TOWN OF CLAREMONT

NOTICE OF MEETING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an ORDINARY Meeting of the Council will be held, on TUESDAY 18 FEBRUARY, 2014, commencing at 7:00 PM at the , Claremont Community Hub, 327 , Claremont.

Stephen Goode CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Date:

DISCLAIMER

Would all members of the public please note that they are cautioned against taking any action as a result of a Council decision tonight until such time as they have seen a copy of the Minutes or have been advised, in writing, by the Council’s Administration with regard to any particular decision.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS ...... 1

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) ...... 1

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS ...... 1

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE . 1

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ...... 1

6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME ...... 1

7 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ...... 2

8 PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS ...... 2

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS ...... 2

10 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC ...... 2

11 BUSINESS NOT DEALT WITH FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING ...... 3

11.1.1 CLIFF WAY - PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATH & TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ...... 3

12 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ...... 11

12.1.1 2013 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN ...... 11

13 REPORTS OF THE CEO ...... 13

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ...... 13

13.1.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORY BOARD - METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT DISTRICT INQUIRIES ...... 13

13.1.2 WALGA CENTRAL METROPOLITAN ZONE MOTION : REQUEST ...... 22

13.2 URBAN PLANNING AND STATUTORY SERVICES ...... 27

13.2.1 FINAL ADOPTION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 125 – CHANGES TO APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS AND DELEGATIONS ...... 27

Page (i) ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.2.2 FINAL ADOPTION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 130 – NORTH EAST PRECINCT ...... 37

13.2.3 LOT 4 (16) OTWAY STREET, SWANBOURNE – PROPOSED CARPORT ADDITION TO A HERITAGE DWELLING ...... 52

13.2.4 LOTS 616 AND 718 (19) QUEENSLEA DRIVE, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED UPGRADES TO CHAPEL FOR CHRIST CHURCH GRAMMAR SCHOOL ...... 58

13.2.5 LOT 59 (249) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOWROOM TO OFFICE ...... 63

13.2.6 LOT 1 (394) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED SIGNAGE FOR ‘MATCH’ ...... 68

13.3 PEOPLE AND PLACES ...... 72

13.3.1 VIBRANT CLAREMONT – COMMUNITY FUNDING POLICY AMENDMENT ...... 72

13.4 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE ...... 76

13.4.1 LIST OF PAYMENTS 1-31 JANUARY 2014 ...... 76

13.4.2 2013-14 BUDGET - MID YEAR REVIEW ...... 78

13.5 INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 83

13.5.1 WALTER STREET - FOOTPATH ...... 83

13.5.2 SHADE OVER PUBLIC PLAYGROUNDS ...... 86

14 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING PERSON ...... 92

15 ELECTED MEMBERS’ MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ...... 92

15.1.1 SHENTON ROAD PARKING RESTRICTIONS – CR BROWNE ...... 93

16 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION OF MEETING ...... 97

17 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC ...... 97

18 FUTURE MEETINGS OF COUNCIL ...... 97

19 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING ...... 97

Page (ii) ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

TOWN OF CLAREMONT

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

18 FEBRUARY, 2014

AGENDA

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED)

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

PLEASE NOTE: PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Questions:

• Questions are to be put to the Mayor. • Questions must be in writing and placed on the table near the Chamber doors once presented. Questions sheets are available to assist you. Please speak to the Personal Assistant – Services if you require a photocopy. • A time limit of 3 minutes is allocated to each person. • Responding to Questions:

Once a question is asked the Mayor may:

• Respond to the question asked; • Refer the question to an officer for response; • Take the question on notice, in which case a written response will be included in the agenda papers in the next Council Meeting;

6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME

PLEASE NOTE: COMMUNITY SUBMISSIONS

Community Submissions:

• Submissions are to be put to the Mayor; • Notice to speak must be provided in writing to the Chief Executive Officer by noon on the day of the meeting; • The submission must be put prior to a decision being made on the matter by Council. • A time limit of 5 minutes is allocated to each person.

Page 1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

7 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

8 PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 4 February 2014 be confirmed.

10 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

Page 2 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

11 BUSINESS NOT DEALT WITH FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING

11.1.1 CLIFF WAY - PEDESTRIAN FOOTPATH & TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

File Ref: RDS/00190 Attachments: Cliff Way Path South Cliff Way Path North Cliff Way Traffic Management Responsible Officer: Saba Kirupananther Executive Manager Infrastructure Author: Matthew MacPherson Manager Engineering Services Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014

Purpose For council to consider; 1. Installation of a footpath in Cliff Way and 2. Possible traffic management treatments to discourage and slow traffic in Cliff Way.

Background At the ordinary council meeting on 10 December 2013, Councillors made two motions which will be addressed in this report and can be found verbatim under ‘Past Resolutions’.

The subject of these two motions is to consider if a footpath is required on Cliff Way and to consider local area traffic management treatments, namely a chicane operating under a ‘one lane- two way’ arrangement where the vehicles approaching from the north [Brae Road] must give way to those approaching from the south.

In the time since the meeting the Town’s officers have commissioned a survey to ascertain the full impact of both items, as well as looked at alternatives which may be considered to achieve the same effect with differing levels of impact.

It is now before the council to consider these alternatives and determine the desired outcome from these initial motions.

Discussion Footpath on Cliff Way

Cliff Way at present has no dedicated footpath for the whole length. The only portion of what can be considered ‘path’ is a small section of paved verge on the west of Cliff Way near Richardson Ave. As such it is identified in the asset management plan [AMP] as a condition 3, a mid range condition whereby the other factors determine its priority.

As there is no footpath in Cliff Way, under the asset management system, it is not technically an upgrade or a replacement. Therefore the demand, as evident from the Page 3 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

residents, proximity to school and safety issues posed by vehicles to young children, and the road environment would elevate it’s score in the priority listing for ‘new capital works’ to be considered alongside works required under the asset management program.

On this basis, the proposed works in the priority list for 2014-15 is as follows: • Stirling Highway – north side - from Brown St to Walter St, [AMP] • Stirling Highway – north side - from Vaucluse St to Mary St [AMP], • Cliff Way – All [Demand], • Prospect St - South Side – Stirling Hwy to Renown St, [AMP] • Chester Road – Victoria Ave to Cul-de-sac, [AMP] • Richardson Avenue – West [Demand]. This list excludes: • Shenton Road footpaths, due to the North East Precinct future re-alignment works, and defers: • Stirling Highway – South Side between Bay View Terrace to Freshwater Parade due to possible damage from nearby Fresh Water Pde development and; • Leura Avenue – East, due to pending works at the Stirling Highway end.

