrounds - Historic Structures and Buildings of Darlington 1829 – 1925” by Cliff Burns & Arlene Collings with special assistance by Lyn Myles. Note well that all the listings For the listings below, should the below are comprehensively individual heritage assessments be described in this book and completed, Council can make further should be used as a thorough additions to the MI and Heritage List record of the buildings and for those places meeting the structures. significance criteria.  The Railway Reserve 1982 onwards which ran between Boya and Glen Forest and in particular, the Nyaania Creek

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C151 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) Diversion and Earthworks. This was Darlington’s first large project. It included the earthworks and embankments that carried the train tracks and the resiting of Nyaania Creek some 20 metres to the south for

a distance of approximately 800 metres. This diversion including the construction of a large ditch and purpose built stone walls to carry the Nyaania Creek water. See P 13 of the Historic Structures and Buildings book for comprehensive details. This track also linked to the quarries

established under the direction of C Y O’Connor where the railway trucks were loaded with the quarries stone by hoppers. Reference: “Railway History of Midland Junction.” By Linda Watson.  Darlington Vineyard Manager’s House, 1888-89, at 5 Owen Rd. Alfred Waylen and Josceline Amherst originally constructed

this house. The core of this house is very old, constructed with mud brick. The original earthen floor was replaced and raised with roof and walls also being raised to accommodate this. The home originally accommodated the Vineyard Manager Charles E Mumme and

later Auber Neville and Gipsy Neville.  Leithdale Cottage 1891, 41 Allpike Rd. This five roomed residence is still evident today with stone foundations construction in brick from Smiths Mill Brickworks, with hallway arches impressive fireplaces and original chimney

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C152 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) and unique rainwater storage system.  The Ranger Family Residence 1901 & 1912, 3135 – 3105 Coulston Rd. Originally, there were two workers cottages one of which was later incorporated in the existing home. Originally built by Waylen and Amherst for workers and later leased and sold to Mr Ranger who maintained a dairy herd and dairy.  Hillsden 1902/1916, 69 Darlington Rd. One of the properties owned by Amherst and Waylen who advertised for sale an iron cottage shed and well. The Rev Crowe bought the property in 1915 and incorporated the cottage into the house that stands there today. The house is built of local stone and both the portion that was the original cottage and the house build in 1915 is in excellent condition and a wonderful example of the building constructed in Darlington in that time. The kitchen is in its original condition.  The Spooky House 1901–04, 38 Stone Cres.  Mr Palmer (engineer who followed after C Y O’Connor) built this house with stonework that is preserved within the house that was refurbished by Architect Ray Lefroy and with the original fireplaces.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C153 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d)  Beulah (Brookside) 12 Leithdale Rd 1904.  Built by Ruben Carson and is an excellent example of building in the early settlement of Darlington, made of brick and stone which is largely unaltered. Tuck-pointing, original fireplaces and chimney are some of these features.  16 and 17 Beenong Rd 1904 – 1910. When businessman Richard Holmes purchased the Darlington Vineyard (Waylen and Amherst deceased estate) in 1903 he built 2 cottages, one worker’s cottage and the other a manager’s cottage. They are constructed of random rubble with the worker’s cottage displaying peculiar stone masonry reliefs, keystone arches and large granite door lentils. Much of the worker’s cottage is in original condition and fairly well preserved.  Wootoona 22 Bertram Rd. 1908. Built by the Maslin family. Weatherboard home with iron roof high ceilings and jarrah floorboards. This home has had extensions in similar appearance to the original and is in very good condition.  The Bungalow 21 Bertram Rd.1912. The district’s first Presbyterian Church Service was held in this home and although

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C154 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) extensively altered has original features including stone walls surrounding the tennis courts, a holding well for Water pumped up form a well and 2 massive Bunya Pine trees. (Social Importance)  The Old Tower House 4 Old Tower Crt. 1909 & 1917. Built by Arthur Nelson a renowned Perth builder. He built the Perth Railway Station and Bon Marche Arcade. The original building was a very small iron dwelling, which was probably replaced by a gravel rock house with a tower in 1917. Of some significance is that the Old Tower house became a kindergarten during WW2.  26 Lionel Rd. 1911. Built by Leyshon and purchased by the well-known local Fischer family this cottage was used for worker’s accommodation. These men worked as farm labourers and orchard hands. Hugo Fischer built another family home building on the property but it burnt down. Only the old iron roofed cottage remains.  42 Lionel Rd. 1914. The second home built by Hugo Fischer. The family continued to live there until 1967, adding to the residence & continuing to operate a dairy and poultry farm.  Kirkcaldy, 7 Stone Cres.1920 . Please Note this home is listed on the Shire of Mundaring’s

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C155 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d)  Municipal Inventory as not found. Kilcaldy is a magnificent example of an early well designed and built hills home. Well known builder George Bishop was the builder.  Rycroft, 8 Mofflin Ave. 1912. Walter Charles Johnson built this home named it Ryecroft. He was very much involved with the community involved with the Congregational Church, the establishment of the first Darlington school and the converting of the old vineyard cellar into the Darlington Lesser Hall. The house is in original condition two double side fireplaces high ceilings and is relatively unchanged again, with an underground water tank. The Montrose Steps and Properties In reviewing this area it was determined that the Montrose Avenue Properties and steps form a heritage precinct with the Taplin and Owens store being the hub. These properties would include  Mr Fordyce’s Residence 9 Montrose Ave 1906  Miss Benham’s Cottage and Mr Turner/s Residence, 8 Montrose Ave pre 1920 & pre 1913.  Taplin and Owens Store 4 Montrose Ave 1912  Walton Residence 15 Allestree Rd 1913 – 1914

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C156 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) Clearview 11 Montrose Ave 1914  Victor Cottage 5 Montrose Ave 1924  Presbyterian Church 1927 127 Darlington Rd.  Dalry Lodge 32 Dalry Rd 1918 During early years the “street” was one of only two walking paths from the railway station to the top of the hill. Consequently, the building of the houses and Montrose Ave steps that lead from Montrose Ave to Dalry Rd. sets it apart as a very important precinct in the development of Darlington. Several well-known and important local people lived in this area. A detailed description of these houses and structures can be seen in the book by Cliff Burns and Arlene Collings.  6 Brook Rd. 1914. Timber and iron home with large rooms and enclosed verandas. Built by Sarah Johnson (sister of Walter Johnson of “Ryecroft”) this was used as a boarding house. It has leadlight windows, timber architraves and pressed tin ceilings. Dalomar, 8 Brook Ave. 1926. Miss Catherine Babington built this house after she had built 2 other small rental house close by. It is well preserved and an interesting 2 story home of random rubble and brick construction with tin roof.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C157 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) Original residence is still obvious with tasteful extension.  14 Brook Rd. 1917. Built as an investment by Miss Babington. Originally she built 2 settler style cottages but only one remains. They were constructed of timber and iron. The remaining cottage appears to be mostly of the original construction.  Bishop Family Home and Timber Yard. 24 Brook Rd. 1920. Built by George Bishop a well- known builder of timber construction and random rubble stonework. The original part of the home is in very good condition and carefully renovated and extended  Brook House, 30 Brook Rd. 1914 Built by Robert Dinning. A cottage was constructed of timber and iron which faced Nyannia Creek. A cottage was transported from Kalamunda by the next owner, John Skinner, and sited next to the original and called Rose Cottage, which was partially destroyed by fire and condemned. Brook Cottage was left to Mollie Skinner. It is where she wrote her autobiography “The Fifth Sparrow”  22 Amherst Ave 1915. This weatherboard and iron home still has parts of the old garden in evidence. The home

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C158 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) has been restored and sensitively extended.  Darlington Primary School – Listed by the National Trust & Heritage Council of WA . However, the only existing school room remaining from bygone years is one of 4 rooms that were built prior to 1960. This building was built in 1956 (it is often thought to be the original building constructed in 1913 but that is not true). The play shed nearby was constructed c.1920.  Grevillia Tearooms & Chemist, 365 Glen Rd. 1920. Built by the Greville family this jarrah home was also built to accommodate a tearooms and a chemist outlet. It is still in very good condition.  Station Masters House, 155 Glen Rd. 1921 Although altered by subsequent owners this was built by the Government railways to accommodate 3 different station masters (1921-1939)  115 Darlington Rd Pre 1923 Home built with stonework foundations walls of timber and iron roof. Most of the original building is obvious, a typical early Darlington home. This is the house Mrs Curlewis built for her family in 1923 after her marriage failed. It was half of the block she and her husband purchased their

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C159 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) weekender in 1920. She named it Kajamaba after her children’s initials. Mrs Curlewis was instrumental in organising the local Glee Club, Eisteddfods and the St Cuthbert’s Choir.  Blackwood, 33 Dalry Rd. 1913 Built by Herbert Johns it housed the very well-known and locally influential Mofflin family. It is of timber and iron construction and remains in fairly original condition. The property displayed one of the best rose gardens (1,000 roses) in Western Australia in the 1920s and 1930s.  St Aubyn, 1 Dalry Rd.1914. This is an example of local stone constructed homes. The quality of the stone masonry and workmanship was considerable, with imported French roof tiles 3 chimneys and 6 fireplaces. Water was collected and stored in a partially submerged tank. The owner and builder was Alfred  Vincent who used stone quarried from his quarry based in Greenmount. Vincent was a very locally influential man who was part of the team that established Darlington’s recreation area and the conversion of the vineyard cellar into a hall. The building has been somewhat extended but also renovated.  The Chalet, 90 Darlington Rd. 1915. Much of this home is still in original condition. It is an

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C160 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) excellent example of local stonework construction. Built by Mr Gomme the manager of the State Sawmills. It has an impressive entry from which you can go upstairs to the second story or downstairs to the ground floor.  Kilbirnie or Rosemary, 31 Hillsden Rd.1916. Built by school teacher Henry Pearson, as a single story home it boasted several modern attractions. It was also the home of one of Western Australia’s greatest identities, Athelstan Saw who added a second story. He was also the brother of the very influential and well-known William Allnutt Saw who lived at Holmesdale for many years.  The Goodwin Family Home. 39 Darlington Rd. 1920. Built by Vern Hale because he was told to move from the city to the hills to improve his health, the project became too much for him and he died soon after. The Goodwin family occupied the home many years thereafter. Mrs Goodwin’s memoirs of the local area remain to this day as an interesting local record. The building with its stucco walls has an iron roof and is well renovated.  Whistlebrae, 91 Darlington Rd. 1923. This is an excellent example of local stone masonry. Reg Caulfield, the local postie and a major player in setting up the

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C161 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) local Darlington Review newspaper (still exists today) was a resident. Also the well- known photographer Richard Woldendorp was a rental resident for several years. It is a split level home built of local stone with some alterations but the original appearance of the home has not altered greatly.  Caingorm 8 Dalry Rd 1927 Built by Cyril Walker in the Arts and Crafts style, it became the home of James McCallum Smith, the owner of the Sunday Time Newspaper, an elected member of parliament and a powerful advocate for the secession movement of Western Australia. It was used as a convalescent home for many years after WW2. Kanangra, Mrs Stones Residence, 20 Dalry Rd. 1904. The significance of this tiny part-time shack/home was that it was one of Mrs Stone residences. Following her husband’s death in 1909 (John Stone) she subdivided all the family’s local accumulated properties as the Hillsden Estate in 1913. She donated land for St Cuthbert’s Church. The building has been substantially altered and added.  Alfred Sandover Residence, 29 Dalry Rd. 1918. Originally this home was built by well-known business and sporting identity Alfred

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C162 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) Sandover on the south side of Dalry Rd. It was then transported to the opposite of the road to a higher location. It has considerable small-wave iron walls and pressed iron ceilings. Much of the building is still visible and good condition.  Amy and Ethel Heaps House 22 Dalry Rd 1930 The significance of this home is that it was built by very well- known artist and embellisher (with the Sunday Times newspaper) Amy Heap and her sister Ethel (and brother Frederick). They were residents for many years. Much of the original building is still visible and in good condition.  Bolton, 14 Owen Rd. 1916. This is a curious building and the first to be built on the Darlington Vineyard property following subdivision. The Guildford businessman Gregory Gill and family built the home. It has a curious open back area and may have been used as a delivered area and therefore linked to their business in Guildford. This original portion of the building is still quite visible even though several extensions have been made. The internal walls and architrave work has been maintained. However most stone surfaces have been painted.  Kindergarten House 6 Leithdale Rd 1936

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C163 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) This house was built by Frederick George Bruce Hawkins a notable Architect born in Durban South Africa; he trained in England and qualified as an Associate of the Royal British Institute of Architects in Feb. 1910. He arrived in Melbourne, Australia in 1923 forming a successful firm Grainger, Little, Barlow and Hawkins then later Barlow and Hawkins. Notable buildings in Melbourne were Temple Court in 1924 in Collins Street and Spry Bros Bootery in Bourke Street. F.G.B. Hawkins came to WA in 1928 to supervise the construction of the Victoria Insurance Company building in St George’s Tce and decided to stay in Perth. In Perth Frederick undertook both commercial buildings and private residences notably the Margaret River Hotel, Dunklings, Wigmore’s, Boans and Soap Distributors. In 1944 Frederick sold this property in Darlington to the Kindergarten Association of WA where it operated to assist families during and after WW2. It operated until at least 1948 before it closed.  Glen Doone 435 Victor Rd 1922 1922 After the death of Waylen and Amhurst the original grant of land of 24 acres and ten perches, known as Lot 36 was purchased by Elsie Eltze Barrymore (nee Victor) in

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C164 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) 1904. Hugh and Elsie Barrymore transported the present weatherboard home from Greenbushes to the property. Glen Doone became a weekender. Five cabins were built on the property in 1942, which helped to accommodate a housing shortage in the hills during WW2 . Further development of the cabins occurred in the 1960’s as well as a caravan park. Glen Doone was owned by two WW 1 Veterans, Arthur Connop and Llewellyn Griffiths both of whom used the property to grow their own food and to maintain an income through the rental of the cabins.  Burnell House No. 11 Dalry Rd 1914 Built by Norman and Florence Burnell as a weekender pre 1920. Norm Burnell started his business in Queen Street, Perth in 1909 dealing in retail electrical and TV rental, Kennedy sewing machines and wholesale sewing division selling Bernina, Bernette and Horn products. It is still operating under the third generation of Burnell and celebrated its Centenary. After the Burnell family, this home was purchased by Leonard Fischer, son of Hugo Fischer of Darlington in 1927. This became the family home of Leon and Margaret Fischer who raised their 3 children here until 1944.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C165 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d)  Keane House 9 Dalry Rd 1914 This house was built by the widow of Edward Vivian Keane, Civil Engineer who built the Eastern section of the railway from Guildford to York. In 1886 Keane won the contract to build the Geraldton line. Keane also constructed the Zig Zag Rail line to Kalamunda. Keane’s widow was Lilla Rebecca White the daughter of Abraham White who was joint owner with his son in law Keane in the Sawmill at Mt Helena that supplied timber and sleepers for the railway. Lilla lived in Darlington until 1925. She sold the property to Herbert George Edward who married Florrie Birney Fauckner and they used it as a holiday home but in 1925 they were listed as living in Darlington. Herbert was the Managing director of Lamson Paragon Ltd involved in Printing. Florrie’s sister Annie Maria lived on Darlington Road. This property was then sold to John Hynes who formerly lived in Amherst St, Darlington.  Rigi / Blair Athol / Peddars Way 29 Hillsden Rd 1914 This property was purchased in 1913 in the name of the Government Mineralogist’s (Dr Edward Sydney Simpson) wife Muriel Simpson. Social notes show that the Simpson’s built and used the house as a weekender. Before c1917 the

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C166 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 8. Darlington History Group (cont’d) property was bought by Darlington resident Henry Gell Barker an Insurance Agent. In 1919 the name William Sewell appears on the Rates, he is with the national bank and has come from Victoria. The Sewells also use the house as a weekender until they return to Victoria in 1923. The house is then sold to Philip Edgerton Warburton and his wife who name it Rigi and they use it as a home. In 1927 the house is sold to a widow Evelyn Christie who uses the house as Guest House and renames it Blair Athol. In 1932 the house is sold to a Contractor Ernest Grigg who rents it to the Widow Hilda Giles who runs it also as a Guest House and renames it Peddars Way. 9. Mundaring & Hills Historical Society a) Mundaring and Hills Historical Society welcomes the Shire of Mundaring's preparation of a Heritage List and Heritage Policy in accordance with the requirements of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.

The Heritage List

The Society approves in principle Noted. with the places selected for inclusion on the Heritage List, most of which were those assessed as having exceptional significance on the Municipal Inventory (MI). b) We note, however, that some places included in the Draft Heritage List have suffered at the hands of time. In particular:

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C167 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 9. Mundaring & Hills Historical Society (cont’d)  MHI Site 77 - Undercliffe Hospital. One building on this site was Extensively fire damaged in 2015 extensively damaged by fire in 2015 but  MHI Site 121 – St Andrews the original homestead was untouched. Anglican Church, Glen Forrest. The place record for Site 121 Aesthetic significance has been emphasises the ‘very high social and diminished by an unsympathetic historic significance’ rather than development on the site. aesthetic significance.  St Marks Anglican Church, Mt The use of the St Marks Anglican Helena. Attempts to relocate Church has ceased and the land may building have failed and it is be sold. Inclusion on the Heritage List increasingly falling into disrepair. will prevent demolition without planning Needs urgent attention so that it approval. If demolition is approved then can be properly recorded before a condition can require an archival ‘demolition by neglect’ occurs. record. We note that Hocking Heritage Studios recommended in their Assessment of Shire of Mundaring's Heritage Policy and Recommendations document that a full review of the Municipal Inventory should be undertaken 'with all places having full and accurate assessments together with comprehensive statements of significance and management recommendations based on the State Heritage Office guidelines'. MHHS would strongly urge the Shire of Mundaring to undertake such a review, as time and budgetary limitations in 1997 meant that many places nominated for inclusion in the original Municipal Inventory lacked assessments. The absence of proper analysis of these sites has an impact on the efficacy of the MI as a reference point for decision- making and development of the listed sites. This deficit of information has Should these individual heritage resulted in some places that assessments be completed, Council should have been considered for can make further additions to the MI inclusion being overlooked. and Heritage List.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C168 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 9. Mundaring & Hills Historical Society (cont’d) Quarries, for example, were listed together in the MI but not all of them were assessed and, by some oversight, Clifton Quarry, Parkerville was missed. Clifton Quarry should also be added to the Ml as a Category 2 site and considered for inclusion on the Draft Heritage List. Similarly, Statham Clay pit in Glen Forrest, on the Ml but never assessed, should also be considered for inclusion on the Heritage List.  A sample check of the MI listings for Glen Forrest reveals that, without assessment, it cannot be determined whether the following places in the centre of the village are also worthy of addition to the Heritage List:  MHI Site l24 Glen Forrest Sporting Club Assess H  MHI Site 87 Braidwood / Forrest Arms Assess H  MHI Site 118 Craft Partners / Butcher's Shop (now Bungalow) Assess H  MHI Site 117 Ben Pittersen's Store (now Real Mountain Restaurant) Assess H  MHI Site 89 Burkinshaw House Assess H  MHI Site 88 Smith House (second) Assess H  *MHI Site 102 Stationmaster's The MI place record describes the House, Highest (MI) Category Stationmaster’s house as being in ‘fair’ 2 (inherit). *If St Andrews condition and ‘high’ integrity. No new Church is worthy of inclusion assessment was undertaken for this site at Category 2, why not Glen and if the significance is confirmed as Forrest Stationmaster's House Category 2 (considerable) then the place which still has a high degree of should be added to the Heritage List. integrity?

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C169 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 9. Mundaring & Hills Historical Society (cont’d) If that snapshot is indicative of other villages throughout the Shire, it is a good indicator of the urgent need for a full review of the MI. Other places that are worthy of addition to the MI come to the attention of MHHS from time to time. Two that spring to mind are the Hovea Sustenance Camp and the Boya-GIen Forrest section of the Eastern Railway Heritage Trail, which included major works to divert Nyaania Creek. Only ten places appear under Darlington in the index to the ML yet there is a case for numerous other properties to be considered. Darlington History Group is in the fortunate situation of having recently undertaken a survey of buildings in the locality prior to publication of a book and will presumably comment on this in more detail. A review would also provide The Local Planning Strategy (LPS) was the opportunity to examine finalised in 2014. The LPS prioritised the some of the places that appear adoption of a Heritage List in order to in the Ancillary Index to the MI provide statutory protection from (places nominated but not demolition or substantial change, for assessed), to consider others, those places identified as most significant and review the extent to which within the current MI. the recommendations of the first MI have been implemented or remain relevant. For example, how far has Recommendation 4, which identifies seven properties or precincts deserving of special consideration in local planning strategies, been implemented? It is interesting to note that 21 of The list is compiled based on the the places (a third) on the Draft assessed significance of places within Heritage List are in Mundaring or the MI. Mundaring Weir. While all appear entirely appropriate inclusions, it is worth considering the process by which the original

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C170 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 9. Mundaring & Hills Historical Society (cont’d) MI was compiled and asking The places in the MI with higher whether that has skewed the conservation priority included a number results. This is a matter that of halls, schools and churches which would need to be considered in have social significance and structures a new review. Also worthy of that have remained substantially comment is the fact that 75% of unchanged. There was no deliberate the places included on the Draft attempt to list places under public rather Heritage List are public places, than private ownership. either owned or managed by the Shire, government departments, churches or hotels. Only a handful are private properties. Was this by accident or by design? If it is considered that The consultation for the Strategic inclusion of a property on an MI or a Heritage List is going to be Community Plan was recently completed controversial to the point where and will be considered separately by this acts as a deterrent to Council. The Strategic Community Plan inclusion, we would suggest that informs the projects and priorities in the the Shire would benefit from four year Corporate Business Plan. examining the way it handles heritage and look at more successful models that have It is acknowledged that the provisions been implemented in other local within the Heritage of Western Australia governments around Australia. Act 1990 require that each Local We would further propose that Government review its MI every 4 years. the Shire commit to regular To provide some context, the Shire also reviews of its Municipal has other obligations to review its whole Inventory, as required in the planning strategy and scheme every 5 Heritage of Western Australia years under the Planning and Act. With the whole issue of Development Act 2005. Historically, metropolitan reform resulting in these reviews were rarely achieved by the continuance of Mundaring most local governments. Hence, it is a Shire as an autonomous entity, common occurrence for State legislation and the current preparation of to set out expectations on local the 2016-26 Strategic governments that - without adequate Community Plan underway. support at a State level - cannot not Council should take advantage reasonably be achieved without of this opportunity to ensure compromising other strategic that a proper assessment of projects/priorities. heritage places in the Hills is undertaken. The Heritage Act requires that an MI be updated It is noted that, based on the initial advice annually and reviewed every of the consultants, the work completed to four years. It is not good develop the Municipal Inventory in 1997 enough that the twenty year old was comprehensive and a sound basis to Mundaring MI forms the basis develop a heritage list. for heritage planning in the

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C171 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 9. Mundaring & Hills Historical Society (cont’d) Shire. A proper review should be done before further cultural, tourism and environmental planning takes place. c) The Heritage Policy The purpose of the document is to While understanding that the guide decision making which Heritage Policy has been necessitates direct and clear language. drafted to support and The draft policy was posted to strengthen the protections landowners of properties included on afforded by the adoption of a the draft Heritage List and no objections Heritage List, MHHS has were received. some concerns that the somewhat draconian tone of the document will not encourage support from the landowners to whom the policy will apply. As members of the Heritage Reference Group, MHHS members made previous comment on the Draft Heritage Planning Policy during the drafting process. We would generally reiterate those comments, some of which were minor changes to text.  More broadly, we suggest: Inclusion of a preamble that Some changes have been made to parts acknowledges the good will of of the policy in response to these and landowners and evokes a other comments. sense of collaboration between the Shire and community would establish the idea of partnership eg, "Owners of heritage places are custodians of our cultural

heritage. The retention of these places provides the As noted above, the majority of sites residents of the Shire with a included on the Heritage List are sense of place. The Shire managed by the Shire, schools or depends on the good will of churches rather than individuals. these owners to help preserve the history of the Shire for These conditions may or may not be future generations." applied to development affecting a 5.0 Assessment Criteria- heritage place, depending on the Several of these conditions will particular place and proposal. have a cost to the landowner.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C172 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 9. Mundaring & Hills Historical Society (cont’d) A supporting heritage strategy that includes community education, awareness programs such as heritage awards, and incentives for owners of properties on the Heritage List and Municipal Inventory would assist in creating a positive attitude to heritage in the community. Adaptive re-use can be an effective solution to the redevelopment of heritage buildings and this option should be recognised in the policy, 5.2 refers to 'original landscape setting'. I however, simply due to passage of time, landscape settings will rarely If changes are proposed to the landscape be 'original'. We suggest the setting of a heritage place these would wording should reflect the idea be assessed against the identified that modifications to the place heritage values and significance of the should not detract from the place. place's heritage values. 5.3 indicates that additions must be to 'the rear of the property'. Land use changes As noted above, this criteria was based may mean that what was once directly on the advice of the Shire’s the rear of the property is now heritage consultants. In general, the the front. Bruce Callow also public view and approach to a building is notes that the 'rear' may also of greater public interest for protection. have fabric that needs to be However, the Shire would consider dealt with sympathetically. variations to this principle where the applicant demonstrated it necessary or There are successful appropriate. developments that include sympathetic additions at the front of a property. What scope is there for the Shire to vary this provision if a suitable proposal is presented? 6 0 Conditions - Are these requirements for the This condition would only be applied compre-hensive archival where appropriate, which may be on the record more onerous than advice of the State Heritage Office. those required by the State Heritage Office?

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C173 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 9. Mundaring & Hills Historical Society (cont’d) MHHS feels the Shire of As noted above, the scope of the current Mundaring could benefit from project was to adopt a Heritage List to developing its own Heritage provide protection from demolition as Strategy and that the Heritage prioritised in the Local Planning Strategy. Policy under consideration here, while essential to give teeth to The Shire is also responsible for elements of LPS4, would fit much managing a substantial number of better alongside a more detailed heritage places. A heritage strategy heritage strategy. In spite of an would not necessarily sit solely within the apparent lack of support for a planning framework, but would represent standalone strategy when this a more whole-of-shire approach to idea was expressed within the heritage. Heritage Reference Group, MHHS would argue strongly that the breadth of issues involved in heritage warrants its own strategy. Many other local governments The WA Local Government Association throughout the state have (WALGA) heritage working group has developed Cultural Heritage proposed development of a model Strategies or Plans: Vincent, heritage strategy. Bunbury, Canning, Geraldton. Gosnells, Swan, South Perth, Victoria Park, to name just a few. The City of Bunbury Strategy states that an ad hoc approach proved to be inadequate when confronted with increasing development pressures. It identified and set out to address a number of areas such as the lack of understanding of heritage by City staff, developers and the community; the social, cultural, economic, environmental, tourism and planning value; and implications for sustainability and infrastructure planning at local and state levels. In general, these strategic planning documents make a clear statement of the local government's altitude to heritage, and provide for education of landowners and rewards for the protection of the heritage values as well as meeting the requirements of the Planning and Heritage legislation. Detailed

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C174 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 9. Mundaring & Hills Historical Society (cont’d) design guidelines and explanations of the factors considered in establishing significance arc included so that residents can understand that heritage significance is not conferred lightly and is not simply based on age. Heritage listing is approached as though it were an honour rather than a deterrent to the landowner by these local governments, and heritage places are treated as assets. This has a generally positive impact on community attitudes over time. MHHS would like to work with the Noted. Shire's Planning Service and other relevant units to advance such a plan. Apart from some brief and general references in LPS4 and various Shire Planning strategies, the Shire's approach to heritage is not well defined and yet heritage is the very base on which Mundaring and its communities sits. Many of the most notable landscape features (the Eastern Railway, transformed into the Railway Heritage Trails, Mundaring Weir, Lake Leschenaultia, John Forrest National Park, the quarries and orchards which progressively morph into new housing developments) tend to be described as part of the 'environmental amenity' the Shire offers, but the fact is that they are all part of our cultural heritage; they shaped and defined the localities that became the Shire of Mundaring, and most of those localities retain their individual identities today. As Mundaring perches on the edge of a new burst of development, it is important that the Shire (Council and community) examines its

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C175 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 9. Mundaring & Hills Historical Society (cont’d) attitude to heritage, so that the sense of place, which has contributed to the nature of our communities, is not lost. It would be desirable to have such a strategy or plan in place before the next review of the MI so that it can be implemented and well understood by the community. A comprehensive plan, enunciating a collaborative approach to heritage in community, makes it much easier to sell the law to landowners. A heritage strategy / plan would then also be able to be integrated into the other Shire planning documents which form part of the Shire's Plan for the future, as required under the Local Government Act 1995. We hope that the Shire will consider this submission. It was unfortunate that the comment period fell within the post- Christmas holiday period when our officers were on leave. MHHS has appreciated the opportunity to participate in the Heritage Reference Group and to comment on the Heritage List and Heritage Planning Policy. To summarise:  Although we agree in principle with the places on the Draft Heritage List, the review of the MI was limited  A full review of the MI is needed  Regular additions and reviews of the MI (and Heritage List) in accordance with the Heritage Act are essential

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C176 MARCH 2016

SUBMISSION COMMENT 9. Mundaring & Hills Historical Society (cont’d)  The tone of the Heritage The Shire has adequate flexibility in Planning Policy is severe, the applying the Heritage Planning Policy policy sounds inflexible and and is required to consider each may require more of application on its individual merits. landowners than the State Heritage Office requires, and would be better supported by education and incentives There is a desperate need for an integrated planning approach to heritage in the Shire, and a Heritage Strategy that acknowledges the breadth of the impact of heritage on the many functions of the Shire is essential We would be happy to offer whatever assistance our records and resources allow into the future.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C177 MARCH 2016

Attachment 15

Report 10.6

15 Pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C178 MARCH 2016

Shire of Mundaring

DRAFT HERITAGE LIST

The purpose of this Heritage List is to identify places that are of significant cultural heritage value and worthy of conservation. Modification or additions to a place on the Heritage List will usually require planning approval and may require referral to the State Heritage Office. Place records are available from the State Heritage Office inHerit database at www.stateheritage.wa.gov.au

There are many places of varying heritage value identified in the Shire’s Municipal Heritage Inventory. Only places of high significance are included on the Heritage List (e.g. high degree of integrity/authenticity, rare or outstanding example, very important to the history of the locality). The level of significance is one of the matters that the Shire will consider in making a decision on an application for planning approval, or in undertaking work on Shire owned/managed places of heritage value.

Refer to the Shire’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and Heritage Planning Policy for more information, or contact the Shire’s Planning Service on 9290 6740.

The heritage places are listed below in alphabetical order by locality.

Place Name / Locality MHI Place Record – Statement of Significance Significance State # inHerit Location category Register database

Belle View, 1100 Bellevue MHI site 213 - 'Belle View’ homestead has very high aesthetic, 1 - Exceptional Yes 3836 Katherine St cnr social and historic significance as one of few remaining Wilkins Street examples in the metropolitan area of a substantial early farming property that retains high authenticity and integrity and was considered a model farm of its time. As such it is very significant for its rarity and representativeness.

Quarries or Boya MHI site 141 - The quarry sites in the Shire of Mundaring have 1 - Exceptional Yes 1678

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – 8 MARCH 2016 - AGENDA C179 MARCH 2016

Government varying degrees of significance; however, several have very high Quarries, Lot 2823 social, historic and scientific significance for their role in the Hudman Road development of important, landmark projects in the State including the Fremantle Harbour project, ballast for State railway lines, Kings Park War Memorial, Perth GPO, Commonwealth Bank (Forrest Place) and Council House. Over the years, the quarries were important local industries for the region generally and a significant source of employment of convict and immigrant labour. Chidlow Tavern, Chidlow MHI site 180 - The early twentieth century Chidlow Tavern 2 - Considerable No 8563 Thomas Street building has very high historical and social significance for the Shire of Mundaring and the Chidlow community as a reminder of the importance of the town in the development of the Eastern Railway and primary industry of the surrounding district. Lake Chidlow MHI site 200 - Lake Leschenaultia has very high social and 1 - Exceptional Yes 8568 Leschenaultia, historic significance to the people of the Shire and the State of Rosedale Road Western Australia for its long established recreational role and its origins with railway heritage. Darlington Hall, Darlington MHI site 139 - The Darlington Hall, together with surrounding 2 - Considerable No 8556 Pine Terrace/Owen park, oval and pine tree plantings, has very high aesthetic, Road Darlington social and historic significance for the people of Darlington and the Shire of Mundaring for its origins with Dr Waylen and early wine making in the district; as the long serving centre for social activities and the for the visual focus and landmark qualities the building, oval and pine trees give the community.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C180 MARCH 2016

Holmesdale, Darlington MHI site 130 - 'Holmesdale' has very high social and historic 1 - Exceptional Yes 1688 Darlington Road significance for its associations with Amherst, who was a very important State and local figure, especially in the development of the Darlington community. To a lesser extent, it is also important for its associations with Saw who later donated the adjacent land to the University. The house has strong social significance for the people of Darlington and has aesthetic significance as an excellent example of the early stone houses which characterise the 'village'. This significance is strengthened by its high authenticity and integrity which give the house added qualities of representativeness and rarity. Leithdale, 5-7 Lukin Darlington MHI site 126 - 'Leithdale' has very high aesthetic, social and 1 - Exceptional Yes 8554 Road historic significance for the Shire of Mundaring and the people of Western Australia. Its aesthetic significance is contained in the authenticity of its style materials and setting. The social and historic significance is found in the association 'Leithdale' had with Allpike, Skinner and D.H. Lawrence and the example the house provides of an early hills residence/lifestyle, and various other social uses benefiting the community such as school, church and convalescent home. St Cuthbert's Darlington MHI site 138 - St Cuthbert's Church, Darlington has very high 1 - Exceptional Yes 1685 Anglican Church, aesthetic and social significance for the Darlington community cnr Hillsden and in its contribution to the sense of place that residents feel for the Darlington Road place and the building's landmark value in the 'village' precinct. Bilgoman Well, cnr Greenmount MHI site 83 - The Bilgoman Well and convict ruins are a very 2 - Considerable No 8548 Darlington significant historical site for the Shire of Mundaring as one of Rd/Great Eastern few physical reminders of the convict era. Highway

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C181 MARCH 2016

Blackboy Hill Site, Greenmount MHI site 82 - The Blackboy Hill commemorative site has very 1 - Exceptional Yes 4479 Innamincka Road high social and historic significance for its associations as a World War I training camp, sustenance camp for the unemployed during the depression and as a commemorative site. Hugo Throssell Greenmount MHI site 81 - The Hugo Throssell Memorial has high social and 2 - Considerable No 3838 Memorial, Cnr Old historic significance in its commemoration of its namesake, it York Road/Great also has some aesthetic significance for its landmark value on Eastern Highway Great Eastern Highway. John Forrest Greenmount MHI site 169 - The John Forrest National Park has very high 1 - Exceptional Yes 8561 National Park, historic, aesthetic, social and scientific significance for the State Great Eastern and the Shire of Mundaring. Highway Katharine Greenmount MHI site 80 - Katharine's Place has very high historic 1 - Exceptional Yes 1681 Susannah significance for its associations with Katharine Susannah Prichards House, Prichard, Hugo Throssell V.C. and the Rev. Percy U. Henn; 11 Old York Road very high social significance as an a writer's centre, an illustration of a writer's way of life and as a typical turn of the century semi-rural house/lifestyle; and high aesthetic significance for the house in its rambling garden setting complete with very large, old pine tree that provides something of a local landmark. Undercliffe Greenmount MHI site 77 - 'Undercliffe' House has very high aesthetic, social 2 - Considerable No 8547 Hospital, 22 and historic significance for the community as an example of a Coongan Avenue large, early residence in the area; its associations with prominent people active in the development of the district; and for its role in providing hospital/nursing care in the region for a substantial part of its existence.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C182 MARCH 2016

Glen Forrest Glen Forrest MHI site 119 - The Glen Forrest Primary School 1897 2 - Considerable No 8553 School, Tillbrook classroom has very high social, historic and aesthetic Road significance for the Shire of Mundaring and the Glen Forrest community as the oldest surviving classroom still in use in the Shire. The school provides a very strong focus and sense of place for the community. This is strengthened by the fact that some families in the district have had as many as 3 & 4 generations of children attend the school. Octagonal Hall, Glen Forrest MHI site 120 - The Octagonal Hall has very high social, historic 1 - Exceptional Yes 1691 McGlew Road and aesthetic significance because of its continuous associations with the community and agricultural activities in the district; associations with early public figures in the district, Local Government and industry; and because of the building’s unique architectural style.

St Andrews Glen Forrest MHI site 121 - The St Andrews Anglican Church is of very high 2 - Considerable No 1690 Anglican Church, social and historic significance to the people of Glen Forrest 38 McGlew Road and to the Mundaring Shire as the oldest church and parish in the Shire, and for its associations with prominent Glen Forrest personalities at the turn of the century. Uniting Church, 56 Glen Forrest MHI site 122 - The Glen Forrest Uniting Church has very high 2 - Considerable No 1689 McGlew Road social significance as a focal point for community activity over the years and aesthetic significance for the contribution the building makes to the townsite. Clayton Farm, Helena MHI site 79 - Clayton Farm has very high social, historic and 1 - Exceptional Yes 3839 Clayton Road Valley aesthetic significance for the Shire of Mundaring and State as one of few remaining examples of early colonial lifestyle and building. Its aesthetic significance is advanced considerably in having survived on a larger 'urban' farm lot which also provides an interpretation of its social and historic context.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C183 MARCH 2016

Linton Residence, Hovea MHI site 67 - The former 'Linton' residence has high aesthetic, 2 - Considerable No 8542 1445 Falls Road historic and social significance for its associations with prominent State artist and silversmith James W. R. Linton. Old Mahogany Inn, Mahogany MHI site 163 - The Old Mahogany Inn has very high aesthetic, 1 - Exceptional Yes 1693 4260 Great Eastern Creek social and historic significance for the Shire of Mundaring and Highway the State. The location and setting have identifiable landmark qualities which add to its aesthetic significance. The role the inn has played, along the route leading to the early agricultural and development areas of the State, has important social and historic significance together with high authenticity and representativeness of the place. Associations with local identities such as the Byfields, and important State figures of the day, such as the Chief Justice S.H. Parker, further adds to the significance of the place. Mt Helena Hotel, Mount MHI site 179 - The Mt Helena Tavern has very high aesthetic, 2 - Considerable No 8562 900 Keane Street Helena social and historic significance for the Mt Helena community and the Shire of Mundaring. St Marks Anglican Mount MHI site 181 - The church has been at this site since 1930. 2 - Considerable No 1695 Church, Corner Helena Before that it was in a more flood prone area in Chidlow street, Keane Street and near where Mt Helena Oval is located. The building was Ealy Street consecrated on 26th April 1907 by the Bishop of Perth. Anglican Church of Mundaring MHI site 48 - The Mundaring Anglican Church of the Epiphany 2 - Considerable No 1678 the Epiphany, 11 has very high social significance for the people of the Mann Street Mundaring district; high aesthetic significance for its simple elegant ecclesiastical design and its contribution to the Mundaring townscape; and high historic significance for the original associations of prominent community members who contributed to and patronised the church.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C184 MARCH 2016

Belair House, 7435 Mundaring MHI site 34 - 'Belair' has high aesthetic, historic and social 2 - Considerable No 8530 Great Eastern significance for Mundaring because of its townscape value; its Highway late Federation style and unusual use of brick and stone; and for its associations with the Luhrs family. Captain Scott's Mundaring MHI site 15 - Captain Scott's cottage has high social and 2 - Considerable No 8525 Cottage, 2965 aesthetic significance as a well preserved and excellent Jacoby Street example of a small 'workers' cottage. Its detailing and finish is possibly better than what was typical of its time and most of which has survived intact despite adaptation and modification over the years. As such, the cottage also demonstrates adaptive use as modifications have been made to suit changing needs and lifestyles. Church of the Mundaring MHI site 47 - The Mundaring Sacred Heart Church and School 2 - Considerable No 1683 Sacred Heart, 200 buildings have high social and aesthetic significance for the Coolgardie Street Mundaring community. Eastern Hills Mundaring MHI site 8 - The house/gallery at 27 Hartung Street has high 2 - Considerable No 8524 Showcase/ Braun social and aesthetic significance for the Mundaring township as Gallery, 27 Hartung an early example of a larger type weather-board residence of its Street period when similar large houses in the town were either stone or brick. Weather-boards were more commonly used for smaller cottages or outbuildings. Like 'Temuka' (Site 26) and 'Craigie House' (Site 45) this building is one of few remaining large timber houses of this calibre.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C185 MARCH 2016