The Town’s policy states the following; “Town of Claremont recognises the importance of having safe and accessible public footpaths to encourage other forms of transportation such as walking and cycling”. As such a footpath in Cliff Way can be justified as a priority. This leaves then the decision of the path to be situated on the north or south and the desired width. In both scenarios the footpath on Brae Road connected to Methodist Ladies College is assumed to be located on the south side of Brae Road.

There are pros and cons to each of these which have been determined for a desirable 2m [to accommodate young cyclists] wide path: North Side Positives + Negatives - Less impact on landscaping and loss of Requires two crossing points for people immature trees for wider path originating south of Cliff Way, One for those from the north. Less crossovers [5] are passed, There is one difficult level issue reducing conflict between crossovers on the south east straight of Cliff Way Only 1 street light needs to be relocated More service pits are impacted [approx 7] Relatively consistent 2m width There are 2 squeeze points; one, near throughout Richardson, where width drops to 1.2m and two, after crossing to the east side toward Brae Road -1.8m width Is located on the inside of the bends

Page 4 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

reducing likelihood of errant vehicles entering footpath One crossing point – on the west may be aligned with the existing speed bump Slightly less footpath material required than the south side option [435m²]

South Side Positives + Negatives - No crossing points for those from the Significant loss of trees and vegetation south, only one for those from the north, for path. This may include tress which which is existing now. block sight lines from second storeys to neighbouring yards. Less service pits are impacted [approx 2 street lights to be relocated 1] Relatively consistent 2m width One retaining wall needs to be modified throughout to maintain width and associated driveway re-levelled Has more driveway crossing points [7] are passed which may increase conflict Located on outside of bends, which may result in vehicles running over footpaths. There are two squeeze points; one, a short distance on the south bend near the retaining wall which requires modification and width of path to 1.8m and two, the east side toward Brae Road - 1.8m width Slightly more footpath material required than THE north side option [487m²]

Following investigation and based on this simple evaluation, officers preferred the northern side.

It is believed that the crossing points will be located in safe locations and that any risk at these points is less when compared with the risks associated with a footpath on the outside of a bend. It is also the officer’s determination that the cost associated with the level adjustment of one crossover and possible conflicts with numerous services will be cheaper and less complex than re-constructing a retaining wall. There will also be less impact on mature vegetation throughout.

Traffic Calming on Cliff Way:

Presently Cliff Way has three speed humps located along its length and in conjunction with its narrow width, are the only current traffic calming measures in place to control speed.

There are no physical or regulatory restrictions on access or priority of travel [which direction has to give way to the other]. It is the officer’s understanding that this motion

Page 5 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

seeks to discourage vehicle traffic from venturing east along Cliff Way during peak periods. The average weekday traffic is 909 vehicles per day in both directions and the 85th percentile speed is 27kmph.

The current situation and statistics were entered through the Town’s Traffic Management – Warrant for Intervention system in line with policy LV114, using acceptable traffic data. This data is attached in the warrant for intervention spreadsheet, and research of Main Roads WA records shows one formal accident between 31 December 2008 and 31 December 2012. This information in conjunction with the site specific factors such as topography and road users led to a score of 27, the second lowest ranking score range from the warrant criteria system.

Results in this scoring range are defined that “There may be a problem, but not so serious as to attract funding even in the longer term.”

As such any treatment could not be justified by the Town’s officers for inclusion in future budgets as a required project and any inclusion would be deemed a discretional item for council consideration.

The motion proposed to examine a chicane treatment which allows for a one lane – two way arrangement to be located on the eastern straight which connects to the Brae Road and Cliff Road intersection. This has been considered, along with one other possible treatment; an intersection – chicane ‘hybrid’ treatment.

Three further treatments were considered and investigated but were then made redundant throughout the design concept process. These were: • A ‘bottle neck’ squeeze point along the eastern straight. This was rejected when numerous site visits and anecdotal information showed that many vehicles at present travel down the centre of Cliff Way. Introducing such a treatment would further reinforce this and may also lead to head on collisions elsewhere along Cliff Way while possibly resulting in rear end accidents as two vehicles attempt to pass the bottle neck and one stops abruptly after travelling around a nearby bend on this relatively straight section. • A chicane or bottle neck treatment located on the eastern bend. This was turned down due to sight line constraints and the already tight width of the bend. • An intersection treatment at the corner of Brae Road, Cliff Road and Cliff Way which would force vehicles on Brae Road wishing to enter Cliff Way to give way to vehicles exiting Cliff Way. This is similar in principle to a one lane –two way arrangement. This was turned down due to the likely scenario that in peak periods vehicles at the intersection, regardless of turning left to Cliff Way or right to Cliff Road would be forced to wait, causing congestion back to the roundabout. This congestion may lead impatient drivers to use the oncoming lane to turn right, which may lead to head on collisions. • A sign controlled intersection which banned entry to Cliff Way for the peak periods, essentially making Cliff Way exit only during this time. This idea was rejected by Main Roads WA for the difficulty in enforcing this, the low level of driver familiarity with such controls and the risk associated with people not following the signage leading to head on collisions.

Page 6 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

This meant that a traditional chicane or a ‘hybrid’ intersection – chicane treatment were the only feasible options left which may lead to the same outcomes assumed from the deferred motion.

A composite plan of the two treatments is attached. Once again a positive and negative analyses of the treatments can assist in determining the preferred treatment.

Traditional Chicane Treatment Positives + Negatives - Traditional treatment Familiar to most Limited width on Cliff way restricts drivers holding area [give way line] capacity Cost effective Limited width on Cliff way means that treatment may need to be ‘severe’ to effectively slow cars down Limited chance of causing congestion Locations along this straight of Cliff way on Brae Road. Possible ‘stacking’ on are limited due to nearby intersections Cliff Way heading west may direct and driveways. Too far north or south people to use Cliff Road as an and people who are familiar with the alternative. treatment may be inclined to venture onto the oncoming lane to negotiate Presence of these on Cliff way near driveways may diminish access for trailers, vans and larger vehicles. Presence of give way line and cars on Cliff Way after bend may lead to rear end accidents for drivers who leave Brae Road too fast.