Eastern Railway Mundaring MHI site 204 - The Eastern Railway reserves have very high 1 - Exceptional Yes 2663 (part of Eastern significance to the State of Western Australia and in particular Railway Three to the residents of the Shire of Mundaring. They have aesthetic Bridges Entry) and landscape significance for the areas they pass through and the pedestrian access they provide for the public. The Wooroloo Culvert and the Swan View Tunnel have particular aesthetic appeal for provoking a sense of romance with the rail era. The reserves have historic and social significance for the impact on the development of the State and the impact on peoples lives. The walk trails today have high social significance for the recreation facility they provide for the community. The Eastern Railway reserves have scientific significance as an illustration of the engineering required in their construction as evidenced by the Swan View Tunnel, Wooroloo Culvert, trestle bridges and the numerous cuttings and embankments that still remain. Faversham, 2075 Mundaring MHI site 23 - "Ballindown/Faversham" has very high social and 1 - Exceptional Yes 4546 Jacoby Street historic significance for:  its associations with a prominent local and State recognised person in Alexander McCallum;  as a reminder of how the hills developed as a holiday destination for the wealthy;  as an example of a hills retreat built for the wealthy at the turn of the century and of which there are few remaining examples with such integrity (scarcity value);  as one of the most significant private houses built in Mundaring especially at that time; and  as an example of the adaptive use of large residences as convalescent homes which were formerly an important part of post hospital care; and more recently for bed and breakfast accommodation.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C186 MARCH 2016

Fred Jacoby Park Mundaring MHI site 59 - The English Oak tree in Fred Jacoby Park has 2 - Considerable No 4373 and Oak Tree, very high aesthetic, historic and scientific significance for the Mundaring Weir region and the Shire of Mundaring, for its rarity and Road associations with Jacoby and the early settlement of the district. George Ingram Mundaring MHI site 30 - "Ingram's" house at the corner of Great Eastern 2 - Considerable No 8529 Residence, 7405 Highway and Stoneville Road has very high aesthetic and Great Eastern social significance for its street/ townscape qualities, materials Highway and character. Masonic Lodge, Mundaring MHI site 46 - The Masonic Lodge building has high aesthetic 2 - Considerable No 8536 2815 Jacoby Street and social significance for the local community for the role Freemasonry played in the lives of the early community and the involvement of prominent people in the district. The building has aesthetic significance for its character in the townscape and the use of stone in a civic building. Mundaring Mundaring MHI site 52 - The Mundaring Cemetery has high social 2 - Considerable No 8537 Cemetery, 1 Yarri significance to the community as the burial place of many local Grove residents who lived in the district from the early part of this century. Previously, families travelled to Midland and Guildford to conduct their funerals. Mundaring Hotel, Mundaring MHI site 39 - The Mundaring Hotel has very high aesthetic, 2 - Considerable No 1674 3115 Jacoby Street social and historic significance for its two storey styling and landmark qualities; its associations with the old heart of Mundaring and prominent people involved with the development of the district.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C187 MARCH 2016

Mundaring school Mundaring MHI site 41 - The old Mundaring Primary School has very high 2 - Considerable No 1682 house, 7225 Great social, historic and aesthetic significance on its site in the centre Eastern Highway of the Mundaring townsite. Historically and socially, the building has served the community since 1908 and is one of the last remnants of original buildings in the town centre. Together with the adjacent War Memorial and former Post Office, they form an historic precinct which terminates the northern end of the important Nichol Street axis through the town centre. This also provides a landmark quality to its aesthetic significance as well as its weatherboard construction which is a reminder of the early timber milling industry in the district. Mundaring War Mundaring MHI site 42 - The Mundaring War Memorial site has very high 2 - Considerable No 8533 Memorial and local social and historic significance because of its recognition Gardens, cnr of local people who fought in two world wars, continuing Nichol Street/Great associations with the RSL and past associations with earlier Eastern Highway people in the district who contributed to its establishment. This significance continues today as the focus for commemorative activities in the community. The memorial also has high aesthetic significance as a local landmark and streetscape element in the civic heart of Mundaring. Mundaring Weir Mundaring MHI site 55 - The Mundaring/Goldfields Weir and gardens has 2 - Considerable No 8538 and gardens, very high significance Nationally, to the State of WA and to the Mundaring Weir Shire of Mundaring for social, historic and scientific reasons Road because of importance to the State, gold mining and agricultural industry and the magnitude of its engineering achievement. Mundaring Weir Mundaring MHI site 51 - The Mundaring Weir Hall (former Mechanics 1 - Exceptional Yes 1676 Hall, Weir Village Institute) has very high social and historic significance for Road Mundaring for its associations with the early community supporting the Weir, pumping stations, forestry and agricultural industry of the area.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C188 MARCH 2016

Mundaring Weir Mundaring MHI site 50 - The Mundaring Weir Hotel has very high social, 1 - Exceptional Yes 1675 Hotel, Weir Village historic and aesthetic significance, both locally and State, for its Road associations with the Weir’s construction, operation and tourist activities together with its two storey architectural style of which there are only several examples in the Shire. Mundaring Youth Mundaring MHI site 58 - The old Mundaring Weir Primary School and 2 - Considerable No 8540 Hostel, Mundaring Headmaster's residence is of very high social and historic Weir Road significance as one of few remaining school and quarters on a single site in the Shire, and because of its origins and associations with the Weir communities. O'Connor Museum Mundaring MHI site 56 - The O'Connor Museum / No. 1 Pump Station is of 1 - Exceptional Yes 1677 and pump station, very high social, historic, aesthetic and scientific significance, Mundaring Weir not only for the Shire of Mundaring and the State of Western Road Australia, but the engineering significance is also of National importance. This statement of significance also needs to be read in conjunction with the Mundaring Weir site no. 55. The pump station has:  Social significance for the impact the construction of the Goldfields Water Supply had on the Mundaring community at the time of its construction at the turn of the century, and for the continuing impact on the lifestyle of people out in the Goldfields and agricultural land in between.  Historic significance for the impact the project had on the development of Western Australia and its associations with prominent people of the time including C. Y. O'Connor and Sir John Forrest.  Aesthetic significance for its industrial architecture and landmark value.  Scientific significance for the magnitude of its engineering achievement.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C189 MARCH 2016

Sculpture Park, Mundaring MHI site 269 - The Mundaring Sculpture Park has very high 1 - Exceptional Yes 8577 Jacoby Street aesthetic, social and historic significance for the State and the Shire of Mundaring for its unique arts concept, associations with prominent Local, State and Nationally recognised artists; and with the history of the railways. Temuka (vet clinic) Mundaring MHI site 26 - 'Temuka' has very high aesthetic, historic and 2 - Considerable No 8527 7495 Great Eastern social significance for its townscape value, particularly in the Highway surrounding context of several other large houses, and in its use of weatherboard on a substantial residence; for its associations with Luhrs and as an example of adaptive use during the life of the Mundaring township. Old Parkerville Parkerville MHI site 72 - The old Parkerville Primary School has very high 2 - Considerable No 8545 School (Lot 259 aesthetic significance, for its unusual design and high social Riley Road) and and historic significance for having been built by the community Headmasters and for its importance to the people of Parkerville. House (210 Riley Road) Parkerville Parkerville MHI site 73 - The Parkerville Children's Home has very high 1 - Exceptional Yes 8546 Children's Home, social and historic significance for the people of the Mundaring Roland community, former residents and the State generally for the role Road/Beacon Road it has played in the care of children. The place is significant historically and socially for its approach to 'cottage care' for children long before it was appreciated as a better alternative than 'institutionalised' care. It also has important historic significance for its associations with public figures of the day such as Walter Padbury, Charles Harper, J.H. Worthington, and Sister Kate Clutterbuck. Many of the buildings have high aesthetic significance which are further complimented by their setting.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C190 MARCH 2016

Parkerville Hall, Parkerville MHI site 75 - The Parkerville Hall has high aesthetic, historic, 2 - Considerable No 1696 2055 Seaborne social and townscape significance. It is a rare example in the Street Shire of its style and is a prominent focus in the townscape. The Hall was built by community support in 1922 and has continued to play a very important role in the life of the community. Parkerville Tavern, Parkerville MHI site 71 - The Parkerville Tavern has very high aesthetic 2 - Considerable No 8544 6 Owen Road significance for the style, scale and landmark value the building has which are rare both in the Townsite and the Shire generally. The Tavern also has high social significance for the role and focus the place has provided, and should continue to provide for Parkerville’s community. Parkerville Store, Parkerville MHI site 69 - The Parkerville General Store has high aesthetic 2 - Considerable No 8543 2170 Seaborne significance for its contribution to the townscape character of Street Parkerville. It also has high social and historic significance as probably the oldest surviving store in the Shire in continuous use, and for its role in, and services provided to the community. Jarrah Tree, Sawyers MHI site 153 - The large jarrah tree and saw pit are important 2 - Considerable No 16616 Sawmills and Valley historically as a monument to the forest/timber industry that Sawpit, State established the hills communities and the early days of the Forest colony. It has very high social, historic and aesthetic significance for the Shire and the State as an illustration close to the city of what the early timber industry demanded of its workers. The size and scale of the tree has landscape significance and the potential to raise community awareness of the importance of our native forests environmentally and historically, illustrating the magnitude of what both the trees and the original forest must have been. Sawyers Valley Sawyers MHI site 155 - The Sawyer's Valley Headmaster's house has 2 - Considerable No 8559 School, Sawyers Valley very high social and historic significance as possibly one of the Road oldest school quarters remaining in the Shire and as a typical example of a headmaster's house at the turn of the century.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C191 MARCH 2016

Sawyers Valley Sawyers MHI site 230 - The Sawyers Valley Tavern has high aesthetic 2 - Considerable No 8576 Tavern, 10860 Valley and social significance for the local community and the Shire of Great Eastern Mundaring. The aesthetic significance is highlighted by the Highway building's Art Deco character that is unique in the Shire. The site also has historic significance as the location of Lot Leather's former store and hotel. Tamblyn Stoneville MHI site 164 - Tamblyn House has high aesthetic, social and 2 - Considerable No 8560 Homestead, 2475 historic significance for the Stoneville community and the Shire Stoneville Road of Mundaring. Swan View Tunnel Swan View MHI site 178 - The Swan View railway tunnel has very high 1 - Exceptional Yes 2660 (part of Eastern aesthetic, social, historic and scientific significance for the State Railway Deviation and the Shire of Mundaring. As the only tunnel in the rail Entry), near Curve network of Western Australia it is significant for its rarity. Road Travellers Arms The Lakes MHI site 202 - The stone ruins of the old Travellers Arms (Inn) / 2 - Considerable No 1684 Half-Way House, Half-Way House have high social and historic significance to Lakes Roadhouse, the Shire of Mundaring and the State of Western Australia for 513 Great their associations with early travel, communication and settler's Southern Highway movement through the district with the opening up of the agricultural land to the east of Perth. Old Police Station, The Lakes MHI site 206 - The old Lakes Police Station has high social and 2 - Considerable No 8569 5 Great Southern historic significance to the Shire and the State for its Highway associations with the early settlement of the district and the opening up of agricultural lands to the east. St Francis Anglican Wooroloo MHI site 183 - The St Francis Anglican Church has aesthetic 2 - Considerable No 8564 Church, significance for its contribution to the Wooroloo townscape. Government Road Wooroloo Wooroloo MHI site 210 - The Wooroloo Cemetery has high social 1 - Exceptional Yes 8571 Cemetery, off significance for the Shire, surrounding district and the State for Linley Valley Road its associations as the burial place for early families in the district and the tuberculosis sanatorium in the early half of the century.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C192 MARCH 2016

Wooroloo Prison, Wooroloo MHI site 194 - The Wooroloo Prison/Sanatorium has very high 1 - Exceptional Yes 8566 Linley Valley Road aesthetic, social, historic and scientific cultural significance for the Shire of Mundaring and the State of Western Australia. Its setting, layout and design together with its very good condition and authenticity give it very high aesthetic significance. The sanatorium's role in the treatment of tuberculosis, and later its use as a prison all contribute to its very high social, historic and scientific significance. In addition, the extent and integrity of the site contributes to its rarity and representativeness as an example of a sanatorium/hospital and an illustration of the tuberculosis health care philosophy from the earlier part of the 20th Century.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C193 MARCH 2016

Attachment 16

Report 10.6

5 Pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C194 MARCH 2016

Shire of Mundaring

DRAFT POLICY

HERITAGE PLANNING

Policy Ref: Committee Rec: Date: Adopted: Date: Amended: Date: Reviewed: Date: Procedure Ref: Delegation Ref: Statute Ref: Shire of Mundaring Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Local Law Ref:

PURPOSE

To guide decisions on proposed development affecting places included on the local Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory.

1.0 POLICY OBJECTIVES

1. To explain the Shire’s approach to and expectations for development affecting heritage buildings and places; 2. To facilitate continued use and appreciation of heritage buildings; 3. To preserve the amenity, character and specific cultural values of heritage buildings and places; 4. To enable adaptive reuse through appropriate additions or modifications; and 5. To set out potential planning conditions for the retention, restoration, recording and interpretation of heritage places.

2.0 SCOPE

This policy relates to planning proposals for places included on a Heritage List adopted under the Shire’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4, or included in the Municipal Heritage Inventory in accordance with the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.

The policy does not relate to sites listed under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, unless specific sites are also included in the Municipal Heritage Inventory or on the Heritage List.

3.0 BACKGROUND

The history of the Shire is visible through settlement patterns and the built form and character of places. Heritage buildings and sites of particularly high social, cultural, aesthetic or historical significance are listed within a Heritage List. These places are assets that contribute to the identity and appeal of their localities for both residents and

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C195 MARCH 2016

visitors, and changes to heritage places must be carefully managed to retain or enhance their heritage values.

The Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires each local government to maintain a Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI). The Shire of Mundaring MHI lists many places that contribute to the history and character of the local area and classifies them according to the degree of significance.

The Heritage List is derived from the MHI to provide a higher level of protection for the most significant local places and buildings. Modification of a place on the Heritage List is not permitted without planning approval. Extensions and modern facilities can often be accommodated if they are designed carefully with minimal disturbance to the original structure. ‘Like for like’ repairs should be undertaken carefully after consultation with the Shire, but will not require planning approval.

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 includes heritage as a matter to be considered by the Shire in determining applications for planning approval, and additional information that may be required with an application for modification of a heritage place. Detailed schedules of materials and finishes will generally be required.

Additional information including specialist studies, heritage impact assessments and street elevations may be required based on the level of significance of the place and the scale and nature of the proposed changes.

4.0 LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE

The level of significance is one of the matters that the Shire will consider in making a decision on an application for planning approval.

Level of significance Description Expectations

Exceptional significance Rare or outstanding The place should be retained and (Heritage List and State example; essential to conserved. Any alterations or Heritage Listed places the heritage of the extensions should reinforce the locality significance of the place and be in accordance with a Conservation Plan if one is in place. Considerable High degree of integrity/ Conservation of the place is highly significance (Heritage authenticity; very desirable. Any alterations or List) important to the heritage extensions should minimise of the locality impacts on the original site or building and reinforce the significance of the place. Moderate significance May have some altered Conservation of the place is (Municipal Heritage or modified elements, desirable. Any alterations or Inventory) not necessarily extensions should reinforce the detracting from the significance of the place and retain overall significance; original fabric where feasible. contributes to the heritage of the locality. Some significance Lower degree of Retain elements of the place (Municipal Heritage integrity/authenticity but where feasible. Photographically

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C196 MARCH 2016

Inventory) contributes to the record prior to major development heritage of the locality. or demolition.

Heritage places often include the setting or landscape features as well as buildings. Not all buildings within a heritage place will be a considered as a heritage building. This will be determined by referring to the place record, together with the heritage assessment where one is required at the time of proposed development.

5.0 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The criteria outlined below are to be read in conjunction with the Precinct Plan where one applies; State Planning Policy 3.5 - Historic Heritage Conservation; and the specific place record. 5.1 Buildings and structures on the Heritage List should not be demolished or their heritage values diminished by development. Where (in the opinion of the Shire) demolition or substantial change is necessary and unavoidable, then detailed recording in the form of archival record and appropriate interpretation of the site must be undertaken. 5.2 Designs for alterations/additions to heritage places should minimise disturbance to the original landscape setting and structure as much as possible and seek to maintain or enhance the specific heritage values identified for that place. 5.3 Additions to heritage buildings should be located towards the rear of the property with little or no alteration to elevations facing streets or public land, thereby maintaining the appearance from the public road or approach to the building. 5.4 External additions to heritage buildings must reflect the scale and character of the original structure, but be subtly identifiable as later additions. 5.5 Internal modifications to heritage buildings should be designed to minimise disturbance to the original structure and fabric, and leave visible traces of the original floor plan and function. 5.6 No outbuildings shall be located in the front setback area. Carports and garages must be detached and located to the side or rear of the heritage building, in order to minimise changes to the appearance from the public road or approach to the building. 5.7 Driveways and crossovers should generally avoid concrete and bitumen and make use of natural or earth coloured materials appropriate to the setting (such as compacted gravel or red-brown asphalt). 5.8 Earthworks should be minimised. Where retaining is necessary, it should be terraced to respond to the natural contours of the land and completed in natural or earth coloured materials appropriate to the setting. 5.9 Fences and walls should be reflective of the surrounding landscape and maintain clear and open sightlines between the public road and the heritage place. 5.10 Modifications to public buildings to provide modern facilities or improve access for people with disabilities must be sensitively designed to minimise disturbance to the original structure and external appearance.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C197 MARCH 2016

5.11 The Shire will take into account the public benefit of proposed modifications, including adaptation that enables continued access, visitor use and appreciation of the history and significance of the site. 5.12 Solar panels, antennas and air conditioning units must be selected carefully, located unobtrusively and painted, finished or framed to minimise the impact on the external appearance of the place. 5.13 Where a proposal has been referred to the State Heritage Office the Shire shall have due regard to their advice and recommendations. 5.14 Where external modifications or extensions are proposed to a heritage building in a bushfire prone area, the Building Code of Australia will require construction to the relevant Australian Standard (AS3959). The Shire will pay particular attention to the degree to which non-combustible building materials can be adapted and finished to complement the existing structure; the aesthetic impact of the modifications; and the impact of any clearing proposed in order to reduce the bushfire hazard. In some cases the modifications or extensions will not be supported, or the Shire may recommend a reduced or semi-detached addition to minimise the impacts on the heritage values of the original building.

6.0 CONDITIONS

Where conditional approval is granted for all or part of the proposal, one or more of the following conditions may be applied in addition to any other planning conditions:

a) This site is identified as historically significant and a comprehensive series of colour photographs shall be submitted to the Shire, recording the present appearance of buildings and surrounds, before applying for a building permit or undertaking any works.

b) A detailed archival record is to be made and submitted to the Shire prior to any works being undertaken. This record shall be based on State Heritage Office guidance for preparing archival records and include a site plan at 1:200 scale; a floor plan and elevations at 1:100 scale; and photographs of both the interior and exterior (clear of furnishings or debris).

c) Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Shire with the application for a building permit, demonstrating how the chosen construction methods will minimise impacts on the existing fabric of the building. The work shall be undertaken in accordance with these plans and using practices that minimise disturbance and damage to the existing structure.

d) A detailed heritage impact statement shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Shire before applying for a building permit or undertaking any works, clearly documenting potential impacts and providing specific recommendations to minimise those impacts on the significance of the place. The work shall then be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the approved heritage impact statement.

e) The structure shall be freestanding and not cause or require any modification to buildings of heritage significance.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C198 MARCH 2016

f) The additions shall be completed and maintained in materials and colours that are consistent with or complementary to adjacent buildings of heritage significance. g) On the completion of building and works, landscaping is to be established or reinstated and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Shire, consistent with the existing grounds and landscaping.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C199 MARCH 2016

Attachment 17

Report 10.6

16 Pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C200 MARCH 2016

Place No:2

NAME OF PLACE Tomlinson’s (fmr) Other names Dr Fraser’s residence Residence, 705 Coppin Road Address 705 Coppin Road Suburb/town Mundaring

LAND DESCRIPTION Reserve No: N/A Lot No: 29 Diagram: 222765 Vol/Fol: 1172/240 GPS: 31.902258°S 116.151162°E

HERITAGE LISTINGS inHerit database No ------Other Listing

PLACE TYPE Individual building or group ORIGINAL USE Residential: Single storey residence CURRENT USE Residential: Single storey residence OTHER USE

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 1

Construction Date 1890s, c1917 Walls Brick: common and painted Roof Metal: corrugated iron Other Architectural Style Federation Bungalow Physical Description: Single storey brick constructed dwelling with a corrugated galvanised roof. The residence is located within a large property that is partially orchard and informal gardens.

Toward the south elevation is a vented gablet roof where the gablet runs along the east-west central roof ridge. Behind the gablet roof is a gable roof where the gable ends are on the east and west elevations. Projecting from the centre of the gable roof is a brick constructed chimney with brick corbelling. The roof pitch breaks slightly and extends over the south, east and west elevations to create a verandah; this is supported by evenly spaced timber posts atop of rendered rick pillars with timber balustrading. Attached to the verandah line and extending across the entire south elevation is a CGI bullnose awning.

Centrally located within the south elevation is the front entrance which consists of a front door with timber framed and glazed and timber panelled side lights and a fan light. Evenly spaced on either side of the front entrance are two timber framed double doors which are glazed on the top half and timber panelled at the bottom half of the doors and each has a timber framed glazed fanlight.

A flight of timber steps lead up to the verandah in front of the front entrance creating a statement entrance to the dwelling. Condition Good Integrity High Authenticity High

HISTORICAL INFORMATION Historical Notes: This residence gained its name ‘Tomlinsons’ from the period in the early 20th century when it was owned and occupied by Ernest William Tomlinson (1871-1947), his wife Charlotte (1880-1960) and their family of five children.

Ernest Tomlinson was a successful engineer, and together with his brother Edward, they formed an engineering design and manufacturing business; Tomlinson Bros in 1896. The company built on the success of the Phoenix Foundry business, established by their father, Edwin Tomlinson and went on to secure many significant government contracts.

It has not been established when Ernest Tomlinson purchased the property as it may have been a holiday home for several years before the family made it their permanent address. It is likely that the move was sometime c1917 as in 1917 the electoral rolls note the address of Ernest Tomlinson as Leederville and the following year as Mundaring. There are references in The Swan Express to the Tomlinson family taking part in activities in the area from as early as 1911.

It is likely that a small cottage on the site was extended when the Tomlinson family settled more permanently on the property. The physical evidence of the building, particularly the roof form, suggests that there is an earlier structure enclosed within a later addition.

Information from the 1996 Municipal Inventory states that the house was reputed to be the oldest house on the Great Eastern Highway, formerly known as York Road. This would refer to the earlier smaller cottage within the later addition by Tomlinson.

The Tomlinson family attended many events in the local community and Ernest Tomlinson was the representative for the Mundaring Ward on the Greenmount Roads Board. This area of Mundaring was known as ‘Zamia’ after the locally occurring Zamia palms. It is probable that Ernest Tomlinson commuted to his place of business in East Perth by train. It was not an uncommon practice among wealthy businessmen during the inter war period to establish a country residence and travel to work in Perth.

Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 2

In 1920, Mrs Tomlinson advertised for a ‘Young Strong Girl to help in household duties, and milk one cow’. The Swan Express 28 May 1920, p. 2.

By 1925, the family relocated to Mount Lawley and put the property on the market. The advertisement placed in The West Australia provides confirmation that the largest part of the residence is a later addition.

Ideal residence and orchard In the Hills, situated in the highest part, 1005ft elevation. Frontage to York-rd, and Coppin-rd, within one minute of Zamia Railway Station. The highly improved residence of E.W.Tomlinson, complete with lighting plant, septic tank,, sewerage, water closets, Mundaring water supply reticulated throughout. A modern Residence with every convenience, in the centre of 5 acres of first-class orchard and five acres of paddocks. This property is the pick of the Hills and second to none in the State. The best of its kind and an opportunity to purchase that does not occur every day. The West Australian, 10 November 1925, p. 9.

A subsequent occupant of the residence according to the 1996 Municipal Inventory was Dr Fraser although no further information was discovered in this research about this occupant.

Aerial photography from the mid-20th century indicates that the form and extent of the building have not changed since that time. The planning department of the Shire of Mundaring have records for the approval of new outbuildings on the site in 2012.

Historic Theme Demographic settlement and mobility: Land allocation and subdivision People: Local heroes and batters Occupations: Grazing, pastoralism and dairying Associations: Ernest Tomlinson and family

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: • the place has aesthetic value as a late example of the Federation Bungalow style as demonstrated in brick. • the place has value as a landmark in the district for its continuity in the landscape since the early 20th century. • the place has historic value for its association with the early development of the Mundaring district along the main road to York in the late 19th century. • The place has historic value for its association with the settlement in the area during the 1910s by wealthy business men who established holiday homes in the hills. • the place has historic value for its association with the Tomlinson family and particularly Ernest Tomlinson who contributed to the Mundaring Community through his role on the Greenmount Road Board.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Some/Moderate MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION Category 3 CURRENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORY None

MAIN SOURCES G. C. Bolton, 'Tomlinson, Ernest William (1871–1947)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/tomlinson-ernest- william-11870/text21253 , published first in hardcopy 2002, accessed online 20 October 2015. The Swan Express The West Australian Australian Electoral Rolls, accessed from www.ancestry.com West Australian Post Office Directories accessed

Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 3

from State Library of WA, http://www.slwa.wa.gov.au/find/guides/wa_history/ post_office_directories/1930 Shire of Mundaring Municipal Inventory 1996

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 4

Place No:11

NAME OF PLACE The Loose Box Restaurant (fmr) Other names Netheridge Chudleigh Pretty Residence Two Sisters and a Chef Address 6825 Great Eastern Highway Suburb/town Mundaring

LAND DESCRIPTION Reserve No: N/A Lot No: 61 Diagram: 73774 Vol/Fol: 1837-144 GPS: 31.901374°S 116.162551°E

HERITAGE LISTINGS inHerit database No N/A Other Listing N/A

PLACE TYPE Individual building or group ORIGINAL USE Restaurant CURRENT USE Restaurant

Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 5

OTHER USE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Construction Date 1907; c1990; c1995 Walls Timber: weatherboard Roof Metal: corrugated Other Architectural Style Federation Bungalow Physical Description: A single storey timber framed and weatherboard clad building with a hipped and gabled corrugated zincalume clad roof. Projecting from the centre of the hipped roof is a brick constructed chimney with stone crown detailing and two terracotta chimney pots. At the west corner of the south elevation is a projecting weatherboard clad gable section with a timber vent at the apex of the gable.

The front entrance is situated in the west projecting section. There is a small hipped portico over the front entrance creating a statement entrance as well as a timber ramp leading to the front entrance. At the east corner of south elevation is another projecting gabled section clad in weatherboard which contains two centrally located timber framed, three-paned casement windows with a timber window sill. Extending along the south elevation from the west projecting section until it abuts the east projecting section, separate from the roof line, is a corrugated zincalume clad skillion awning.

It is apparent that the original building has undergone many additions and extensions. The place is located within extensive gardens including vegetable gardens. Several large gum trees are aligned along the property on the Great Eastern Highway boundary. A bitumen driveway accesses a large parking area to the east of the house and six cottages are located to the east of the restaurant building set within formal gardens.

A painted brick wall is located on the boundary with a pedestrian entrance and a decorative metal gate has the word ‘Chudleigh’ incorporated into the design. Condition Good Integrity Low Authenticity Low

HISTORICAL INFORMATION Historical Notes: The first building on this site was the home of Edward and Helen Pretty. It was constructed in 1907 according to the Shire of Mundaring 1996 Municipal Inventory.

Edward Pretty (1850-1913) was born in Belfast, Ireland and settled in Queensland in 1884 with his Australian wife Helen. The couple, and their family of five sons and one daughter, moved to Western Australia c1895 when Edward Pretty was appointed manager of the New Zealand Insurance Co. Edward and Helen Pretty settled permanently in Mundaring following his retirement in 1909. The cottage is likely to have been a holiday residence prior to this date, alternatively Helen Jane Harrild Pretty, nee Walker (1847-1945) and their daughter, Helen Blanche Pretty lived in Mundaring permanently and Edward lived at their West Perth during the week. The electoral rolls note that the home was named ‘Netheridge’ during the period in which the Pretty’s lived at the residence. Following Edward’s death in 1913, Helen and her daughter remained at the house. In c1926, Helen Pretty left the house and settled in Subiaco following the death of her daughter.

Edward and Helen Pretty were active in the Mundaring community. Edward was a Justice of the Peace in the district and he was a member of the committee which former the Mundaring Horticultural Society in December 1909 which was a break-away group from the Darling Range Horticultural society (formed in 1906). Helen Pretty continued her charity work in Mundaring following her central role in fund raising for Perth’s Hospital for Children in the late 1890s. She contributed to the local school and Anglican Church, most notably through the donation of an organ for the Anglican Church of the Epiphany.

The owners and occupiers of the residence from the 1930s to the late 1980s have not been determined however it is probable that the residence was named ‘Chudleigh’ during this period. The name is likely to be derived from the small town in Devon, UK. A reference in the local press notes that the North family were living at the house ‘Chudleigh’ in 1932. Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 6 In c1988, the place was acquired by French chef Alain Fabregues and his wife Elizabeth who had established a restaurant in Sawyers Valley in 1979. They developed this property in several stages with additional seating for customers and most significant by expanding the kitchen to enable the preparation of high quality food. The name of the restaurant was chosen because the original restaurant was indeed a ‘loose box’, barely held together and with no running hot water.

Major additions were designed by architect Geoffrey Summerhayes in the early 1990s. In 1995, six cottages were built on the western side of the property for accommodation of guests. The couple were able to make these improvements to the place through the contribution of partner, David Malcolm, former Chief Justice of Western Australia.

The Loose Box restaurant became extremely influential to the food scene in Perth and to a generation of chefs in Western Australia. The highly acclaimed restauranteur was awarded the Meilleur Ouvrier de France (MOF) in 1991, cooking’s highest award and in 1994 and 2004 was knighted by the French government for his services to professional cookery. The Loose Box closed in 2013.

The place continues to operate as a restaurant in 2015 under the name ‘Two Sisters and a Chet’.

Historic Theme Demographic Settlement and mobility: settlements Occupations: Hospitality industry and tourism People: Innovators Associations: Alain and Elizabeth Fabrègues Edward and Helen Pretty Geoffrey Summerhayes

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: • the place has aesthetic value for its demonstration of elements of a timber cottage that has evolved in stages as circumstances and requirements have changed. • the place has historic value for its association with chef Alain Fabrègues who has made a major contribution to the development of the restaurant and food culture in Perth and Western Australia which has been recognised internationally. • the place has historic value for its association with the Pretty family who built the original cottage and lived at the house until the 1930s. • the place has social value for the many members of the community who have visited the place and as a landmark on the main entrance into the Mundaring town centre

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Some/moderate MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION Category 3 CURRENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORY None

MAIN SOURCES Shire of Mundaring Municipal Inventory 1996 The West Australian 25 Dec 1909, p.3; 9 Jun 1939, p. . The Sunday Times, 19 June 1932, p. 7. The Western Mail, 2 June 1900, p. 51; 9 July 1910, p. 49; 28 Nov 1913, p. 12. The Daily News 25 November 1913, p. 2. The Loose Box. 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Loose_Box (accessed 4th December, 2015). Sutherland-Bruce, D. 2012. The Loose Box Restaurant. http://www.weekendnotes.com/the-loose-box- restaurant/ (accessed 4th December, 2012). Loose Box owners call it quits. 2013. The West Australian. https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/lifestyle/a/1621 3563/loose-box-owners-call-it-quits/ (accessed 4th December, 2015). Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 7

720 ABC Perth who are you? Alain Fabrègues http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2013/06/19/378 5319.htm

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 8

Place No:83

NAME OF PLACE Bilgoman Well Other names Address Cnr Darlington Rd & Great Eastern Highway Suburb/town Greenmount LAND DESCRIPTION Reserve No: 38155 Lot No 556 Plan No: 185161 Vol/Fol: LR3095-341 GPS: 31.901253°S 116.078766°E

HERITAGE LISTINGS inHerit database No 08548 Other Listing N/A

PLACE TYPE Other Structure ORIGINAL USE Well Single storey residence CURRENT USE Vacant/Unused OTHER USE N/A

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Construction Date 1846; 1850s; 1988

Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 9

Walls Stone Roof N/A Other Architectural Style Vernacular Physical Description: Despite clearing and some conservation work during 1988 for the State's Sesquicentennial, Bilgoman Well has become over grown again and has all but disappeared. Only the Heritage Trail Plaque identifies the site amongst the undergrowth and swampy ground making investigation of the site a little hazardous. Timber bench seats located nearby, and the path to the well are also being consumed by the bush.

The well is a roughly circular stone construction at ground level. Within the well are steel poles bracing the sides of the well. Over the top of the well is a circular stainless steel mesh cover which is held in place by circular stainless steel tubes which have been driven into the ground. Several timber post fence structures have been placed around the well. Timber bench seats are located near well and a plaque is fixed to a concrete block near the well.

The convict ruins comprise the remnants if the base of some stone walls and hearths that roughly outline several small buildings. The ruins are on a site that has been levelled and which roughly cuts into the slope of the surrounding bush land. The ability to easily identify the site is slowly diminishing particularly as there is very little remaining. Some archaeological work and interpretation of the site may better define its significance.

A nearby heritage Trail Plaque on a pedestal above the ruins has been vandalised and only the pedestal remains. Condition Integrity Authenticity

HISTORICAL INFORMATION Historical Notes: In March 1846 "Bilgomen", the aboriginal name of a watering place, on Greenmount Hill was recorded in Phillip La Mothe Snell Chauncy's field book, when he, on behalf of the State Government, surveyed the York Road, now Great Eastern Highway. Near traces of a small encampment, he dug a 14 foot (4.2m) well, which in his field book is shown as near tea tree thickets, in a dense "mahogany" forest and close to the 43 mile mark (ie. 43 mile form York).

For the purposes of maintaining the York Road, a convict depot was built in the vicinity of Bilgomen Well in the 1850's. In 1856, Royal Engineer and Superintendent of works Lieutentant Du Cane described the depot as being 2 miles east of a larger one at Greenmount (ie near Stirling Street), and with 25 men living in substantial "vee" huts. These were slab huts for the overseer and stores.

In 1881, Government Surveyor CD Price, mentions the "Old depot and a clearing at the old depot". From 1882 until 1899, the area was a watering reserve. After 1899, it was a public park reserve from which 1915, was the responsibility of the Greenmount Road Board.

According to MHHS records, there were ruins of mud huts, with 5ft walls, in existence in c. 1929 and these, and the well, were a popular picnic site up to the 1940's. In more recent times, although its existence was well known, vegetation and vandalism had overcome the site.

After extensive searches, local residents, Peter Fischer, Ron Mitchell and Chris Durrant re-discovered the well and ruins in the early 1980's. Its authenticity was confirmed by Shire historian, Ian Elliot. After extensive work, the site was officially opened on 26th January 1988, as part of the Australia wide Bicentennial celebrations. Historic Theme Demographic settlement and mobility: Exploration and surveying Demographic settlement and mobility: convict People: early settlers Transport and communications: Droving Associations: Philip Chauncy

Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 10

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: • the place has aesthetic value for the grouping of historic elements within a bushland setting. • the place has historic value for its association with the exploration and development of the region in the 1840s and 1850s. • the place has some potential to provide archaeological evidence of former occupation from the mid 19th century. • the place has scientific value for its potential to reveal evidence of past methods of construction as demonstration in the well construction and the remnants of the convict depot.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Considerable MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION Category 2 CURRENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORY Category 2

MAIN SOURCES Bilgoman Well/Convict Ruins. 2015. Heritage Council; State Heritage Office, 8th February. http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Invent ory/Details/87a3af8d-9c62-49e9-bc30-9a12741bf736 (accessed 10th December, 2015).

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 11

Remnants of Convict depot

Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 12

Place No:277

NAME OF PLACE Gorries Other names Address Chambers Road, Chidlow State Forest Suburb/town Malmalling LAND DESCRIPTION Reserve No: Lot No 3444 Plan No: 224672 Vol/Fol: LR3095-341 GPS: 31.953655°S 116.319036°E

HERITAGE LISTINGS inHerit database No 08579 Other Listing N/A

PLACE TYPE Ruin ORIGINAL USE Homestead CURRENT USE Vacant/Unused OTHER USE

Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 13

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Construction Date 1904 Walls N/A Roof N/A Other N/A Architectural Style N/A Physical Description: The former homestead, outbuildings and farming structures have been demolished and the site has minimal evidence of any former occupation. Some concrete slabs are still insitu at the site and the large oak trees mentioned in previous site visits are still extant.

Building materials at the site may be from the earlier structures but this has not been verified. Condition N/A Integrity None Authenticity None

HISTORICAL INFORMATION Historical Notes: In February 1899, Perth civil servant John Moreton Craig leased 3,693 acres of land near Chidlow's Well (Chidlow after June 1920). John Morton Craig (1850-1924) worked as a stockman and stock breeder before taking up a position as the Chief Inspector of Stock in the 1870s. He held that position for over 30 years and was well regarded for his knowledge in the profession.

In June 1900, Craig became sole proprietor of Avon Location 3444. Sometime between then and 1904, he built two houses on the property. The first of these, enclosed in a slatted timber fence, was a two roomed timber cottage located between the Helena River and Handcock Brook. The second was of Pise, or rammed earth construction, with a corrugated iron roof. Nearby was a stone-lined well.

In February 1907, when Edward Whatty of Claremont obtained the property, he and nephews Alexander (Bert) and Henry Gorrie dismantled the timber cottage and re-built it near the Pise house, connecting the two with a porch. They also worked to fence some of the property.

In c.1912, Whatty and his two nephews built a weir adjacent to Wellbucket Road and a hay and shearing shed (demolished in c.1968). By September 1913, Bert and Henry Gorrie owned the property. Soon after he acquired sole ownership in November 1915, Bert grubbed 2,000 acres to rid it of the farmers' double curse of "York Road Poison" and zamia palms.

Between 1933 and 1934, Bert used the timber cottage (c. 1904) structure as form work for the existing stone house. A timber weatherboard bedroom, laundry and pantry were added to the back. The rocks and mud were taken from a nearby quarry and soak.

Soon after this house was finished, Bert and his wife Mona opened up the non-viable property for the then novel idea of farm-stay holidays. Visitors, up to 20 at a time, were collected from the Chidlow Railway Station on the farm's spring trap or 3-horse-lorry. In 1935-6, the Gorries used a horse drawn scoop to build tennis courts of crushed termite mounds. In 1942, a house using sun-dried adobe bricks was built on the north side of the Pise house.

After Bert and Mona Gorrie left to live in Victoria in 1953, their son-in-law Terence (Charles) Chambers of Claremont took over the property and ran beef cattle.

A report in May 1956, by a senior engineer with the Goldfields Water Supply Scheme suggested measures to improve the Mundaring Weir's water quality. As a result, soon afterwards, Gorrie's farm was placed on the compulsory resumption programme. After 1968, when the Chambers family left the property, the Pise house (c. 1904) was destroyed by vandals and all that remains is an earth platform formation adjacent to the stone ruins. On 18th July 1971, the Water Authority of WA acquired the farm and the property is still [2015] owned by the State Government of WA.