Intersection – Chicane Hybrid Treatment Positives + Negatives - Allows stacking of limited cars at Combination of two traditional intersection of Brae Road and Cliff Way, treatments ‘in one’ may be confusing to with those on Brae Road able to see the some drivers give way line, therefore minimising rear end accidents. Once 3 or so vehicles are stacked, still Stacking of more than 3 or so vehicles allows by-pass to Cliff Road may cause congestion on Brae Road and lead frustrated drivers to the oncoming lane. Will address traffic ‘cutting corners’ at Presence of waiting vehicle for west the intersection of Brae Road, Cliff Way bound already within the chicane may and Cliff Road. lead to rear end accidents for drivers who take the eastern bend too fast. Provides longer sight lines to chicane Will cost more than simple chicane treatment from north and south end treatment. allowing either party to better determine safety of entry into chicane portion of treatment. Could be introduced without give way Main Roads WA may object to the

Page 7 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

as a stand-alone intersection treatment proposal, due to the first negative point and chicanes relocated and removed of this table. entirely.

Following investigation and based on this simple evaluation officers have determined that the favoured treatment is that of a traditional chicane treatment.

Introducing this on a trial basis will allow drivers to experience such a treatment and the Town to monitor this without fully committing to it. It will then also leave the option to escalate and introduce a hybrid treatment at a later point should community, safety or use dictate further action is necessary and the chicanes can be moved accordingly.

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 10 December 2013 CLIFF WAY – CR GOETZE Moved Cr Goetze, seconded Cr Wood. THAT Council Confirms that a footpath is required in Cliff Way for the safety of pedestrians, in particular school children, and Requests an officer report for consideration of prioritising the Cliff Way footpath at the mid-year budget review.

Reasons • To encourage school children to walk to school and to support the nearby school's campaign to encourage students to "walk a little way". • To provide the missing link from the Richardson Ave footpath to Brae Rd so pedestrians can walk safely. • Community consultation regarding the footpath has already been completed as part of the "One Way" survey and there was 100% support for a footpath from the residents of Cliff Way. • The project is an important road safety initiative and should be approved now to allow works to be commenced as soon as possible, ideally to be completed as soon as possible in the 2014 school year. • The project is worthy of priority if funds are available at the mid-year budget review. CARRIED(362/13) (NO DISSENT) CLIFF WAY – CR TULLOCH Moved Cr Tulloch, seconded Cr Goetze. That for a trial period of six months using temporary rubber kerbing bolted to the road, Council install a chicane and slow point on Cliff Way, close to the junction with Brae Road and install a sign on Cliff Way to the north of the slow point stating – ‘Give Way”.

Page 8 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

This installation must be completed before the start of the 2014 school year. Consultation is to take place with the residents at the end of the trail period. Reasons • Improve safety for children walking to school. • Discourage two –way traffic during peak periods before and after school. • Minimise adverse affects on residents of Brae, Cliff and Corry Lynn Roads. • Low cost and temporary solution.

MOTION BE DEFERRED Moved Cr Kelly, seconded Cr Lorenz That the motion be deferred.

Reason: For Administration to provide further information to Council on the proposed options so an informed decision can be made.

For: Cr’s Haynes, Kelly, Lorenz, Browne and Wood. Against: Mayor Barker and Cr’s Mews, Tulloch, Goetze and Edwards.

Mayor Barker cast his deciding vote in favour of the motion.

CARRIED(363/13)

Financial and Staff Implications 1. Budgeted amount is $40,000.

2. Estimate of footpath works Brae Road $44,000 Cliff Way North $ 123,000 Cliff Way South $ 147,000

3. Estimate for traffic management treatment trial $15,000

Policy and Statutory Implications Local Government Act 1995 Austroads Design Guidelines Main Roads WA Design Guidelines

Publicity Inform residents of Council decision.

Strategic Community Plan Liveability

We are an accessible community, with well maintained and managed assets, and our heritage preserved for the enjoyment of the community.

Clean, usable, attractive, accessible streetscapes and public open spaces.

Page 9 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Provide a responsible and well managed urban environment, with sustainable development outcomes.

Urgency Not applicable

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council: • Approves an allocation of $170,000 for the installation of a pedestrian footpath at 2m nominal width along the northern verge of Cliff Way for consideration in the 2014-2015 Budget.

• Continue to monitor the traffic and speed in Cliff Way in line with its Traffic Data Monitoring Policy, and should the situation change for the worse, report to council with justification through the Traffic Management ‘Warrant for Intervention’ System

• Informs the affected residents of the resolution.

Page 10 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

12 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

12.1 AUDIT COMMITTEE

12.1.1 2013 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN

File Ref: GOR00076 Attachments: Compliance Audit Return 2013 Responsible Officer: Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance Author: Louise Dickson Governance Officer Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014

Purpose Report recommends Council adopt the 2013 Compliance Audit Return.

Background At its meeting of 7 February 2014 the Audit Committee considered the 2013 Compliance Audit Return.

Officer Recommendation and Committee Decision THAT the Audit Committee recommend Council adopt the 2013 Compliance Audit Return as presented.

Discussion The Compliance Audit Return (CAR) is a statutory document through which the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer certify that Council has complied with targeted sections of the Local Government Act 1995 (and associated regulations).

The CAR has been completed in accordance with requirements which detail; • The CAR must be reviewed by Council’s Audit Committee, prior to adoption by Council. • The Chief Executive Officer may delegate the responsibility to complete any sections of the CAR to another person or persons, the name of whom is to be recorded within the return. • The adopted CAR, together with a copy of relevant section of the Council minutes, and associated documentation are to be forwarded to the Department of Local Government by 31 March of each year. Completion of the CAR included checking of Council minutes, registers, files and clarifying matters with relevant staff. As reflected within the document this was completed in-house.

Page 11 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

One area of non-compliance was identified within the return relating to disclosure of interest (page 4 of attachment) however was reported to the Department of Local Government at the time.

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 19 February 2013, resolution 20/13 That Council adopts the 2012 Compliance Audit Return. CARRIED (NO DISSENT)

Financial and Staff Implications Resource requirements are in accordance with existing budgetary allocation.

Policy and Statutory Implications Local Government Act 1995 s.7.13(i). Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 cl 13-16.

Publicity Nil.

Strategic Community Plan Governance and Leadership

We are an open and accountable local government that encourages community involvement and strives to keep its community well informed.

• Provide and maintain a high standard of governance, accountability, management and strategic planning

Urgency Local authorities are required to submit completed Compliance Audit Returns for the calendar year by 31 March of the next year.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION THAT Council adopts the 2013 Compliance Audit Return.

Page 12 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13 REPORTS OF THE CEO

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

13.1.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORY BOARD - METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT DISTRICT INQUIRIES

File Ref: GOR/00069 Attachments: Minister for Local Government proposal to Local Government Advisory Board A Response to the Minister’s G7 Plan Western Suburbs Proposal Map

Responsible Officer: Stephen Goode Chief Executive Officer Author: Stephen Goode Chief Executive Officer Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014

Purpose The State Government’s plans for local government restructuring have progressed since Council last considered the issue in September 2013. This report updates the situation and recommends Council consider supporting a two council model for the western suburbs for formal proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB).