A site visit in 2015 indicated that the stone ruins were demolished and aerial photographs were not able to Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 14

determine the year of demolition. Historic Theme Demographic settlement and mobility: land allocation and subdivision Occupations: Grazing, pastoralism and dairying People: Early settlers Associations: John Morton Craig Edward Whatty Alexander (Bert) Gorrie Henry Gorrie Terence (Charles) Chambers

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: • The site has some historic value for its association with the early settlement and development of the district.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Little MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION Category 4 CURRENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORY None

MAIN SOURCES Shire of Mundaring Municipal Inventory 1996 Gorries – Malmalling Ruins. 2015. Heritage Council; State Heritage Office, 8th February. http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Invent ory/Details/b848b75a-13df-42a1-a795-c3a88cc6514f (accessed 10th December, 2015).

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 15

Image from 1996 Shire of Mundaring Municipal Inventory

Municipal Inventory – Heritage List Review 2015 16

10.7 Lot 513 Great Southern Highway and Lot 500 Great Eastern Highway, The Lakes - Two Pylon Signs

File Code Gr 14(513&514) Location / Address See ATTACHMENT 18 Landowner Lot 513- Centrel Pty Ltd & Lot 500 Main Roads WA Applicant Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd Zoning LPS4 – Special Use 32 & Rural Small Holdings 10 MRS – Rural & Primary Regional Roads Area Lot 500- 8181sqm Lot 513- 2206sqm Use Class Incidental to Service Station use Ward East Author Adam Olivari, Planning Officer Senior Employee Mark Luzi, Director Statutory Services Disclosure of Any Nil Interest

SUMMARY

Planning approval is sought for two pylon signs at the Lakes Roadhouse. The proposed signs are incidental to an approved service station redevelopment at the subject site.

Council determination is required as both signs exceed 5 metres in height.

It is recommended that Council approves the proposed 12.8 metres high pylon sign on Great Eastern Highway (GEH) and approve the sign on Great Southern Highway (GSH) subject to the height being reduced.

BACKGROUND

The original proposal involved two identical 12.80 metre high, 4 metre wide signs to be setback from GEH and GSH by 0.5 metres respectively (ATTACHMENT 19). Signs are proposed to be illuminated.

Shire officers expressed concern that the height of the sign on GSH was excessive for reasons detailed below. The applicant has acknowledged these concerns and agreed to reduce the height to 6 metres when measured from the ground level of the road reserve. Due to reporting timeframes, revised plans have not yet been submitted.

No changes have been made to the sign on GEH.

Both signs are located on private property zoned as ‘Special Use 32’ under Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4).

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C217 MARCH 2016

STATUTORY / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposal constitutes development under the Planning and Development Act 2005 and requires planning approval under the Shire’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4).

Other relevant legislation includes:

 Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) (as it relates to land abutting Regional Road Reservation); and  Petroleum Products Pricing Regulations 2000

GEH and GSH are Primary Regional Roads, reserved under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme (MRS). The Shire has the power to determine the application, provided its decision is consistent with the advice of MRWA. In a scenario where Council does not agree with MRWA and decides to approve the application, the matter must be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for their determination under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

Under the State’s petroleum and pricing regulations, better known as Fuel Watch, retailers are required to display the standard retail price of not more than three (3) kinds of motor fuels. The regulations require signage to be in a suitable position and if necessary illuminated to be clearly legible to passing motorists.

Clause 74 (1) of the deemed provisions allows local governments to approve development subject to revised plans being submitted. Due to reporting timeframes, insufficient time was available for the applicant to submit revised plans illustrating a 6 metre high sign along GSH. To assist the applicant and to streamline the determination process, a condition is recommended to require revised plans be provided.

It is noted that the Shire has a number of existing petrol stations along GEH that require signage. Council should acknowledge that while decisions can set precedence, each application must also be considered on its merits having regard to the context of the site.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

 Shire of Mundaring’s Public Comment of Planning Proposals;  Advertising Planning Applications – Draft;  Amendment 1 to LPS4 (seriously entertained); and  Signs Local Law 2009

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Should Council resolve to refuse or conditionally approve the proposal, the applicant has a right of review through the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) which will incur legal costs.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C218 MARCH 2016

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

A key point of the Shire’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 is to ensure “balanced development” occurs in a manner which protects the environment and maintains the hills/village lifestyle.

The proposed pylon signs are unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the Shires character given it is an isolated rural site and The Lakes roadhouse is an existing development. The signs are incidental to the service station use of the site.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

The sustainability implications are negligible.

RISK IMPLICATIONS

As noted above, should Council resolve to refuse or conditionally approve the proposal, the applicant has a right of review through the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) which will incur legal costs.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

The proposal was referred to Main Roads WA (MRWA) and three nearby properties. Only one response from MRWA was received.

Summary of submissions

Issue / Concern Assessment / Comment MRWA has no objection to the Noted proposal subject to conditions and receiving written consent from the The applicant has provided the Shire landowner of Lot 500. with written consent from the MRWA requirements: landowner of Lot 500.  The sign shall not contain MRWA requirements are reflected in florescent, reflective or retro the recommended conditions. reflective colours or materials.  If illuminated must be low-level and not exceeding 300cd/m2 not flash, pulsate or chase.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C219 MARCH 2016

COMMENT

The proposal generally complies with LPS4, with any exceptions identified in the table below.

Local Planning Scheme No. 4

Scheme Requirement / Clause Assessment / Comment 4.15.15 Development setbacks for The sign fronting GEH is setback 0.5 land abutting Great Eastern metres. Highway A variation to the standard 15 metre a) 15m setback is warranted given the purpose of the signage is to alert oncoming traffic along GEH.

Amendment 1 – LPS4 – 24 March 2015

Requirement / Clause Assessment / Comment Advertising, not otherwise exempt under Schedule 5, must: a) Not detract from or erode the The locality can be characterised as visual qualities and character of a an isolated ‘resting point’ surrounded particular locality and/or transport by large 10 hectare-20 hectare Rural corridor. Small Holding properties and a national/regional park to the south. The existing streetscape consists of remnant native and exotic trees and shrubs, situated between the site and road. A service station currently exists on this site and will be redeveloped. b) Be associated with the operation The site is located on a major or business on the subject site transport corridor being the intersection of GEH and GSH. While signage associated with service stations can arguably disrupt the rural and natural visual qualities, petrol stations are a common occurrence along most regional highways.

The signs are directly related to the service station use.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C220 MARCH 2016

c) Not be misleading or dangerous MRWA have raised no objection in relation to the safety of the sign and its location. d) Be of a size and scale that is The speed limit along GEH at this proportionate to the realistic needs point is 110km/hr. GEH is also of local commerce in the locality. identified as a Restricted Access Vehicle 4 route (RAV4) which allows large multi-combination trucks to enter the metropolitan area. Accordingly, a high number of heavy vehicles use GEH. The service station is currently being redeveloped to have a dedicated area that specifically caters for the refuelling of large multi-combination trucks. Given the speed limit and users, it is appropriate that the height and scale of the sign along GEH enables commuters (particularly truck drivers) to make an early and safe decision whether to enter the site or continue past. Shire officers have investigated similar signs on other highways and believe the proposed height and scale is appropriate.

In relation to GSH, the context is slightly different. The speed limit of this road is 80km/hr and commuters are forced to slow down as they approach the intersection with GEH. In light of these considerations, the applicant has agreed to reduce the height of this sign to bring it into closer alignment with the Shires’ Local Law with a maximum height of 6 metres. As the ground level within the lot is lower than the road reserve, the effective height from the ground level will be slightly higher than 6 metres. A 6 metre high sign, (when viewed from GSH) is considered appropriate for the intended purpose of advertising fuel prices along GSH.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C221 MARCH 2016

Should Council resolve to approve this application, a modified signage plan will need to be submitted. e) Be designed to minimise visual As the site is a corner property, it is clutter. reasonable that two signs be provided. Given that no other signs or large bulky developments exist in this area the two signs will not contribute to visual clutter in the area.

Signs Local Law 2009 4.15 Pylon Sign Both signs represent a variation to the Shire’s Local Law. 1. (c) Be constructed so that no part of the sign is more than 6m The 12.8 metre high sign along GEH above the level of the ground is reasonable given the justification immediately under the sign. above.

Requiring the height of the sign along GSH be reduced to 6 metres better aligns with the Shire’s policy position expressed within the Sign Local Law.

After considering the content of this report, it is recommended that Council approves the two signs with conditions.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C222 MARCH 2016

COUNCIL DECISION C11.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Fox Seconded by: Cr Bertola

That Council grants planning approval for two pylon signs at Lot 513 and Lot 500 Great Southern Highway, The Lakes, subject to the following conditions:

1. The proposed sign positioned on Lot 500 Great Eastern Highway shall comply with the approved plans unless approval is granted by the Director Statutory Services for any minor variation made necessary by detailed design;

2. Before making an application for a building permit, a modified plan is to be submitted to the Shire for the proposed sign located on Lot 513 Great Southern Highway. The sign shall be no higher than 6 metres when measured from the natural ground level of the existing adjacent road reserve, to the satisfaction of the Director of Statutory Services;

3. Signage and support structures shall be placed on private property and shall not over hang or encroach upon the road reserve;

4. Minor modifications required by detail design shall be determined by the Director of Statutory Services on the advice of Main Roads WA;

5. Illuminated signage must be low-level not exceeding 300cd/m2 and not flash, pulsate or chase; and

6. The devices shall not contain fluorescent, reflective or retro reflective colours or materials.

CARRIED 11/1

For: Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Brennan Cr Perks, Cr Fox, Cr Cook, Cr Jeans, Cr Lavell

Against: Cr Daw

Next Report

8.37pm Planning Officer left the Council Chamber and did not return

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C223 MARCH 2016

Attachment 18

Report 10.7

3 Pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C224 MARCH 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C225 MARCH 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C226 MARCH 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C227 MARCH 2016

Attachment 19

Report 10.7

4 Pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C228 MARCH 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C229 MARCH 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C230 MARCH 2016

Proposed to be reduced in height to 6 metres when measured from the natural ground level of the road reserve

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C231 MARCH 2016

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C232 MARCH 2016

10.8 Repeal of Policy OR-03 – Public Question Time

File Code OR.OPP 1 Author Danielle Courtin, Governance Coordinator Senior Employee Paul O’Connor, Director Corporate Services Disclosure of Any Nil Interest

SUMMARY

Policy OR-03 – Public Question Time (ATTACHMENT 20) is proposed to be repealed as it has become obsolete following the introduction of the new Meeting Procedures Local Law 2015.

BACKGROUND

Policy OR-03 was adopted in 2006 and last reviewed in 2010. This policy was developed to supplement the Standing Orders Local Law 2003, which was in effect at that time, but did not provide a detailed procedure for Public Question Time.

The only guidance in that local law was contained in clause 1.4.1 – Public Participation: (5) (i) At the beginning of each meeting, members of the public will have the opportunity to place questions before the Council or committee in accordance with Regulation 6 of the Regulations.

(ii) A member of the public who raises a question during question time is to provide his or her name and address.

(iii) A question may be taken on notice by the Council for later response.

(iv) When a question is taken on notice under Section (5)(iii) a response is to be given to the member of the public in writing and a copy is to be provided to councillors.

The new Meeting Procedures Local Law, which came into effect on 1 January 2016 and repeals the Standing Orders Local Law 2003, contains detailed procedures for Public Question Time.

STATUTORY / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Local Government Act 1995: Section 5.24 – Question time for public - requires that at every council meeting time is to be allocated for public questions and responses and that question time has to comply with the Regulations.

Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996:

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C233 MARCH 2016

Regulation 5 - Question time for public, meetings that require prescribed – sets out the meetings at which time is to be allocated for public questions.

Regulation 6 - Question time for public, minimum time for – stipulates that the minimum time for asking and responding to questions from the public is 15 minutes.

Regulation 7 - Question time for public, procedure for – provides that the procedures for public question time are to be determined by the presiding person or by a majority of elected members if they disagree with the presiding person.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Policy OR-03 is proposed to be repealed.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023: Strategic Theme 4: Respected Civic Leadership – strong civic leadership and trusted governance.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

RISK IMPLICATIONS

Nil

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

Nil

COMMENT

Ordinarily policy items such as review and repeal of existing policies and consideration of new policies are considered by the Audit and Risk Committee before being presented to Council for adoption. Due to the timing of committee meetings – the next one is scheduled for 10 May 2016 – the repeal of Policy OR- 03 is presented directly to Council.

Clause 4.3 of the Meeting Procedures Local Law 2015 contains detailed procedures for Public Question Time: 4.3 Public question time

(1) A member of the public who raises a question during question time is to state their name and address.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C234 MARCH 2016

(2) In this clause a question includes part of a question, so that a question in 3 parts is to be treated as 3 questions.

(3) A member of the public who wishes to ask a question at a meeting must be present at the meeting when the question is asked, however the person may seek approval from the presiding member for their nominated representative to ask the question on their behalf.

(4) A completed question time form must include – (a) the name and address of the person who wishes to ask the question; and (b) the question in a succinct and legible form.

(5) If more than 2 questions are submitted in writing by any one person, the presiding member shall allow that person, in the first instance, to ask a maximum of 2 questions.

(6) After all other members of the public have asked their questions, and where time permits, the presiding member will allow members of the public who wish to ask more than 2 questions to sequentially ask one further question. This process will continue until the allotted time has expired.

(7) Where only one person wishes to ask more questions and where time permits, the presiding member will invite that person to ask their additional questions.

(8) The presiding member may decide that a public question shall not be responded to where –

(a) the same or a similar question was asked at a previous meeting, a response was provided and the member of the public is directed to the minutes of the meeting at which the response was provided;

(b) the member of the public uses public question time to make a statement, provided that the presiding member has taken all reasonable steps to assist the member of the public to phrase the statement as a question; or

(c) the member of the public asks a question that is offensive or defamatory in nature, provided that the presiding member has taken all reasonable steps to assist the member of the public to phrase the question in a manner that is not offensive or defamatory.

(9) The presiding member may determine that any question requiring research or investigation be answered in writing as soon as practicable.

(10) Where the necessary information is available at the time the question is posed a response will be provided by either the CEO, relevant member or employee nominated by the presiding member.

(11) A question may be taken on notice by the Council for later response.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C235 MARCH 2016

(12) When a question is taken on notice the CEO is to ensure that a written response is given to the member of the public and a summary of the response is included in the agenda of the next meeting of the Council.

(13) If the 15 minute period set aside for question time for the public is reached, Council may resolve by resolution that question time be extended for an additional 15 minutes.

(14) No more than two 15 minute extensions to public question time will be permitted.

(15) Where an answer to a question is given at a meeting, a summary of the question and the answer is to be included in the minutes of the meeting.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

COUNCIL DECISION C12.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Clark Seconded by: Cr Brennan

That Council repeals Policy OR-03 – Public Question Time (ATTACHMENT 20).

CARRIED 12/0

For: Cr Lavell, Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan, Cr Cook, Cr Fox, Cr Jeans, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Perks

Against: Nil

Next Report

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C236 MARCH 2016

Attachment 20

Report 10.8

5 Pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C237 MARCH 2016

Shire of Mundaring

POLICY

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Policy Ref: OR-03

Committee Rec: OSC3.10.06 Date: 9 October 2006 Adopted by: C4.10.06 Date: 24 October 2006 Amended by: C3.06.08 Date: 24 Jun 2008 Reviewed: Once per Electoral Cycle Date: 23 March 2010 Procedure Ref: Delegation Ref: Statute Ref: Local Government Act 1995 s. 5.24 Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 Local Law Ref: Standing Orders Local Law

PURPOSE To detail the procedures for presiding persons who conduct Public Question Time.

BACKGROUND Public Question Time is a means by which members of the public can seek responses from the Council or one of its committees about issues affecting the Shire of Mundaring that are of concern to them. It assists the public to be better informed about the governing of their district and it provides the local government with a mechanism to identify issues of importance in the community. Local Government (Administration) Regulation 6 provides that the minimum length of time for asking of and responding to questions for ordinary council meetings is 15 minutes. The Shire of Mundaring Standing Orders Local Law provides that time for asking of and responding to questions is included at every council and committee meeting. Local Government (Administration) Regulation 7 provides that the procedures for the asking of and responding to questions raised by members of the public at a meeting of Council or one of its committees are to be determined by the person presiding at the meeting or by a majority of members of the council or committee present at the meeting if they disagree with the person presiding. The implementation procedures detailed in this policy have been prepared in accordance with the applicable Regulations. POLICY 1. A minimum of 15 minutes is to be set aside at the beginning of a meeting of Council or one of its committees for Public Question Time, prior to any discussion requiring a decision by Council or the committee.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C238 MARCH 2016

2. Public Question Time is to be conducted in accordance with the following implementation procedures. Implementation Procedures 1. Time Frame Council or one of its committees may close public question time prior to the expiry of 15 minutes if there are insufficient questions to occupy that time. The extension of question time beyond the minimum time is at the discretion of the Presiding Person. 2. Prior to the Meeting Members of the public shall be requested to register their intention to ask a question on the form provided in the Council Chambers (for Council meetings) or the relevant Committee Room (for committee meetings). 3. During the Meeting (a) The Presiding Person will open Public Question Time with a brief statement of the procedures including:  the period of time set aside for question time;  the requirement to address all questions to the Presiding Person;  the request to provide in writing a person’s name, address and details of question(s) generally in the form specified in Parts 1 and 2 attached;  the availability of the written procedures in the Council Chambers or Committee Room;  people will be called to ask their question in the order they have registered;  any person who has not registered will be given an opportunity to ask a question after those who have registered;  each person is initially allowed to ask no more than two questions or four minutes total time to ensure an equal and fair opportunity is provided to all persons wishing to address Council or the committee;  the right of each person, if they have further questions, to return to the end of the queue.

(b) The Presiding Person will then request people to come forward in the order they registered. At this time a person is required to:  state their name and address; and  present their question.

(c) If a person has several questions, or has a question that is lengthy or complex, and has not provided such in writing on the form specified in Parts 1 and 2 attached, he or she will be requested to write any question(s) down and hand them to the Chief Executive Officer or his nominee to ensure an accurate summary of the question(s) can be included in the minutes of the meeting. (d) The Presiding Person then determines who is to respond to the question. The Presiding Person may:

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C239 MARCH 2016

 respond personally to the question asked;  refer the question to another member for a response;  refer the question to an employee (through the CEO) for a response;  choose to take the question on notice; or  choose not to accept the question.

(f) If a question relating to a matter in which a relevant person (a member or an employee) has an interest is directed to that relevant person, he or she will:  declare that he or she has an interest in the matter; and  allow another person to respond to the question.

(g) If a person has used up their allowed number of questions or time the Presiding Person will ask if they have any more questions; if they do their request will be noted and placed at the end of the queue (if applicable) and they will be asked to resume their seat in the public gallery.

(h) The next person on the list is called.

(i) The original registration list is worked through until exhausted; after that the Presiding Person will call upon any other persons who did not register if they have a question (e.g. people might have arrived after the meeting started).

(j) When such people have asked their questions the Presiding Person may, if time permits, provide an opportunity for those who have already asked a question to ask further questions.

(k) The Presiding Person declares Public Question Time closed following the expiration of the allocated time period or where there are no further questions. However, the Presiding Person has the discretion to allow more than the minimum time for questions if required. 4. Following the Meeting Council and its committees are required to include a summary of the questions asked and responses given in the minutes of the meeting. If a person asked a question that needed to be taken on notice, he or she will receive a written response to the question where the person has provided contact details. This response will be included in the minutes of the following meeting. 5. Who Can Ask Questions? Any member of the public can ask questions, not just an elector or people who live in the district. Elected members do not ask questions during Public Question Time as they have other opportunities to obtain information. 6. What Kind of Questions Can Be Asked? During an ordinary meeting of Council, any questions affecting the operations of the Shire may be asked, including the business listed on the agenda for a particular meeting. A response will not be provided to questions that do not relate to a matter affecting the Shire.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C240 MARCH 2016

During a special meeting of Council only questions relating to the purpose of the meeting may be asked. At committee meetings only questions relating to the purpose of the committee or meeting may be asked. 7. Repetitive Questions If a person attempts to ask a question that, in the Presiding Person’s opinion, has been satisfactorily responded to at that or an earlier meeting, the person will be advised accordingly. Where necessary, the person will be referred to the minutes of the relevant meeting. 8. Making Statements If a person attempts to use question time to make statements rather than ask questions, he or she will be asked by the Presiding Person to “state their question” or may be assisted in phrasing their question. However, if it is necessary that a statement preface the question in order to place the question in context then that statement should be brief. 9. Questions Requiring Considerable Research If a question is raised which requires considerable research then the Presiding Person is at liberty to point out when a response to a question would require a substantial commitment of the Shire’s resources. The Presiding Person may invite the person seeking the information to reconsider their request or refer the matter to the CEO for action following the meeting. The CEO can then arrange for the information to be provided or can determine in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 that provision of the information would be an unreasonable impost upon the Shire and refuse to provide it. 10. Inappropriate Questions If a member of the public provides a written question or attempts to ask a question which is considered to be offensive or defamatory in nature, he or she will be advised by the Presiding Person that the question will not be considered. To do so would expose the Shire to possible legal action for republishing defamatory remarks. In such circumstances, but depending on the question, the person may be invited to rephrase their question. Similarly, the Presiding Person will refuse to accept inappropriate questions, such as those containing defamatory remarks, offensive language or questioning the competency of members or employees. If a person does attempt to ask a question considered inappropriate or not in good faith, the Presiding Person will rule the question out of order and it will not be recorded in the minutes. The Presiding Person will also refuse to accept questions that relate to the personal affairs or actions of council members or employees. Finally, the Presiding Person may refuse to accept questions relating to confidential matters, legal advice, legal proceedings or other legal processes; or that have been answered by earlier questions or questions at a previous meeting.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C241 MARCH 2016

11. Questions Asked In Absentia Where a person submits a question in writing for Public Question Time but fails to attend the meeting, the Presiding Person will not accept the question. In such cases the CEO will treat the question as an item of correspondence, which will be answered in the normal course of business of the organisation. It will not be recorded in the minutes. 12. Questions Asked That Do Not Comply With Procedures Questions from members of the public that do not comply with these procedures or do not abide by a ruling of the Presiding Person, or where the member of the public behaves in a manner that is disrespectful of the Presiding Person, Council or committee, or refuse to abide by any direction from the Presiding Person, will be ruled ‘out of order’, and the question will not be recorded in the minutes.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C242 MARCH 2016

10.9 Update of Purchasing Policy AS-04

File Code OR.OPP 1 Author Danielle Courtin, Governance Coordinator Senior Employee Paul O’Connor, Director Corporate Services Disclosure of Any Nil Interest

SUMMARY

Following amendments to the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations) which came into effect on 1 October 2015, Council’s Purchasing Policy AS-04 has been updated.

It will be recommended that Council adopts the updated policy as attached (ATTACHMENT 21).

BACKGROUND

The amendments to the Regulations are a result of recommendations made by the Local Government Steering Committee and the Corruption and Crime Commission, with the aim of improving the purchase and tendering practices of local government.

A summary of key amendments is provided below:

 The tender threshold has been increased from $100,000 to $150,000;

 Anti-avoidance provisions have been strengthened: if a local government reasonably believes that the total purchase of goods or services from one supplier (as opposed to individual purchases) will exceed the $150,000 threshold, they should publicly invite tenders;

 At least two employees of the local government must be present for tender openings;

 A contract entered into for the supply of goods and services cannot be varied unless the variation does not change the scope of the contract or the variation is a renewal or extension of the original term of the contract; and

 New regulations introduce the ability for local government to create a panel of pre-qualified suppliers, but only after the local government has developed a written policy outlining how the panel will operate.

STATUTORY / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C243 MARCH 2016

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Policy AS-04, the subject of this report, is proposed to be updated.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The changes to the Policy have no direct financial impacts on existing budget. The changes will create efficiencies in the tender process as purchases that are now between $100,000 and $150,000 can be completed using the major quotations process.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Nil

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

RISK IMPLICATIONS

Procurement is considered a high-risk area in government, including local government. Having up to date policies to guide employees may mitigate this risk.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

No external engagement or consultation has been carried out.

COMMENT

Ordinarily policy items such as review and repeal of existing policies and consideration of new policies are considered by the Audit and Risk Committee before being presented to Council for adoption. Due to the timing of committee meetings – the next one is scheduled for 10 May 2016 – the update of Policy AS- 04 is presented directly to Council.

Policy AS-04 has been updated to reflect the amendments to the Regulations: the tender threshold has been amended and new clauses relating to the establishment of pre-qualified supplier panels have been added.

The pre-qualified supplier clauses have been lifted from the new WALGA Model Purchasing Policy 2015, released in November 2015.

Further review of Policy AS-04 may be required depending on the recommendations from the internal procurement audit, to be held in March 2016.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C244 MARCH 2016

COUNCIL DECISION C13.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Bertola Seconded by: Cr Fox

That Council adopts the updated Policy AS-04 – Purchasing Policy (ATTACHMENT 21).

CARRIED 12/0

For: Cr Lavell, Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan, Cr Cook, Cr Fox, Cr Jeans, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Perks

Against: Nil

Next Report

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C245 MARCH 2016

Attachment 21

Report 10.9

12 pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C246 MARCH 2016

Shire of Mundaring

POLICY

PURCHASING POLICY

Policy Ref: AS-04

Committee Rec: PROC7.04.07 Date: 12 April 2007 Adopted: C16.04.07 Date: 24 April 2007 Amended: C5.06.12 Date: 12 June 2012 Reviewed: Once per Electoral Cycle Date: Procedure Ref: FI-03 and FI-04 Delegation Ref: CE-82; CE-109; CE-100; CE-130 Statute Ref: Local Government Act 1995 Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 State Records Act 2000 Local Law Ref: n/a

PURPOSE To comply with the Local Government Act 1995, Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, State Records Act 2000 and WALGA best practice guidelines to ensure transparency and integrity of the process and to best meet business requirements.

ETHICS & INTEGRITY

Policy All employees of the Shire of Mundaring (Shire) who are responsible for procurement (responsible officer) shall observe the highest standards of ethics and integrity in undertaking a purchasing activity. Principles The following principles, standards and behaviour must be observed and enforced through all stages of the purchasing process to ensure transparency and integrity of the process:  Accountability - the responsible officer will be accountable for all purchasing decisions and the efficient, effective and proper expenditure of public monies;  Regulatory Compliance - all purchasing practices shall comply with relevant legislation, regulations and the Shire’s policies and code of conduct;  Open Competition - purchasing is to be undertaken on a competitive basis in which all potential suppliers are treated impartially, honestly and consistently;  Integrity - any actual or perceived conflicts of interest are to be identified, disclosed and appropriately managed;  Transparency - all processes, evaluations and decisions shall be transparent, free from bias and fully documented in accordance with applicable policies and audit requirements;  Professionalism - any information provided to the Shire by a supplier shall be treated as commercial-in-confidence and should not be released unless authorised by the supplier or relevant legislation;  Value for Money – the responsible officer will ensure procurement decisions are based on proper assessment to achieve best value for money; and  Sustainable procurement – where possible, procurement decisions will seek to minimise any potential adverse environmental and social impacts.

GUIDELINES

VALUE FOR MONEY

Policy Value for money is the overarching principle governing purchasing, that allows the best possible outcome to be achieved for the Shire. It is important to note that compliance with the specification is more important than obtaining the lowest price, particularly taking into account user requirements, quality standards, sustainability, life cycle costing and service benchmarks. Principles An assessment of the best value for money outcome for any purchase should consider:  all relevant whole-of-life costs and benefits, whole of life cycle costs for goods and whole of contract life costs for services including transaction costs associated with acquisition, delivery and distribution, as well as other costs such as but not limited to holding costs, consumables, deployment, maintenance and disposal;  the technical merits of the goods or services being offered in terms of compliance with specifications, contractual terms and conditions and any relevant methods of assuring quality;  financial viability and capacity to supply without risk of default (competency of the prospective suppliers in terms of managerial and technical capabilities and compliance history); and  a strong element of competition in the allocation of orders or the awarding of contracts. This is achieved by obtaining a sufficient number of competitive quotations wherever practicable. Where a higher priced conforming offer is recommended, there should be clear and demonstrable benefits over and above the lowest total priced conforming offer.

SUSTAINABLE PROCUREMENT

Sustainable procurement is defined as giving priority to the procurement of goods and services that have less environmental and social impacts than competing products and services.

Policy In accordance with its sustainability objectives, the Shire is committed to sustainable procurement and where appropriate shall endeavour to design quotations and tenders to provide an advantage to goods, services and/or processes that minimise negative environmental and social impacts. Sustainable considerations must be balanced against value for money outcomes. Principles Practically, sustainable procurement means the Shire shall endeavour at all times to identify and procure products and services that:  have been determined as necessary;  demonstrate environmental best practice in energy efficiency and/or consumption which can be demonstrated through suitable rating systems and eco-labelling;  sustainability through energy efficiency which can be demonstrated through suitable rating systems and eco-labelling;  demonstrate environmental best practice in water efficiency;  are environmentally sound in manufacture, use and disposal with a specific preference for products made using the minimum amount of raw materials from a sustainable resource, that are free of toxic or polluting materials and that consume minimal energy during the production stage;  products that can be refurbished, re-used, recycled or reclaimed, and those that are designed for ease of recycling, re-manufacture or otherwise to minimise waste shall be given priority;  for motor vehicles – select vehicles featuring the highest fuel efficiency and safety level available, based on vehicle type and within the designated price range; and  for new buildings and refurbishments – where available use renewable energy and technologies.

PURCHASING THRESHOLDS

Policy All purchases shall be made through a competitive process, either using the Shire’s procurement process or purchasing from a tender exempt organisation that has been established using a competitive public process such as WALGA’s Preferred Supply Contracts or a State Government Common Use Agreement (CUA). Where a tender exempt arrangement is in place, the Shire shall (where possible) seek multiple quotations from Preferred Suppliers to ensure best value for money. The following purchasing requirements apply to the actual or estimated value of the contract (excluding GST) over the full contract period (including options to extend):

Amount of Purchase Policy

Up to $5,000 Direct purchase from suppliers requiring a sufficient number of quotations for the type of purchase or purchase from a tender exempt contract. These purchases should generally be one off purchase and therefore payment can be made under the Shire’s Purchasing Cards.

$5,001 - $19,999 Obtain at least one written quotation or purchase from a tender exempt contract.

$20,000 - $49,999 Obtain at least three written quotations or purchase from a tender exempt contract.

$50,000 - $149,999 Conduct a Request for Quotation to obtain at least three Deleted: 99 written quotations containing price and specification of goods and services (with procurement decision based on all value for money considerations) or purchase from a tender exempt contract.

$150,000 and above Conduct a public tender process or purchase from a tender Deleted: 100 exempt contract.

Where it is considered necessary, the Shire may consider calling tenders in lieu of seeking quotations for purchases under the $100,000 threshold (excluding GST). This decision should be made after considering whether the purchasing requirements of the Shire can be met through a tender exempt contract. If a decision is made to seek public tenders for contracts of less than $100,000, a Request for Tender process that entails all the procedures for tendering outlined in this policy must be followed in full. Principles For the purchase of goods and services, the following thresholds and procedures are to be followed and record keeping requirements must be maintained in accordance with record keeping policies: Up to $5,000 Where the value of procurement of goods or services does not exceed $5,000, purchase on the basis of at least one verbal quotation is permitted. However it is recommended to use professional discretion and occasionally undertake market testing with a greater number or more formal forms of quotation to ensure best value is maintained. This purchasing method is suitable where the purchase is relatively small and low risk. The general principles for obtaining verbal quotations are:  ensure that the requirement / specification is clearly understood by the Shire employee seeking the verbal quotations; and  ensure that the requirement is clearly, accurately and consistently communicated to each of the suppliers being invited to quote. The Shire can still access a tender exempt contract for these types of purchases. $5,001 to $19,999 For the procurement of goods or services where the value of such procurement ranges between $5001 and $19,999, at least one written quotation is required. Where this is not practical, eg due to limited suppliers, it must be noted through records relating to the process. The Shire can still access a tender exempt contract for these types of purchases. $20,000 to $49,999 For the procurement of goods or services where the value exceeds $20,000 but is less than $49,999, it is required that at least three written quotes are obtained (commonly a sufficient number of quotes would be sought according to the type and nature of purchase). The responsible officer is expected to demonstrate due diligence seeking quotes and to comply with any record keeping and audit requirements. The Shire can still access a tender exempt contract for these types of purchases. NOTES:

The general principles relating to written quotations are:

 An appropriately detailed specification should communicate requirement(s) in a clear, concise and logical fashion;  The Request for Quotation should include as a minimum:  Written Specification  Selection Criteria to be applied  Price Schedule  Conditions of response  Valid period of offer;  Invitations to quote should be issued simultaneously to ensure that all parties receive an equal opportunity to respond;  Offer to all prospective suppliers at the same time any new information that is likely to change the requirements;  Responses should be assessed for compliance, then against the selection criteria, and then value for money and all evaluations documented;  Respondents should be advised in writing as soon as possible after the final determination is made and approved. The WALGA Procurement Handbook should be consulted for further details and guidance. $50,000 to $149,999 For the procurement of goods or services where the value exceeds $50,000 but is less than $150,000, it is required that at least three written quotations are obtained that contain the price and a sufficient amount of information relating to the specification of goods and services being purchased. For this procurement range, the selection should not be based on price alone, and it is strongly recommended to consider some of the qualitative factors such as quality, stock availability, accreditation, time for completion or delivery, warranty conditions, technology, maintenance requirements, organisation’s capability, previous relevant experience and any other relevant factors as part of the assessment of the quote. The Shire can still access a tender exempt contract for these types of purchases.

$150,000 or greater Deleted: 100 For the procurement of goods or services where the value is equal to, or exceeds $150,000, the Shire is required to conduct a public tender process or purchase Deleted: 100 from a tender exempt contract. For this procurement range, the selection should not be based on price alone, and it is strongly recommended to consider qualitative factors such as quality, stock availability, accreditation, time for completion or delivery, warranty conditions, technology, maintenance requirements, organisation’s capability, previous relevant experience and any other relevant factors as part of the assessment of the quote.

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

Policy All purchases shall be made through a competitive process, either by the Shire or by purchasing from a tender exempt organisation such as WALGA via a Preferred Supply Contract. Suppliers and tenderers shall be treated fairly and equitably at all times. Principles 1. Tender Exemption In the following instances public tenders or quotation procedures are not required (regardless of the value of expenditure):  an emergency situation as defined by the Local Government Act 1995.  the purchase is from a tender exempt organisation (Preferred Supplier Contracts or Business Service or Common Use Arrangements), Regional Council, or another Local Government.  the purchase is under auction which has been authorised by Council.  the contract is for petrol, oil, or other liquid or gas used for internal combustion engines.  any of the other exclusions under Regulation 11 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 apply. 2. Sole Source of Supply (Monopoly Suppliers) The procurement of goods and/or services available from only one private sector source of supply (i.e. manufacturer, supplier or agency) is permitted without the need to call competitive quotations provided that there must genuinely be only one source of supply. Every reasonable endeavour to find alternative sources must be made. Written confirmation of this must be kept on file for later audit. Note: The application of provision "sole source of supply" should only occur in limited cases since procurement experience indicates that generally more than one supplier is able to provide the requirements. 3. Anti-Avoidance The Shire shall not enter two or more contracts of a similar nature for the purpose of splitting the value of the contracts to take the value of consideration below the level of $150,000, thereby avoiding the need to publicly tender. Deleted: 100 4. Tender Criteria In the event that the Shire elects to call a tender, the Shire shall determine in writing the criteria for deciding which tender should be accepted before tenders are publicly invited. The evaluation panel shall be established prior to the advertising of a tender and include a mix of skills and experience relevant to the nature of the purchase. For requests with a total estimated (excluding GST) price of:  Below $150,000, the panel must contain a minimum of two members; and Deleted: 100  $150,000 and above, the panel must contain a minimum of three members. Deleted: 100 5. Advertising Tenders Tenders are to be advertised in a State-wide publication, eg “The West Australian” newspaper (local government tenders section), preferably on a Wednesday or Saturday. The tender must remain open for at least 14 days after the date the tender is advertised. Care must be taken to ensure that 14 full days are provided as a minimum. The notice must include;  a brief description of the goods or services required;  information as to where and how tenders may be submitted;  the date and time after which tenders cannot be submitted;  particulars identifying a person from whom more detailed information regarding the tender may be obtained;  detailed information shall include;

 such information as the Shire decides should be disclosed to those interested in submitting a tender;

 detailed specifications of the goods or services required;

 the criteria for deciding which tender should be accepted;

 whether or not the Shire has decided to submit a tender; and

 whether or not tenders can be submitted by facsimile or other electronic means, and if so, how tenders may so be submitted.

6. Issuing Tender Documentation Tenders will not be made available (via counter, mail, internet, referral, or other means) without a robust process to ensure the recording of details of all parties who acquire the documentation. It is essential that if clarifications, addendums or further communication are required prior to the close of tenders, all potential tenderers must have equal access to this information in order for the Shire not to compromise its duty to be fair. 7. Tender Deadline A tender that is not received in full in the required format by the advertised Tender Deadline shall be rejected. Addendum to Tender If, after the tender has been publicly advertised, any changes, variations or adjustments to the tender document and/or the conditions of tender are required, the Shire may vary the initial information by taking reasonable steps to give each person who has sought copies of the tender documents notice of the variation. 8. Opening of Tenders  No tenders are to be removed from the tender box, or opened (read or evaluated) prior to the Tender Deadline.  Tenders are to be opened in the presence of the Chief Executive Officer’s delegated nominee and preferably at least one other Shire officer.  The details of all tenders received and opened shall be recorded in the Tender Register.  Tenders are to be opened in accordance with the advertised time and place.  There is no obligation to disclose or record tendered prices at the tender opening, and price information should be regarded as commercial-in- confidence to the Shire.  Members of the public are entitled to be present. The tenderer’s offer form, price schedule and other appropriate pages from each tender shall be date stamped and initialled by at least two Shire officers present at the opening of tenders. 9. No Tenders Received Where the Shire has invited tenders, however no compliant submissions have been received, direct purchases can be arranged on the basis of the following:  a sufficient number of quotations are obtained;  the process follows the guidelines for seeking quotations between $50,000 and $149,999 (listed above); Deleted: 99  the specification for goods and/or services remains unchanged; and  purchasing is arranged within 6 months of the closing date of the lapsed tender. 10. Tender Evaluation Tenders that have not been rejected shall be assessed by the Shire by means of a written evaluation against the pre-determined criteria. The tender evaluation panel shall assess each tender that has not been rejected to determine which tender is most advantageous. 11. Minor Variation After the tender has been publicly advertised and a successful tenderer has been chosen but before the Shire and tenderer have entered into a Contract, a minor variation may be made by the Shire. A minor variation will not alter the nature of the goods and/or services procured, nor will it materially alter the specification or structure provided for by the initial tender. 12. Notification of Outcome Each tenderer shall be notified of the outcome of the tender following Council resolution or appropriate delegated authority. Notification shall include:  The name of the successful tenderer; and  The total value of consideration of the winning offer. The details and total value of consideration for the winning offer must also be entered into the Tender Register at the conclusion of the tender process.

RECORDS MANAGEMENT

Policy Records shall be retained of all tenders incompliance with the State Records Act 2000. Principles All records associated with the tender process or a direct purchase process must be recorded and retained. For a tender process this includes:  tender documentation;  internal documentation;  evaluation documentation;  enquiry and response documentation; and  notification and award documentation. For a direct purchasing process this includes:  quotation documentation;  internal documentation; and  order forms and requisitions. Record retention shall be in accordance with the minimum requirements of the State Records Act 2000 and the Shire’s internal records management policy.

7. PANELS OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS

7.1 Policy Objectives In accordance with Regulation 24AC of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, a Panel of Pre-qualified Suppliers (“Panel”) may be created where most of the following factors apply:

 the Shire determines that a range of similar goods and services are required to be purchased on a continuing and regular basis;

 there are numerous potential suppliers in the local and regional procurement- related market sector(s) that satisfy the test of ‘value for money’;  the purchasing activity under the intended Panel is assessed as being of a low to medium risk;  the Panel will streamline and will improve procurement processes; and  the Shire has the capability to establish, manage the risks and achieve the benefits expected of the proposed Panel. The Shire will endeavour to ensure that Panels will not be created unless most of the above factors are firmly and quantifiably established.