Background On July 30, 2013 the Minister for Local Government, Hon Tony Simpson MLA, announced the Government’s response to the report of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel. The response included the State Government’s proposed model for 14 local governments in the metropolitan area.

The Minister’s plan includes merging Town of Claremont into one western suburbs local government, being Cambridge, Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park, Nedlands, Peppermint Grove and Subiaco (for ease of reference, G7). It also included areas from and North from . The proposed local government had an estimated population in the order of 115,000.

The Minister wrote to all affected local governments inviting the submission of a proposal in accordance with the Minister’s plan to the LGAB by October 4, 2013. A complying proposal for Town of Claremont would have been required to be for the Group of seven (G7) plus parts of Stirling and Fremantle. The Minister subsequently submitted proposals to the LGAB which reflect his desired outcome, including the G7 for the western suburbs: The Minister’s proposal is attached. Overall the Minister proposes 15 local governments for the metropolitan area. The Board is considering 34 formal proposals that relate to changes affecting all but two of Perth’s existing 30 metropolitan councils and the Shires of Murray and Wandering.

Page 13 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Twelve of the proposals were submitted by the Minister for Local Government, 21 by local governments (two of which were submitted by Cambridge and Claremont before the Minister’s July announcement) and one by electors of the . The public submission period opened January 29 and will close at 4pm on Thursday, March 13. The LGAB process envisages that by mid 2014 it will make recommendations to the Minister. The Minister has stated that he will consider the Board’s proposals and by August 2014 the Governor will issue orders (to abolish existing local governments and create new ones) for those recommended changes accepted by the Minister.

New local governments are expected to be established from July 01, 2015. Initially it was intended that Commissioners will govern the new local government until a council is elected in October 2015 however this may not be the situation where the mergers are achieved through changing the boundary of one district to consume another: In that circumstance the local government which extends its boundary is not abolished and its council could remain in place to govern the new district until the 2015 elections.

Discussion There are two proposals affecting Town of Claremont before the LGAB. Proposal number 3 is the Town’s proposal submitted in July 2013 to create a new local government from Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park, Peppermint Grove and part of Nedlands (referred to as G4 plus). Proposal12/2013 is the Minister’s proposal to combine all of the local governments of the western suburbs (less a small portion of each of and ) plus the localities Churchlands, Herdsman, Wembley Downs and an area of Woodlands, all of which are currently located in the City of Stirling. The proposal includes a boundary amendment to incorporate into the the land on which the University of , the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre and the Hollywood Private Hospital are located, currently located in the City of Subiaco and City of Nedlands.

Also relevant is the proposal by to extend its boundaries to incorporate most of City of Subiaco and areas of City of Stirling. This is the latest of a number of proposals submitted by Town of Cambridge but is possibly most important because a boundary change as proposed does not invoke the poll provisions of Schedule 2.1, meaning City of Subiaco (and its residents) is prevented from attempting to block a merger through the conduct of a poll. If the Board were to recommend the proposal, and the Minister accept the recommendation, it would leave the future structure of the remaining five western suburbs local governments to be resolved.

With the exception of the Minister’s western suburbs proposal, none of the proposals would allow any of the affected communities to seek a poll under the existing poll provisions of the Act. This is because the Minister has proposed eleven existing districts be absorbed into nine other existing local governments through boundary adjustments. This process would be the situation for Cambridge and Subiaco under Town of Cambridge’s proposal. If this process eventuates all that remains to be resolved in the State's metropolitan reform agenda is the five relatively small local governments of Mosman Park, Peppermint Grove, Cottesloe, Claremont and Nedlands.

Page 14 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Since Council last considered this matter: • Town of Cottesloe has resolved- That Council; 1. Not support the Minister for Local Government’s single local government amalgamation proposal for the Councils of the western suburbs (G7). 2. Reaffirm Council’s previously resolved position, including a preparedness to consider an amalgamation with the Towns of Claremont and Mosman Park and the Shire of Peppermint Grove (plus associated boundary adjustments) and subject to community endorsement. 3. Authorise the Mayor and CEO to continue to discuss and explore options with the Councils of the western suburbs. 4. Provide in principle support for a “two Council” model for the western suburbs in preference to Minister G7 model, should the proposal for a G4 (preferred) not be accepted. 5. Notify the Minister for Local Government and Local Government Advisory Board of Council’s position.

• Shire of Peppermint Grove Has considered putting to its community a case for being part of a smaller scale merger rather than the Minister’s G7 proposal. It will ask the LGAB, at a meeting to be held on Feb 21, to provide the information required for the Shire to go to the community with a recommendation to support a “smaller grouping” (G4/G5) as opposed to a G7.

• resolved- That Council; 1. Adopt a strategic position, for the purpose of development of a proposal for Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) consideration, in relation to Metropolitan Local Government Reform, that has key elements as follows: a. Recognising the community rejection of the State Government’s proposal, via the October 2013 referendum, Council rejects the Minister’s proposal for a G7 local government. b. Council believes the State Government has not submitted convincing evidence to justify change. c. Council supports a new local government based on combining the Town of Cottesloe, Town of Claremont, Shire of Peppermint Grove and the Town of Mosman Park as well as consideration of the residential area of North Fremantle, and other logical boundary changes. d. As a less preferred alternative, Council supports a two Council model in the Western Suburbs.

Page 15 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

2. Subject to the Chief Executive Officer confirming the scope of work described in the attachment, approves the appointment of Planning Context as consultants to prepare a proposal and submissions consistent with the Town’s strategic position described at point 1 above, as per the Planning Context proposal at Attachment One, with exclusions of any consideration of residential area of North Fremantle, in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest for the consultants, given earlier work by that organisation for the City of Fremantle. 3. Consider the matter of residential area of North Fremantle, as a separate project. 4. Appoint a Project Steering Committee comprising Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and Communications Officer. 5. Consider a report, including draft proposal and submissions, on this project no later than 25 February 2014. 6. Request the Local Government Advisory Board to confirm that a proposal submitted in late February 2014 will be given proper consideration.

In summary the councils which Claremont council attempted to join with to present a united front in presenting the G4+ proposal before the Minister’s July announcement, and with support from the Premier, are now showing interest (previously there was only qualified interest from Cottesloe). However, even now the councils are hedging their positions which makes the possibility of brokering an alternative to the Minister’s plan extra difficult. In addition City of Nedlands has not announced any review of its position opposed to any amalgamation. Unless a cohesive approach can be achieved between the affected councils it may be a case of ‘too little, too late’.