7.2 Establishing a Panel Should the Shire determine that a Panel is beneficial to be created, it must do so in accordance with Part 4, Division 3 the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. Panels may be established for one supply requirement, or a number of similar supply requirements under defined categories within the Panel. Panels may be established for a minimum of two (2) years and for a maximum length of time deemed appropriate by the Shire. Evaluation criteria must be determined and communicated in the application process by which applications will be assessed and accepted. Where a Panel is to be established, the Shire will endeavour to appoint at least three (3) suppliers to each category, on the basis that best value for money is demonstrated. Where less than two (2) suppliers are able to be appointed to each category within the Panel, the category is not to be established. In each invitation to apply to become a pre-qualified supplier (through a procurement process advertised through a state-wide notice), the Shire must state the expected number of suppliers it intends to put on the panel. Should a Panel member leave the Panel, they may be replaced by the next ranked Panel member determined in the value for money assessment should the supplier agree to do so, with this intention to be disclosed in the detailed information set out under Regulation 24AD(5)(d) and (e) when establishing the Panel.

7.3 Distributing Work amongst Panel Members To satisfy Regulation 24AD(5) of the Regulations, when establishing a Panel of pre- qualified suppliers, the detailed information associated with each invitation to apply to join the Panel must either prescribe whether the Shire intends to: i. Obtain quotations from each pre-qualified supplier on the Panel with respect to all purchases; or ii. Purchase goods and services exclusively from any pre-qualified supplier appointed to that Panel, and under what circumstances; or iii. Develop a ranking system for selection to the Panel, with work awarded in accordance with Clause 7.3b. In considering the distribution of work among Panel members, the detailed information must also prescribe whether: a) each Panel member will have the opportunity to bid for each item of work under the Panel, with pre-determined evaluation criteria forming part of the invitation to quote to assess the suitability of the supplier for particular items of work. Contracts under the pre-qualified panel will be awarded on the basis of value for money in every instance; or b) work will be awarded on a ranked basis, which is to be stipulated in the detailed information set out under Regulation 24AD(5)(f) when establishing the Panel. The Shire is to invite the highest ranked Panel member, who is to give written notice as to whether to accept the offer for the work to be undertaken. Should the offer be declined, an invitation to the next ranked Panel member is to be made and so forth until a Panel member accepts a Contract. Should the list of Panel members invited be exhausted with no Panel member accepting the offer to provide goods/services under the Panel, the Shire may then invite suppliers that are not pre-qualified under the Panel, in accordance with the Purchasing Thresholds stated in this Policy. When a ranking system is established, the Panel must not operate for a period exceeding 12 months.

In every instance, a contract must not be formed with a pre-qualified supplier for an item of work beyond 12 months, which includes options to extend the contract. 7.4 Purchasing from the Panel The invitation to apply to be considered to join a panel of pre-qualified suppliers must state whether quotations are either to be invited to every member (within each category, if applicable) of the Panel for each purchasing requirement, whether a ranking system is to be established, or otherwise. Each quotation process, including the invitation to quote, communications with panel members, quotations received, evaluation of quotes and notification of award communications must all be captured on the Shire’s electronic records system. A separate file is to be maintained for each quotation process made under each Panel that captures all communications between the Shire and Panel members. 7.5 Recordkeeping Records of all communications with Panel members, with respect to the quotation process and all subsequent purchases made through the Panel, must be kept. For the creation of a Panel, this includes:

 The Procurement initiation document such as a procurement business case which justifies the need for a Panel to be created;  Procurement Planning and approval documentation which describes how the procurement is to be undertaken to create and manage the Panel;  Request for Applications documentation;  Copy of public advertisement inviting applications;  Copies of applications received;  Evaluation documentation, including clarifications sought;  Negotiation documents such as negotiation plans and negotiation logs;  Approval of award documentation;  All correspondence to applicants notifying of the establishment and composition of the Panel such as award letters;  Contract Management Plans which describes how the contract will be managed; and  Copies of framework agreements entered into with pre-qualified suppliers.

The Shire is also to retain itemised records of all requests for quotation, including quotations received from pre-qualified suppliers and contracts awarded to Panel members. A unique reference number shall be applied to all records relating to each quotation process, which is to also be quoted on each purchase order issued under the Contract. Information with regards to the Panel offerings, including details of suppliers appointed to the Panel, must be kept up to date, consistent and made available for access by all officers and employees of the Shire.

10.10 Financial Activity Statement – January 2016

File Code: FI.RPA Location / Address N/A Applicant N/A Author Stanislav Kocian, Manager Finance and Governance Senior Employee Paul O’Connor, Director Corporate Services Disclosure of Any Interest Nil

SUMMARY

The monthly financial statements disclose the Shire’s financial performance for the period ending 31 January 2016.

The end of year forecast of ($12,795,017) in net expenditure as at 31 January 2016 shows an increase of $2,320,475 to the net expenditure amount approved in the original budget adopted by Council (SC7.06.15). The change is forecast is primarily due to the reasons outlined in the mid-year budget review as presented to Council in February 2016 (C8.02.16).

The closing budget position as at 31 January 2016 is a surplus of $28,245,485.

BACKGROUND

The monthly financial report is presented in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

A statement of financial activity and any accompanying documents are to be presented to the Council at an ordinary meeting of the Council within two months after the end of the month to which the statement relates.

The Statement of Financial Activity Report summarises the Shire’s operating activities and non-operating activities.

STATUTORY / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Regulation 34(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to prepare each month a statement of financial activity.

Regulation 34(2) requires the statement of financial activity to report on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the annual budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C259 MARCH 2016

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Financial implications are in accordance with the approved reporting material variances (C5.06.15) of:

 (+) or (-) $50,000 or 10%, whichever is the greater for Revenue; and

 (+) or (-) $100,000 or 10%, whichever is the greater for Expenses for each Directorate being reported for the 2015/16 financial year.

There are two types of variances:

 When actual results are better than expected results the variance is described as favourable variance. A favourable variance is denoted by the letter F.

 When actual results are worse than expected results the variance is described as unfavourable variance. An unfavourable variance is denoted by the letter U.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Strategic Theme 4: Respected Civic Leadership – Strong civic leadership and governance.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Expenditure has been incurred in accordance with budget parameters, which have been structured on financial viability and sustainably principles.

RISK IMPLICATIONS

In accordance with section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, a local government is not to incur expenditure from its municipal fund for an additional purpose except where the expenditure is authorised by an absolute majority of Council.

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

Nil

COMMENT

For the period ended 31 January 2016 the Shire’s net revenue was $16,098,776 compared to the year to date budget of $9,400,852.

A number of reports to this item are as follows (Refer ATTACHMENT 22):

 Directorate Revenue and Expenditure Reports for the year to 31 January 2016 and explanation of significant variances;

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C260 MARCH 2016

 Statement of Financial Activity (based on the Rate Setting Statement adopted in the annual budget);

 Unrestricted Funds position (closing budget position) at 31 January 2016 including a graph comparing the current year’s month end position to the same period last year; and

 Summary of Cash Investments with financial institutions as at 31 January 2016.

Timing differences in financial reporting are due to the monthly spread of the budget cash flow variances. That is, income or expenditure is estimated over a twelve month period and actual receipt and expenditure of funds may not occur in the month estimated. This will result in some income and expenditure being recognised in different periods, i.e. timing differences originate in one period and reverse or "turn around" in one or more subsequent periods.

Note: timing differences will not result in a forecast adjustment as the expenditure or income item will still be captured in the financial year in question.

Strategic and Community Services

Year to date revenue – favourable variance of $53,064 Year to date expenditure – favourable variance of $676,096 Year to date net result – favourable variance of $729,160

Refer to ATTACHMENT 22 for explanation of variances.

Office of Chief Executive and Corporate Services

Year to date revenue – unfavourable variance of ($14,112,948) Year to date expenditure – favourable variance of $17,098,047 Year to date net result – favourable variance of $2,985,099

Refer to ATTACHMENT 22 for explanation of variances.

Infrastructure Services

Year to date revenue – unfavourable variance of ($4,557,030) Year to date expenditure – favourable variance of $6,945,775 Year to date net result – favourable variance of $2,388,745

Refer to ATTACHMENT 22 for explanation of variances.

Statutory Services

Year to date revenue – unfavourable variance of ($3,596) Year to date expenditure – favourable variance of $598,155 Year to date net result – favourable variance of $594,919

Refer to ATTACHMENT 22 for explanation of variances.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C261 MARCH 2016

Unrestricted Funds (Budget Surplus) and Cash Position

The Shire has $28,245,485 of unrestricted funds as at 31 January 2016 ($18,279,227 as at 31 January 2015). The cash balance in the Municipal Fund is $18,627,670 ($16,096,010 as at 31 January 2015).

It should be noted that the unrestricted funds amount above is influenced by the Shire raising an invoice for $6.5 million for the sale of lots 50/51 Morrison Road (at the request of the buyer and settlement agent). However there has been a delay in the settlement (now not expected until February), and as the Shire has not received the funds there has been no transfer of the equivalent amount to the Capital Investment Reserve.

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

COUNCIL DECISION C14.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Clark Seconded by: Cr Martin

That Council notes -

1. the year to date actual net revenue as at 31 January 2016 is $16,098,776 greater than the year to date budget;

2. the end of year forecast for net expenses as at 31 January 2016 is ($12,795,017); and

3. the unrestricted funds position (closing budget position) of the Shire as at 31 January 2016 is a surplus of $28,245,485.

CARRIED 12/0

For: Cr Lavell, Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan, Cr Cook, Cr Fox, Cr Jeans, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Perks

Against: Nil

Next Report

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C262 MARCH 2016

Attachment 22

Report 10.10

10 pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C263 MARCH 2016

Shire of Mundaring Directorate Summary Report for the year to date 31 January 2016

Forecast Favourable = F Current year Change End of year YTD Actual YTD Budget YTD Variance $ YTD Variance % Unfavourable = U Budget (Variance) Forecast

Strategic & Community Services Revenue $4,213,211 $4,160,147 $53,064 1.3% F $6,137,537 $74,194 $6,211,731 Expenditure ($8,151,465) ($8,827,561) $676,096 -7.7% F ($14,089,010) $17,176 ($14,071,834) Total ($3,938,254) ($4,667,414) $729,160 -15.6% F ($7,951,473) $91,370 ($7,860,103)

Office of Chief Executive & Corporate Services Revenue $32,414,421 $46,527,369 ($14,112,948) -30.3% U $48,447,030 ($1,534,162) $46,912,868 Expenditure ($4,174,727) ($21,272,774) $17,098,047 -80.4% F ($33,837,114) $941,010 ($32,896,104) Total $28,239,694 $25,254,595 $2,985,099 11.8% F $14,609,916 ($593,152) $14,016,764

Infrastructure Services Revenue $10,179,514 $14,736,544 ($4,557,030) -30.9% U $28,398,042 $17,086 $28,415,128 Expenditure ($16,211,714) ($23,157,489) $6,945,775 -30.0% F ($41,156,156) ($1,722,493) ($42,878,649) Total ($6,032,200) ($8,420,945) $2,388,745 -28.4% F ($12,758,114) ($1,705,407) ($14,463,521)

Statutory Services Revenue $833,092 $836,688 ($3,596) -0.4% U $1,274,859 ($177,822) $1,097,037 Expenditure ($3,003,557) ($3,602,072) $598,515 -16.62% F ($5,649,730) $64,536 ($5,585,194) Total ($2,170,464) ($2,765,384) $594,919 -21.5% F ($4,374,871) ($113,286) ($4,488,157)

Total Shire of Mundaring Revenue $47,640,238 $66,260,748 ($18,620,510) -28.1% U $84,257,468 ($1,620,704) $82,636,764 Expenditure ($31,541,463) ($56,859,896) $25,318,433 -44.5% F ($94,732,010) ($699,771) ($95,431,781) Net Revenue/(Expenditure) $16,098,776 $9,400,852 $6,697,924 71.2% F ($10,474,542) ($2,320,475) ($12,795,017) Shire of Mundaring Strategic and Community Services Period ending 31 January 2016 Current YTD Y T D Year Budget Responsible Officer YTD Actuals Budgets Variance Budget Adjustment Forecast Expenditure AFM Branch Librarian (393,168) (457,264) 64,096 (743,859) 9,476 (734,383) Bilgoman Aquatic Centre Manager (654,164) (667,141) 12,977 (1,072,643) 30,356 (1,042,287) Brown Park Manager (262,154) (263,475) 1,321 (458,351) (44,531) (502,882) Communities For Children (67,899) (69,419) 1,520 (119,000) 0 (119,000) Community Facilities Coordinator (580,108) (625,368) 45,260 (1,073,517) 0 (1,073,517) Community Playgroups (87,659) (103,201) 15,542 (176,911) 0 (176,911) Coordinator Lake Leschenaultia (485,980) (469,014) (16,966) (757,255) (8,398) (765,653) Director Strategic & Community Services (804,770) (857,709) 52,939 (1,449,476) 75,399 (1,374,077) Eastern Region Family Day Care Scheme (1,096,651) (780,234) (316,417) (1,316,960) 0 (1,316,960) Inclusion Support Agency (189,124) (214,137) 25,013 (347,380) 0 (347,380) INDIGENOUS ADVANCEMENT STRATEGY - CSS (193,265) (300,000) 106,735 (300,000) 0 (300,000) KSP Branch Librarian (396,005) (418,239) 22,234 (677,753) 8,727 (669,026) Manager Libraries & Community Engagement (804,556) (1,029,453) 224,897 (1,521,709) 80,442 (1,441,267) Manager Recreation and Leisure Services (495,074) (583,050) 87,976 (870,193) (41,347) (911,540) Maternal & Infant Health (21,777) (22,995) 1,218 (39,425) 0 (39,425) Midvale Early Childhood & Parenting Centre (898,002) (1,043,653) 145,651 (1,654,129) 0 (1,654,129) Midvale Playgroup & Toy Library (4,155) (5,806) 1,651 (9,310) 0 (9,310) Mt Helena Aquatic & Recreation Centre Manager (178,872) (177,481) (1,391) (291,847) (60,000) (351,847) Swan Child and Parent Centre - Middle Swan (87,918) (217,557) 129,639 (355,276) 0 (355,276) Swan Children and Family Centre - Clayton View (402,745) (488,501) 85,756 (795,555) 0 (795,555) Toy Library Coordinator (47,423) (33,864) (13,559) (58,461) (32,948) (91,409) Expenditure Total (8,151,465) (8,827,561) 676,096 (14,089,010) 17,176 (14,071,834)

Income AFM Branch Librarian 9,126 14,385 (5,259) 24,666 0 24,666 Bilgoman Aquatic Centre Manager 235,749 208,844 26,905 363,220 0 363,220 Brown Park Manager 54,920 37,931 16,989 88,200 9,000 97,200 Communities For Children 55,455 120,000 (64,545) 120,000 0 120,000 Community Facilities Coordinator 72,995 84,119 (11,124) 144,200 (12,935) 131,265 Coordinator Lake Leschenaultia 254,293 262,696 (8,403) 360,000 15,000 375,000 Director Strategic & Community Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eastern Region Family Day Care Scheme 1,160,301 774,081 386,220 1,327,000 0 1,327,000 Inclusion Support Agency 410,223 365,940 44,283 365,940 0 365,940 INDIGENOUS ADVANCEMENT STRATEGY - CSS 0 300,000 (300,000) 300,000 0 300,000 KSP Branch Librarian 5,201 8,365 (3,164) 14,343 0 14,343 Manager Libraries & Community Engagement 88,019 115,395 (27,376) 211,570 17,768 229,338 Manager Recreation and Leisure Services 94,607 80,800 13,807 95,800 15,361 111,161 Midvale Early Childhood & Parenting Centre 857,697 942,531 (84,834) 1,653,200 0 1,653,200 Midvale Playgroup & Toy Library 0 5,243 (5,243) 9,000 0 9,000 Mt Helena Aquatic & Recreation Centre Manager 46,737 24,716 22,021 63,090 30,000 93,090 Swan Child and Parent Centre - Middle Swan 247,190 88,669 158,521 818,000 0 818,000 Swan Children and Family Centre - Clayton View 619,298 710,500 (91,202) 152,000 0 152,000 Toy Library Coordinator 1,401 15,932 (14,531) 27,308 0 27,308 Income Total 4,213,211 4,160,147 53,064 6,137,537 74,194 6,211,731

Net Revenue/(Expenditure) (3,938,254) (4,667,414) 729,160 (7,951,473) 91,370 (7,860,103) Shire of Mundaring Office of Chief Executive and Corporate Services Period ending 31 January 2016

Current Year Budget Responsible Officer YTD Actuals YTD Budgets Y T D Variance Budget Adjustment Forecast Expenditure Allocations Office Vehicles (188,618) (259,203) 70,585 (444,369) 0 (444,369) Allocations Ranger Vehicles (42,842) (57,029) 14,188 (97,760) 0 (97,760) Chief Executive Officer (273,115) (342,891) 69,776 (553,764) (4,702) (558,466) Director Corporate Services (299,297) (16,710,292) 16,410,995 (25,678,701) 845,644 (24,833,057) Governance and Risk (23,268) (21,349) (1,919) (36,555) (51,984) (88,539) Human Resource Manager (295,996) (375,554) 79,558 (622,400) 31,850 (590,550) Manager Finance and Governance (2,106,695) (2,313,657) 206,962 (4,407,917) 304,202 (4,103,715) Manager Information Systems (944,897) (1,192,799) 247,902 (1,995,648) (184,000) (2,179,648) Expenditure Total (4,174,727) (21,272,774) 17,098,047 (33,837,114) 941,010 (32,896,104)

Income Allocations Office Vehicles 231,459 316,239 (84,780) 542,129 0 542,129 Director Corporate Services 7,420,537 18,863,886 (11,443,349) 20,361,571 (2,047,618) 18,313,953 Governance and Risk 63,484 14,662 48,822 18,000 53,484 71,484 Manager Finance and Governance 24,776,667 26,039,703 (1,263,036) 26,250,666 486,661 26,737,327 Manager Information Systems 0 0 0 8,300 0 8,300 Profit and Loss on sale of Assets (77,727) 1,292,879 (1,370,606) 1,266,364 (26,689) 1,239,675 Income Total 32,414,421 46,527,369 (14,112,948) 48,447,030 (1,534,162) 46,912,868

Net Revenue/(Expenditure) 28,239,694 25,254,595 2,985,099 14,609,916 (593,152) 14,016,764 Shire of Mundaring Infrastructure Services Period ending 31 January 2016

Current YTD Year Budget Responsible Officer YTD Actuals YTD Budgets Variance Budget Adjustment Forecast Expenditure Construction Supervisor (988,237) (1,207,885) 219,648 (2,070,662) (1,243,615) (3,314,277) Coordinator Civil Works (567,895) (1,573,748) 1,005,853 (2,528,667) (165,055) (2,693,722) Coordinator Parks Services (2,738,257) (2,588,527) (149,730) (4,625,401) (1,260,262) (5,885,663) Coordinator Plant and Depot Services (1,126,694) (1,694,864) 568,170 (2,335,995) (7,144) (2,343,139) Director Infrastructure Services (3,086,956) (2,844,491) (242,465) (5,549,841) 0 (5,549,841) Engineering Technical Officer - Civil (412,775) (603,412) 190,637 (932,000) 171,500 (760,500) Maintenance Supervisor (945,149) (1,294,442) 349,293 (2,077,460) 64,000 (2,013,460) Manager Building Assets (1,961,881) (5,506,544) 3,544,663 (10,582,331) (210,555) (10,792,886) Manager Design Service 286,605 (72,928) 359,533 (1,097,951) 1,045,000 (52,951) Manager Operations Service (609,464) (717,717) 108,253 (1,242,051) 0 (1,242,051) Waste & Recycling Coordinator (3,650,747) (4,443,400) 792,653 (7,199,602) (44,783) (7,244,385) Works Supervisor (410,262) (609,531) 199,269 (914,195) (71,579) (985,774) Expenditure Total (16,211,714) (23,157,489) 6,945,775 (41,156,156) (1,722,493) (42,878,649)

Income Coordinator Civil Works 0 0 0 0 93,349 93,349 Coordinator Parks Services 93,699 8,000 85,699 255,333 80,000 335,333 Coordinator Plant and Depot Services 588,052 1,200,869 (612,817) 2,112,810 5,109 2,117,919 Director Infrastructure Services 1,237,700 4,468,810 (3,231,110) 15,987,136 (661,372) 15,325,764 Engineering Technical Officer - Civil 12,788 7,581 5,207 45,000 0 45,000 Maintenance Supervisor 4,879 581 4,298 1,000 0 1,000 Manager Building Assets 1,000,000 1,462,500 (462,500) 1,900,000 500,000 2,400,000 Manager Design Service 0 265,000 (265,000) 530,000 0 530,000 Manager Operations Service (3,215) 57,743 (60,958) 249,000 0 249,000 Waste & Recycling Coordinator 7,245,611 7,265,460 (19,849) 7,317,763 0 7,317,763 Income Total 10,179,514 14,736,544 (4,557,030) 28,398,042 17,086 28,415,128

Net Revenue/(Expenditure) (6,032,200) (8,420,945) 2,388,745 (12,758,114) (1,705,407) (14,463,521) Shire of Mundaring Statutory Services Period ending 31 January 2016

Current YTD YTD YTD Year Budget Responsible Officer Actuals Budgets Variance Budget Adjustment Forecast Expenditure Bushcare Coordinator (49,812) (67,151) 17,339 (205,100) 0 (205,100) Coordinator Environment and Sustainability (347,859) (380,142) 32,284 (647,182) (5,000) (652,182) Director Statutory Services (69,693) (81,207) 11,514 (131,237) 0 (131,237) Manager Building Services (341,179) (367,033) 25,854 (588,958) 1,287 (587,671) Manager Health & Community Safety Service (CSS) (1,360,162) (1,717,735) 357,573 (2,466,761) 68,249 (2,398,512) Manager Health & Community Safety Services (HS) (299,582) (348,500) 48,918 (570,012) 0 (570,012) Manager Planning (535,270) (640,304) 105,034 (1,040,480) 0 (1,040,480) Expenditure Total (3,003,557) (3,602,072) 598,515 (5,649,730) 64,536 (5,585,194)

Income Bushcare Coordinator 0 0 0 0 (20,000) (20,000) Coordinator Environment and Sustainability 1,300 0 1,300 1,934 (800) 1,134 Manager Building Services 144,679 142,044 2,635 243,500 (1,001) 242,499 Manager Health & Community Safety Service (CSS) 405,528 482,369 (76,841) 665,527 (136,000) 529,527 Manager Health & Community Safety Services (HS) 43,580 38,024 5,556 65,191 0 65,191 Manager Planning 238,006 174,251 63,755 298,707 (20,021) 278,686 Income Total 833,092 836,688 (3,596) 1,274,859 (177,822) 1,097,037

Net Revenue/(Expenditure) (2,170,464) (2,765,384) 594,920 (4,374,871) (113,286) (4,488,157) Explanation of Significant Variances in Income by Directorate

Strategic and Community Services - YTD Actual is $53,064 (1.3%) greater than YTD Budget 1. Eastern Region Family Day Care Scheme - YTD Child Care Subsidies Income greater than YTD Budget - $384,128 Offset by corresponding increase in Child Care Subsidies Expenses. 2. Inclusion Support Agency - Timing Differences whereby YTD Actual Income is greater than YTD Budgets - $44,2833 3. Communities for Children Grant Funding - Timing difference whereby YTD Budget is $120,000 and YTD Actual is $55,455. 4. Indigenous Advancement Strategy - Timing difference whereby $150,000 in grant funds was received in 14/15. $150,000 still to be received. 5. Children Services Clayton View facility - YTD Budget for fees & charges income is $145,831 and YTD Actual is $369,271 6. Children Services Clayton View facility - YTD Budget for Grant Income is $550,000 and YTD Actual is $250,000 7. Midvale Child Care facility - Timing Difference. Lotterywest grant (YTD Budget $58,331) not received as yet. 8. Children Services Middle Swan - Unbudgeted grant income of $219,423 received.

Office of Chief Executive and Corporate Services - YTD Actual is $14,112,948 (30.3%) less than YTD Budget 1. Impact of $742,322 in rates paid in advance as of 30 June 2014. Rates recognised as revenue in 14/15 rather than 15/16. Will be offset by rates paid in advance at the end of this financial year. 2. Impact of $912,502 advance payment of 2015/16 FAGs. Forecast adjusted accordingly as part of mid year budget review. 3. Timing of interest received on Investment funds - $130,884 4. No profit realised on sale of land as sale has not been finalised as yet. YTD Budget $1.3 million 5. $748,755 in budgeted transfers from reserves have not occurred as funds are not required as yet. Timing Difference. 6. Timing difference relating to loan funding as per mid-year budget review. 7. Timing difference due to sale of Balfour Road $1 million

Infrastructure Services - YTD Actual is $4,557,030 (30.9%) less than YTD Budget 1. YTD Timing Difference of transfer from Plant Reserve to fund plant replacement - $189,544 2. YTD Timing Difference of $3.265 million for transfers from Capital Investment Reserve. 3. YTD Timing Difference of $458,242 for certain road grants that have been received earlier than anticipated. 4. YTD Timing Difference of $265,000 for grant funds not year received for Sculpture Park Project. 5. YTD Timing Difference of $312,500 of grant funds for building projects not received as yet.

Statutory Services - YTD Actual is $3,956 (0.4%) less than YTD Budget 1. Within variance threshold of $50,000 or 10%

Explanation of Significant Variances in Expenses by Directorate

Strategic and Community Services - YTD Actual is $676,096 (7.7%) less than YTD Budget 1. Eastern Region Family Day Care Scheme - YTD Child Care Subsidies expenses Greater than YTD Budget - $332,393 Offset by corresponding increase in Child Care Subsidies Income. 2. Indigenous Advancement Strategy Expenses - Timing difference whereby YTD Budget is $300,000 and YTD Actual is $193,265 3. Children Services Clayton View facility - Timing difference whereby YTD Budget is $488,501 and YTD Actual is $402,745 4. Children Services Middle Swan facility - Timing difference whereby YTD Budget is $217,557 and YTD Actual is $87,918 5. Savings of $64,000 identified in Community Engagement Salaries as the budget overstated the cost of casual employees. Forecast adjusted in mid-year budget review. 6. Lake Leschenaultia Master Plan - Timing difference YTD budget $75,000 and YTD actual $14,500 7. Midvale Childcare Centre - Timing difference of YTD actuals being $145,651 less than YTD Budget.

Office of Chief Executive and Corporate Services - YTD Actual is $17,098,047 (80.4%) less than YTD Budget 1. Timing difference for transfer to Capital Income Reserve as land sales have not occurred ($7,530,000). 2. Timing difference for transfer to Civic Facilities Reserve as income land sale and budgeted loan funds have not been received. Impact on YTD variances is $8.275 million. Timing of Loan delayed as per mid-year budget review 3. Timing difference for transfers to other Reserves - $487,990

Infrastructure Services - YTD Actual is $6,945,775 (30%) less than YTD Budget 1. Civil Works Projects due to timing differences - YTD Budget of $1,573,748 greater than YTD Actuals of $567,895 2. Impact of $543,084 advance payment of 2015/16 Local Road Grant. Forecast adjusted accordingly as part of mid year budget review. 3. Major Building Projects due to timing differences - YTD Budget of $4,075,000 greater than YTD Actual of $996,116 4. Purchase of major plant and equipment due to timing differences - YTD Budget of $676,597 greater than YTD Actual of $193,070 5. Timing difference due to pre-allocation of $343,900 in engineering overheads recovery

Statutory Services - YTD Actual is $598,515 (16.62%) less than YTD Budget 1. SES and VBFB vehicle acquisitions have not occurred as yet resulting in a $420,000 variance due to a timing difference - YTD Budget greater than YTD Actuals 2. Timing difference in Planning Consultant costs - YTD Budget $46,669 compared to YTD Actual $12,012

Shire of Mundaring Statement of Financial Activity for period ending 31 January 2016 2015/16 2015/16 Actuals BUDGET $ $ Operating Revenues General Purpose Funding 1,201,971 3,987,691 Governance 112,082 91,700 Law, Order & Public Safety 307,547 455,200 Health 43,580 55,700 Education & Welfare 3,468,532 4,964,318 Community Amenities 7,496,154 7,626,183 Recreation and Culture 760,685 1,130,210 Transport 18,170 134,364 Economic Services 144,394 243,500 Other Property and Services 970,372 3,810,967 Total (Excluding Rates) 14,523,486 22,499,833

Operating Expenses General Purpose Funding (405,692) (609,075) Governance (2,972,120) (5,766,563) Law, Order & Public Safety (1,460,514) (2,288,974) Health (405,817) (816,121) Education & Welfare (4,205,655) (7,301,420) Community Amenities (4,805,058) (9,295,789) Recreation and Culture (5,908,776) (10,332,068) Transport (5,637,823) (10,120,141) Economic Services (451,771) (785,364) Other Property and Services (1,144,886) (3,252,120) Total (27,398,113) (50,567,635)

Adjustments for Cash Budget Requirements: Depreciation on Assets 4,811,544 8,230,604 (Profit)/Loss on Disposal of Assets 77,727 (1,266,364) Deferred Rates Adjustment 32,071 - Net Operating Result (Excluding Rates) (7,953,285) (21,103,562)

Capital Revenues Proceeds from Disposal of Assets 6,692,896 7,827,509 Grants and Contributions 2,023,464 5,387,174 Proceeds from New Debentures - 9,600,000 Transfers from Reserves - 13,902,166 Total 8,716,360 36,716,849

Capital Expenses Purchase Property, Plant & Equipment (1,417,090) (9,726,397) Purchase Infrastructure (2,393,087) (7,611,854) Repayment of Debentures (122,663) (341,075) Transfers to Reserves (210,510) (26,211,000) Total (4,143,350) (43,890,326) Net Capital 4,573,010 (7,173,477)

Total Net Operating and Capital (3,380,275) (28,277,039)

Rate Revenue 24,400,393 25,009,786 Opening Surplus/(Deficit) June 1 B/Fwd. 7,225,367 5,041,094

Closing Surplus/(Deficit) 28,245,485 1,773,841

NET CURRENT ASSETS AND UNRESTRICTED FUNDS

Actual 31 January 2015 Actual 31 January 2016

CURRENT ASSETS

Rates & Sanitation Debtors 6,148,062 6,397,670 Debtors 344,177 7,899,410 TOTAL RECEIVABLES - CURRENT 6,492,239 14,297,080 STOCK ON HAND 207,788 206,414 CASH ASSETS Municipal 16,086,010 18,627,670 Restricted Cash 10,797,512 12,624,937 Total Bank Accounts 26,883,522 31,252,607 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 33,583,550 45,756,102 CURRENT LIABILITIES Creditors (1,744,840) (1,786,570) Borrowings - Current Portion (199,080) (213,366) Provisions (2,645,776) (2,982,916) (4,589,696) (4,982,851) NET CURRENT ASSETS 28,993,854 40,773,251

Less Reserve Funds (10,797,512) (12,624,937) Less Land Held for Resale (116,195) (116,195) Add Current Loan Liability 199,080 213,366 UNRESTRICTED FUNDS 18,279,227 28,245,485

SHIRE OF MUNDARING INVESTMENT SUMMARY as at 31 January 2016

MUNICIPAL FUNDS

Amount Interest Period of Investment Date Maturity Invested Rate Investment Date

Unrestricted Use Funds

71 Westpac Maxi (on Call) $4,467,448 1.30% N/A N/A N/A 119 Westpac $3,110,983 2.90% 92 days 12-Nov-15 12-Feb-16 120 NAB $2,059,261 2.90% 181 days 18-Aug-15 15-Feb-16 121 Westpac $2,019,386 3.08% 91 days 17-Dec-15 17-Mar-16 122 Westpac $2,000,000 2.95% 366 days 17-Aug-15 17-Aug-16 123 AMP Bank $2,000,000 2.90% 181 days 19-Aug-15 16-Feb-16 124 NAB $2,024,312 3.05% 90 days 19-Jan-16 18-Apr-16

Total $17,681,391

RESERVE FUNDS

73 Westpac Maxi (on Call) 1,685,569 1.30% N/A N/A N/A

60A Bendigo 1,351,118 3.00% 275 days 22-Dec-15 22-Sep-16 89 BankWest 1,309,285 3.00% 120 days 18-Jan-16 17-May-16 97 NAB 4,227,527 2.95% 183 days 7-Dec-15 7-Jun-16 107 ANZ 2,297,697 2.85% 182 days 28-Jan-16 28-Jul-16 108 ANZ 1,713,065 2.85% 91 days 16-Jan-16 16-Apr-16

Total 12,584,261

TOTAL MUNI / RESERVE INVESTMENT $30,265,652

TRUST FUNDS

Road Construction/POS Funds 72 Westpac Maxi (on Call) $1,622,511 1.30% N/A N/A N/A 58 BankWest $1,379,042 2.95% 120 days 6-Jan-16 5-May-16 98 BankWest $1,183,288 2.90% 365 days 2-Jul-15 1-Jul-16 99 BankWest $1,197,053 2.95% 150 days 30-Nov-15 28-Apr-16

TOTAL TRUST INVESTMENT $5,381,893

10.11 Payment between Meetings – January 2016

File Code FI.RPA Location/Address N/A Applicant N/A Author Mia Miller, Finance Officer (Accounts Payable) Senior Employee Paul O’Connor, Director Corporate Services Disclosure of Any Interest Nil

SUMMARY

A list of accounts paid from the Municipal Fund or Trust Fund under the Chief Executive Officer’s delegated authority for the month of January 2016 is presented to Council to note.

BACKGROUND

Council has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) the exercise of its power to make payments from the Shire’s Municipal and Trust Funds. In accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, a list of accounts paid is to be presented to Council and be recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which the list was presented.

STATUTORY / LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 states –

(1) If the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from the municipal fund or the trust fund, a list of accounts paid by the CEO is to be prepared each month showing for each account paid since the last such list was prepared –

(a) the payee’s name; (b) the amount of the payment; (c) the date of the payment; and (d) sufficient information to identify the transaction

(3) A list prepared under sub regulation (1) or (2) is to be –

(a) presented to council at the next ordinary meeting of the council after the list is prepared; and (b) recorded in the minutes of that meeting

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C274 MARCH 2016

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

FI-01 Corporate Purchasing Card

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

All payments have been made in accordance with the approved budget and provides for the effective and timely payment of the Shire’s contractors and other creditors.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Nil

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

Expenditure has been incurred in accordance with budget parameters, which have been structured on financial viability and sustainability principles.

RISK IMPLICATIONS

EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

Nil

COMMENT

Nil

VOTING REQUIREMENT

Simple Majority

COUNCIL DECISION C15.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Clark Seconded by: Cr Bertola

That Council notes the payments made between 1 and 31 January 2016 included as ATTACHMENT 23 and ATTACHMENT 24.

CARRIED 12/0

For: Cr Lavell, Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan, Cr Cook, Cr Fox, Cr Jeans, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Perks

Against: Nil

Next Report

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C275 MARCH 2016

Attachment 23

Report 10.11

2 Pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C276 MARCH 2016

PAYMENTS BETWEEN MEETINGS

In compliance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (as amended) a list of accounts paid since the last such list was prepared is to be presented to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council and included in the minutes of that meeting.

CERTIFICATION

The attached schedule of accounts paid is for the period 1 – 31 January 2016 totalling $3,797,133.73 be received by Council covers:

 Municipal Cheques 110568 - 110586;  Electronic Funds Transfer (Payroll, Purchase Cards, Fleetcare payments etc); and  Trust Fund Vouchers 303053 – 303063

has been checked and is fully supported by vouchers and invoices which are submitted herewith and which have been duly certified as to the receipt of goods and the rendition of services as to prices, computations, costings, and amounts due for payment.

Cheques have been signed in accordance with Council resolution R23120 and Instrument of Delegation - Reference: CE - 1 of the Delegations of Authority Register dated 22 July 1997.

Under Section 5.46 (3) of the Local Government Act and Regulation 19 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations, this record of the Exercise of Delegated Authority is registered.

DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C277 MARCH 2016

Schedule of Accounts:

Amounts Total $ $

MUNICIPAL ACCOUNT

MUNICIPAL CHEQUE PAYMENTS (Schedule 1 - Page 1) 83,865.33 EFT PAYMENTS (Schedule 2 - Page 14) 2,675,820.66 EFT PAYROLL PAYMENTS (Schedule 2 - Page 15) 937,758.68 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK (NAB PURCHASE CARD) 46,427.42 (Schedule 2 – Total - Page 15); and (Schedule 3 – Details - Pages 1-4) FLEETCARE PAYMENTS (Schedule 2 - Page 15) 5,896.72 COMMONWEALTH BANK BPOINT FEES 3,061.53 (Schedule 2 - Page 15) WESTPAC BANK FEES (Schedule 2 - Page 15) 4,484.25 WESTPAC BANK FEES TRUST (Schedule 2 - Page 15) 44.71 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES (Schedule 2 - Page 15) 11,818.08 KONICA MINOLTA – EQUIPMENT LEASE (Schedule 2 - 2,849.07 Page 15) PUMA FUEL (Schedule 2 – Page 15) 393.59

TOTAL MUNICIPAL ACCOUNT $3,772,420.04

TRUST ACCOUNT (Schedule 3 – Page 15) $24,713.69

RESERVE ACCOUNT Nil

TOTAL ALL SCHEDULES $3,797,133.73

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C278 MARCH 2016

Attachment 24

Report 10.11

19 Pages

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C279 MARCH 2016

11.0 ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil

12.0 URGENT BUSINESS (LATE REPORTS)

Nil

13.0 CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

Meeting Closed to Public

The Local Government Act 1995, Part 5, Section 5.23 states in part: (2) If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1)(b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following — (a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; and (b) the personal affairs of any person; and (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; and (e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal — (i) a trade secret; or (ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or (iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of a person, where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government; and (f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to — (i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law; or (ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or (iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for protecting public safety; and (g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23(1a) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and (h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C299 MARCH 2016

COUNCIL DECISION C16.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Bertola Seconded by: Cr Clark

That Council closes the meeting to members of the public in order to consider confidential agenda Item 13.1 [Reports of the CEO Performance Review Committee meeting], pursuant to the Local Government Act 1995, Section 5.23(2)(a).

CARRIED 12/0

For: Cr Lavell, Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan, Cr Cook, Cr Fox, Cr Jeans, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Perks

Against: Nil

8.44pm Director Statutory Services, Director Strategic & Community Services, Manager Planning Services, Manager Design Services and Communications Co-ordinator left the Council Chamber and did not return

13.1 Reports of the CEO Performance Review Committee

Please note: The full reports of the CEO Performance Review Committee to be considered by Council are contained within the unconfirmed minutes of the CEO Performance Review Committee meeting held on 16 February 2016 (see CEOPRC Minutes). The ‘Attachments’ referred to in the following Committee recommendations refer to the minutes of the Committee meeting and not the Council meeting.

CEOPRC1.02.16 – Key Focus Areas – Quarterly Update

COUNCIL DECISION C17.03.16 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CEOPRC1.02.2016

Moved by: Cr Bertola Seconded by: Cr Fisher

That Council notes the CEO’s Key Focus Area December 2015 quarter status report (ATTACHMENT 1).

CARRIED 12/0

For: Cr Lavell, Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan, Cr Cook, Cr Fox, Cr Jeans, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Perks

Against: Nil

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C300 MARCH 2016

Meeting Opened to Public

COUNCIL DECISION C18.03.16 RECOMMENDATION

Moved by: Cr Bertola Seconded by: Cr Perks

That the meeting again be opened to the public.

CARRIED 12/0

For: Cr Lavell, Cr Bertola, Cr Martin, Cr Clark, Cr Fisher, Cr Daw, Cr Brennan, Cr Cook, Cr Fox, Cr Jeans, Cr Cuccaro, Cr Perks

Against: Nil

14.0 CLOSING PROCEDURES

14.1 Date, Time and Place of the Next Meeting

The next Ordinary Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 at 6.30pm in the Council Chamber.

14.2 Closure of the Meeting

The Presiding Person declared the meeting closed at 9.00pm.

8.03.2016 COUNCIL MEETING UNCONFIRMED MINUTES C301 MARCH 2016