Mayor Barker and the CEO have accepted an invitation from Mayor Norrish of Mosman Park to a Mayoral Forum on February 12 to hear “what Planning Context is doing for Mosman Park” and to discuss the possibility of solidarity for a two council model in the western suburbs. Mosman Park has reached a view that “solidarity improves prospect of success”: This of course is something the Claremont Council agrees with entirely and it could be an encouraging sign that other councils are recognising this reality.

Members of the LGAB will be meeting the Mayor, available councillors and senior officers on February 21. It seems important that Town of Claremont has a clear and unambiguous position to present to the LGAB representatives. Part of Council’s last resolution (260/13) on this matter authorised the Mayor and CEO to continue discussions with the affected local governments to seek an alternative to the Government’s G7 plan. Attempts to achieve any agreement prior to the Minister’s October deadline were futile. Whether or not a united approach would have achieved a change to the Minister’s preference for one western suburbs council is purely conjecture; all that can be said is that alternative options were not supported and probably carried little weight as a result: If the Minister faced the same resistance to the Town of Claremont’s proposed G4+ as to his preferred G7 why would he entertain the Town’s alternative?

If the Claremont Council and other councils are to seriously attempt to influence an alternative outcome for the western suburbs it will require a concerted and

Page 16 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

unequivocal approach; the more united the more hopeful of success. A brief assessment of the reasons for considering a G5 in preference to the Minister’s G7 is at Attachment 2. It is suggested that the points presented be used to guide the discussion about the merits of the options.

It is acknowledged that this report does nothing to address the underlying reservations many council members have about the need for restructuring local government: It does not attempt to present evidence that change will produce better local government. The report instead is premised on the fact that the Government has a change agenda for local government and on the face of information now available it is progressing that agenda. The Government has not demonstrated the case for reform and will not because (1) it is an ideology driven change agenda (i.e. ‘bigger should be better’) and (2) it does not have to do the hard work to prove its case (so it is easier to not attempt to do so). The fact that the approach leaves unease about the reasons for the changes and the lack of substance to support imposing such major change has already been demonstrated to raise no reservation in government decision makers. The underlying premise of this report is that the Government has the power to impose its changes and if the worst outcome is to be avoided a concerted effort to win support for an alternative should be considered.

The Department of Local Government and Communities has offered grant funding of $50,000 for impacted local governments to be used to support preliminary planning for reform, including the collection of data and other tasks associated with planning reform. Other local governments of the western suburbs will all be eligible for the same funding. This could mean (say) $250,000 being available for preliminary work across the G5 group. A joint approach with willing partners would be valuable in doing meaningful work to get ready for change on the assumption something will happen. Should restructuring not happen the work should still be valuable as a catalyst for improving systems and processes for existing organisations and might even be a catalyst for meaningful discussion of shared services and/or resource sharing.

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 03 September 2013, Resolution 260/13 That the Council of Town of Claremont: 1.1. Prefers that the Town of Claremont remains an independent Council; 1.2. Prefers that there be no forced or coerced mergers and Town of Claremont not be forced to restructure; 1.3. Does not accept that there is any credible evidence that amalgamation of all seven western suburbs councils plus portions of two others into one large local government will deliver better local government which will improve connection to and service for the communities they serve; 1.4. Does not support the Government’s proposed merger of seven western suburbs local governments plus portions of two others (G7); 1.5. Maintains its position that the poll provisions should not be removed from the Local Government Act or amended in such a manner that they become ineffective for the democratic purpose for which they were drafted;

Page 17 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

1.6. Supports the Mayor in presenting Council’s position to Members of Parliament and promoting Council’s concerns to the Claremont community; and 1.7. Authorises the Mayor and CEO to continue discussions with the affected local governments to seek an alternative to the Government’s G7 plan. 2. Following discussions with affected local governments the CEO submit a report on options, including an alternative model to the Government’s G7 plan, in time to allow Council to consider making a submission to the LGAB by 04 October 2013. Ordinary Council Meeting 04 June 2013, Resolution 108/13 That: 1. Council formalise its preferred position for a local scale merger of the Towns of Claremont, Cottesloe and Mosman Park and Shire of Peppermint Grove plus areas of Mt Claremont and Swanbourne from Nedlands and Cambridge; 2. The attached map for three councils in the western suburbs region (including Town of Cambridge) be endorsed as the basis for a submission of a proposal for boundary changes to the Local Government Advisory Board; 3. A boundary proposal be made to the Local Government Advisory Board in accordance with Section 2 of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 based on the map detailed in (2) above; 4. The Town collaborate with the Town of Cambridge and/or City of Subiaco or any of the other affected local governments to support and put into effect the three council map for the western suburbs as detailed in (2) above or modified to meet the requirements of the boundaries between those two councils; and 5. The Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to prepare and lodge a boundary proposal as detailed in (3) above including the authority to make minor amendments to the proposed new boundary. Ordinary Council Meeting 04 December 2012, Resolution 229/12: That 1. Town of Claremont does not accept that the Metropolitan Local Government Review Report has established the case for the reform of local government and in particular fails to provide creditable evidence that amalgamation into twelve large local governments will deliver better local government which will improve connection to and service for the communities they serve. 2. Council has reached the conclusion that mergers are likely to be required by the State Government and rather than accept the imposed outcome proposed by the Report will take a leadership role, adopt a position and promote it. 3. Council adopts as its preferred position a local scale merger, being ‘G4’ that is, Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park and Peppermint Grove or G4 plus areas like Mt Claremont and Swanbourne from Nedlands and Cambridge. 4. Council’s preferred position is that a joint proposal for a small scale merger be made together with the other affected local governments. 5. Council agree to negotiate with neighbouring local governments to attempt to achieve an acceptable merger option, i.e. G4 or G4 plus as described above, and to develop a joint submission setting out a comprehensive transition plan.

Page 18 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

6. Council support the Mayor taking a leadership role to promote the preferred outcome with the other local governments, with the Claremont community and the wider community. 7. Town of Claremont make a submission to the Metropolitan Local Government Review Report: a. Rejecting the proposition that existing local governments be replaced by twelve new local governments for the metropolitan area. b. Advocating the preferred structure for a new local government based on Claremont (i.e. G4 or G4 plus). c. Support the return of local government planning approval powers to local government within metropolitan Perth. d. Support an examination of the case for the management of waste treatment and disposal at a metropolitan-wide scale being either undertaken by a State authority or through a partnership with local government. e. In respect to local government elections: i. Elections to be conducted by the State Electoral Commission or other suitable agency to allow a level of competition and accountability ii. Voluntary voting to be retained iii. Elections should be conducted biannually by postal ballot (i.e. retain retirement of half of council at each election) iv. Should not allow party or group politics v. Retain choice for communities for Mayors and Presidents to be directly elected by the community or from within Council vi. Limits on the terms a council member can serve not be considered further vii. The principle of appropriate training for the role of a Mayor or councillor is supported viii. The voting method for local government elections be exhaustive preferential. 8. Council support a collaborative process between State and local government to establish a new Partnership Agreement which will progress strategic issues and key result areas for both State Government and local government as well as improved co-ordination between State Government agencies in the metropolitan area, including between State Government agencies and local government. 9. Town of Claremont advise WALGA of its adopted positions and submit them for consideration in any WALGA industry submission. Ordinary Council Meeting 17 July 2012, Resolution 128/12: That Council update the community on the structural reform and invite community feedback on reform as it relates Claremont including the proposed Robson model, and the alternate G4 model. Ordinary Council Meeting 27 February 2012 That Council; 1. Advise the Premier of the State of Western Australia, the Minister for Local Government, the Leader of the Opposition, the Shadow Minister for Local Government, our local members of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel, and the President

Page 19 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

of the Western Australian Local Government Association, that this Council calls upon the Parliament of Western Australia to forever uphold and not dilute our constituents’ right to self determination as embodied in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA). 2. Request the recipient of each such letter to notify our Council by written reply as to whether they do support and will continue to support the preservation without dilution of our constituents’ right to self determination as embodied in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA). 3. Provide to the Secretariat of the Council’s for Democracy a copy of each of our above letters and any responses that our Council receives, for use in demonstrating collective support for our constituents’ right to self determination in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 March 2010, Resolution 62/10: Council supported entering into a Regional Transition Group (to examine merger with Cottesloe, Mosman Park and Peppermint Grove).

Special Council Meeting 29 September 2009, Resolution 259/09: Council adopted its submission to the Minister for Local Government which included a statement of willingness to consider structural reform options subject to the interests of the local community being protected.

Financial and Staff Implications The financial implications include current officer time committed to this process which is absorbed in the staff budget. This has grown enormously since the Minister’s announcement and will probably continue to impact.

The Department of Local Government and Communities has offered grant funding of $50,000 for impacted local governments to be used to support preliminary planning for reform, including the collection of data and other tasks associated with planning reform. There will be significant costs of merging local governments. This report does not identify how this should be funded however previous comments from State Government and more recently by the Minister and the Premier indicate a level of State funding will be available. There is no indication of how much the State will fund other than comment that savings from the mergers should help offset costs and no funding is obvious in the State’s forward estimates.

Policy and Statutory Implications The Government advises that amalgamations and boundary changes will be determined under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act). An Amendment Bill is still proceeding through parliament. Initially the Bill included changes to the poll provisions of Schedule 2.1 but those changes have been withdrawn by the Government. The remaining relevant amendments will include changes to the LGAB and how it operates; for example adding more members to the Board, confirming it can assess proposals concurrently (for example where two or more different proposals are made impacting on the same districts) and allowing the Page 20 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Board to make a recommendation to the Minister which is different than initially publicly advertised without doing further consultation.

The Board will also be able to ‘streamline’ consultation and has indicated it intends to do so for the current review.

Publicity It is proposed that the Mayor take a leadership role to promote the preferred outcome with the other local governments, the Minister and State Government, with the Claremont community and the wider community.

Strategic Community Plan Governance and Leadership

We are an open and accountable local government that encourages community involvement and strives to keep its community well informed.

Provide responsive and responsible leadership.

Urgency The Chair for the Local Government Advisory Board has advised that a six week submission period will close on 13 March 2014.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION 1.0 That the Local Government Advisory Board be advised the council does not support the Government’s proposed merger of seven western suburbs local governments plus portions of two others (G7); 1.2. Council maintains as its preferred position a local scale merger, being ‘G4 plus’ that is, Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park and Peppermint Grove plus areas of Mt Claremont and Swanbourne from Nedlands and Cambridge; 1.3. As an alternative the Town of Claremont will support a two Council model in the western suburbs; 2.0 The Mayor and CEO present Council’s position to Members of the Local Government Advisory Board; 3.0 Council authorises the Mayor and CEO to continue discussions with the affected local governments to seek an alternative to the Government’s G7 plan; and 4.0 That the CEO accept the offer of $50,000 funding to assist with reform planning and supports the CEO seeking to pool resources with other affected (western suburbs) local governments.

Page 21 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.1.2 WALGA CENTRAL METROPOLITAN ZONE MOTION : SHIRE OF WAGIN REQUEST

File Ref: GOR/00069 Responsible Officer: Stephen Goode Chief Executive Officer Author: Stephen Goode Chief Executive Officer Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014

Purpose The Shire of Wagin is submitting a motion to the next Central Country Zone meeting regarding local government amalgamations. The Shire President has requested that the Shire’s motion be considered by Council and supported by the Town’s zone delegates at the next Central Metropolitan Zone meeting.

Background The background to the local government reform, or restructuring, issue is well known to Council. It goes back several decades with proposals impacting upon the western suburbs councils seriously entertained in the 1970s. Some form of change has arisen in every decade since. In about 2005 WALGA attempted to take the initiative to lead a moderate change process with the goal of avoiding the more aggressive approach being openly discussed by the (then) ALP government. The WALGA SSS plan was released in 2008 and proposed gradual change based largely of cooperative arrangements such as resource sharing which might later evolve into voluntary mergers. It could not recommend much more because it was consensus based and significantly constrained in trying to satisfy very divergent constituencies. The SSS seemed to have a level of government support initially but this changed in 2009 when Minister Castrilli initiated the current Government agenda.

The following is from the Shire of Wagin:

As some of you would know, WALGA, as the representative body for Local Government in Western Australia, has held the position for some time that some structural reform is needed.

Several years ago it commissioned a report titled “The Journey” now commonly referred to as the SSS Report.

Clause 3.3 of The Scope for Change in the SSS Report introduction says: “The SSS Panel Report was careful to emphasise that there was no demonstrated case that amalgamations of Local Governments will deliver improved outcomes. The forced amalgamation of Local Governments without existing capability and without specific regard to the ability to deliver more sustainable arrangements offers slim prospects of improvement. The extensive work of the five working parties which have generated the Plan has confirmed this conclusion.”

Page 22 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

In 2009 the then Minister for Local Government John Castrilli MLA announced a policy to reform local government in W.A. There were few guidelines and largely a lack of direction other than to say that there are too many local governments and this should be changed.

Sustainability was used as the focus and little or no regard was given for the valuable contribution that Local Government provides for a community and the social dividend of that.

Councils and staff have invested thousands of hours and millions of dollars to comply with the Minister’s regulatory requests to submit business case plans and develop strategies within those plans.

Most, if not all Local Governments fulfilled these obligations in writing direct to the Minister through the Department of Local Government.

Since then the State Government has shifted its reform focus away from the country areas towards the metropolitan area. There are concerns however, that whatever happens in the metropolitan area will be repeated in the country.

The State Government has no mandate or ethical position to accuse Local Government of being poor managers of assets and finances.

Successive State Government’s, have neglected to maintain essential infrastructure such as Tier 3 railways, roads, hospitals, electricity supply grids, water supplies throughout WA. Local Governments and their communities are adversely impacted by that.

In fact there is considerable pressure on Local Governments to increase the range of services that they deliver and also to manage this within already tight budgets. Cost shifting by both State and Federal Governments has been a large part of that. Rural local governments are increasingly having to fund medical services as well as provide housing for police, teachers and doctors. There has been a steady withdrawal of state services and decline in the standards of infrastructure.

If the State and Federal governments were to resume funding tasks that are not the core function of Local Government, then the relief to the Local Government budgets would, in most cases rejuvenate their sustainability. The following motion is submitted by the Shire of Wagin for consideration and support:

1. That WALGA reject any moves by the State Government to force the amalgamation of local governments. 2. That amalgamations, mergers and boundary changes be supported by WALGA only if introduced and supported by the effected Local Governments. 3. That each Local Government community be entitled to hold a poll if structural change is proposed. 4. That this resolution be submitted to the Central Country Zone of WALGA for consideration by the zone.

Page 23 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

5. That the Shire President circulates this resolution to ALL WA Local Governments via email and letter seeking their support and requesting that they submit this motion to their next Zone meeting for consideration.

Discussion Council’s most recent resolution (September 2013) supported the retention of the poll provisions in Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995. Proposals to change the provisions (without a mandate at a State election) were strongly opposed in late 2013 by a number of Councils (including Claremont) resulting in the Government withdrawing the proposed amendments from the Amendment Bill. Lobbying regarding the poll provisions has changed tack, now seeking to have the poll provisions changed to strengthen them.

It would be consistent with Council’s position to maintain support for the poll provisions as adopted, i.e. the poll provisions should not be removed from the Local Government Act or amended in such a manner that they become ineffective for the democratic purpose for which they were drafted.

The Shire of Wagin proposed motion for a policy position to be submitted to WALGA is subtly different from the State Council adopted position. It adds the new emphasis on a change only being acceptable if introduced by and supported by the affected local governments (presumably all of them).

Council has not previously considered the propositions made by Shire of Wagin that the State Government should not impose changes and only changes made voluntarily by the affected local governments (assumingly by decisions of all councils involved). Given that local government is established by an Act of the State Parliament the reality is, as unpalatable as it is to many, perhaps most, in the local government sector, the State Government has responsibility for local government. This extends to oversight of the conduct of local governments, the granting or withdrawal of powers and duties, and in some, fortunately rare, cases the dismissal of councils. None of these powers are seriously argued. It is also a fact that the State Government does have the power to initiate changes to the form and structure of local government and at the moment is doing so largely within the confines of the existing legislation.

Claremont Council has not specifically considered this issue of the legitimacy of the government imposing changes but rather has accepted that a State Government review of local government is in progress and must be addressed. Although largely opposed to the Government proposals Council has taken a proactive approach, including submitting a proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board for a small scale merger (the G4 plus). A separate report to this meeting proposes Council continue to seek an acceptable outcome within the Government’s reform process. It would be inconsistent to also adopt a position supporting Shire of Wagin suggesting that WALGA adopt a position that Government should be constrained from imposing changes on local governments.

However, it is open to Council to entertain the alternative position; i.e. abandon the current approach of working within the Government’s process to achieve a community scale merger while opposing the large scale proposed by the Minister, and instead join a lobby to attempt to influence Government through WALGA policy.

Page 24 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 03 September 2013, Resolution 260/13 That the Council of Town of Claremont: 1.1. Prefers that the Town of Claremont remains an independent Council; 1.2. Prefers that there be no forced or coerced mergers and Town of Claremont not be forced to restructure; 1.3. Does not accept that there is any credible evidence that amalgamation of all seven western suburbs councils plus portions of two others into one large local government will deliver better local government which will improve connection to and service for the communities they serve; 1.4. Does not support the Government’s proposed merger of seven western suburbs local governments plus portions of two others (G7); 1.5. Maintains its position that the poll provisions should not be removed from the Local Government Act or amended in such a manner that they become ineffective for the democratic purpose for which they were drafted; 1.6. Supports the Mayor in presenting Council’s position to Members of Parliament and promoting Council’s concerns to the Claremont community; and 1.7. Authorises the Mayor and CEO to continue discussions with the affected local governments to seek an alternative to the Government’s G7 plan. 2. Following discussions with affected local governments the CEO submit a report on options, including an alternative model to the Government’s G7 plan, in time to allow Council to consider making a submission to the LGAB by 04 October 2013. Ordinary Council Meeting 04 June 2013, Resolution 108/13 Ordinary Council Meeting 04 December 2012, Resolution 229/12 Ordinary Council Meeting 17 July 2012, Resolution 128/12 Ordinary Council Meeting 27 February 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting 16 March 2010, Resolution 62/10 Special Council Meeting 29 September 2009, Resolution 259/09.

Financial and Staff Implications There are no significant implications identified.

Policy and Statutory Implications The Government advises that amalgamations and boundary changes will be determined under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act). An Amendment Bill is still proceeding through parliament. Initially the Bill included changes to the poll provisions of Schedule 2.1 but those changes have been withdrawn by the Government. Publicity No specific initiatives are proposed.

Strategic Community Plan Governance and Leadership

Page 25 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

We are an open and accountable local government that encourages community involvement and strives to keep its community well informed.

Provide responsive and responsible leadership.

Urgency The next Central Metropolitan Zone meeting is February 27, 2014.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council 1. Maintains its position that the poll provisions should not be removed from the Local Government Act or amended in such a manner that they become ineffective for the democratic purpose for which they were drafted;

2. Otherwise does not act on the request of the Shire of Wagin;

3. Advises the Shire of Wagin of its decision.

Page 26 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.2 URBAN PLANNING AND STATUTORY SERVICES

13.2.1 FINAL ADOPTION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 125 – CHANGES TO APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS AND DELEGATIONS

File No: LND/102 Attachments: Scheme Amendment Report

Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development Author: Josh Wilson Urban Planner Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014 Date Prepared: 8 January 2014 Financial Implications: Nil

Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PD Act) Town Planning Regulations 1967 (TP Regs) Local Government Act 1995 (LG Act) Model Scheme Text (MST) Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3)

Summary • Council initiated Scheme Amendment No. 125 to modify the planning approval requirements and the ability to delegate under Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 17 September 2013. • The amendment has been advertised in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 (PD Act) and no submissions were received. • Minor modifications are proposed to the amendment as detailed in the report below. • It is recommended that Council adopt the amendment with minor modifications and refer it to the Minister for Planning for final endorsement and gazettal.

Purpose For Council to consider final adoption of scheme amendment no. 125 in order to amend the requirements for planning approval and the ability to delegate under TPS3. Background The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal: Date Item/Outcome 17 September 2013 Amendment 125 initiated by Council 1 October 2013 Referred to the EPA for assessment and consent to advertise 23 October 2013 EPA response received 2 November 2013 Advertising commenced 16 December 2013 Advertising closed

Page 27 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Date Item/Outcome 8 January 2014 Report prepared for Council.

Past Resolutions Council determined to initiate amendment no.125 at its Ordinary Council Meeting 17 September 2013, Resolution No. 269/13.

Statutory Considerations Scheme amendments are required to be undertaken in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967 (TP Regs). Council has initiated the amendment, referred it to the Environmental Protection Authority, advertised it for 44 days (42 days minimum requirement) and is now required to consider the submissions received and make a recommendation on how to proceed with the amendment. Council is required to make one of the following resolutions: (a) That the Scheme Amendment be adopted with or without modification; or (b) That it does not wish to proceed with the Scheme Amendment. The Minister for Planning will then finally consider Council’s resolution and determine the matter.

Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with the TP Regs for a period of 44 days from 2 November 2013 to 16 December 2013. The following advertising was undertaken: • An advertisement was placed in the Post Newspaper on 2 November 2013; • A copy of the amendment was placed on the Town’s website; and • A copy of the amendment was made available at the front counter. At the end of the consultation period no submissions had been received.

Discussion Reasons for the Amendment Amendment No. 125 is intended to achieve two main outcomes: 1. Improve the efficiency of the planning department by removing the need for minor forms of development to seek planning approval; and 2. Increase Council’s powers of delegation under TPS3, in particular to allow minor commercial and signage applications to be handled under delegation. Under this proposal it is estimated that 10-15% of planning applications that currently require approval will be exempted from making an application, possibly more as it will create an incentive for building designs that comply with planning requirements. The minor types of development that will no longer require planning approval have been selectively chosen to ensure that significant developments and those which may potentially impact on adjoining properties are still subject to planning approval.

Page 28 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

The ability to delegate approval for commercial applications, in particular signage applications, will improve the efficiency of the Planning Department and will reduce the number of minor applications that are put before Council. Alterations to Proposed Amendment A further review of the proposed amendment has identified a couple of minor alterations necessary for the amendment to function as intended and it is recommended that the proposed amendment text be modified accordingly. The recommended changes are as follows: 1. Adding ‘demolition’ to the list of exempted developments except for heritage- listed dwellings; 2. Adding ‘front fences’ to the list of exempted developments where they comply with all scheme, planning policy and local law provisions; and 3. Adding local laws as one of the required compliances for minor development. The following table shows the amendment as initiated and with the recommended changes underlined:

As Initiated With Proposed Changes 1. Replacing sub-clauses 25(1)-(2) with the 1. Replacing sub-clauses 25(1)-(2) with the following sub-clauses 25(1)-(2): following sub-clauses 25(1)-(2): 25(1) Subject to clause 25(2), all development 25(1) Subject to clause 25(2), all development on land zoned and reserved under the on land zoned and reserved under the Scheme requires the prior approval of the Scheme requires the prior approval of the local government. A person must not local government. A person must not commence or carry out any development commence or carry out any development without first having applied for and without first having applied for and obtained the planning approval of the obtained the planning approval of the local government under Part V of this local government under Part V of this Scheme. Scheme. Note: 1. The planning approval of the Note: 1. The planning approval of the local government is required for local government is required for both the development of land both the development of land and the use of land. and the use of land. 2. Development includes the 2. Development includes the erection, placement and display erection, placement and display of any advertisements. of any advertisements. 3. Approval to commence 3. Approval to commence development may also be development may also be required from the Western required from the Western Australian Planning Australian Planning Commission under the Commission under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Metropolitan Region Scheme. 25(2) Permitted development 25(2) Permitted development Except as otherwise provided in the Scheme, Except as otherwise provided in the Scheme, for the purposes of the Scheme the following for the purposes of the Scheme the following development does not require the planning development does not require the planning approval of local government: approval of local government: (a) the carrying out of any building or work (a) the carrying out of any building or work which affects only the interior of a building which affects only the interior of a building and which does not materially affect the and which does not materially affect the external appearance of the building except external appearance of the building except where the building is: where the building is:

Page 29 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

(i) located in a place that has been (i) located in a place that has been entered in the Register of Heritage entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990; Australia Act 1990; (ii) the subject of an order under Part 6 of (ii) the subject of an order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or a Heritage Agreement with the 1990 or a Heritage Agreement with the Town under clause 53 of the Scheme; Town under clause 53 of the Scheme; or or (iii) included on the Heritage Schedule (iii) included on the Heritage Schedule under clause 78 of the Scheme with the under clause 78 of the Scheme with the exception of buildings used for exception of buildings used for residential purposes only that are not residential purposes only that are not subject to (i) and (ii) above and the subject to (i) and (ii) above and the works are confined to any of the works are confined to any of the following reversible and minor works: following reversible and minor works: • Fit out of an existing kitchen, • Fit out of an existing kitchen, bathroom or laundry with no structural bathroom or laundry with no structural alterations; alterations; • Replacement of light fittings; • Replacement of light fittings; • Painting/wall papering/plastering of • Painting/wall papering/plastering of internal walls; internal walls; • Internal retiling; • Internal retiling; • Construction of new internal non- • Construction of new internal non- masonry, non-load bearing walls; masonry, non-load bearing walls; • New floor covering placed over but • New floor covering placed over but not replacing existing floor surface not replacing existing floor surface materials; or materials; or • Electrical and plumbing works; • Electrical and plumbing works; (b) the erection on a lot of a single storey single (b) the erection on a lot of a single storey single house or any single storey extension to a house or any single storey extension to a single house except where: single house except where: (i) the proposal involves a variation to a (i) the proposal involves a variation to a provision of the Scheme; provision of the Scheme; (ii) the proposal requires consideration of (ii) the proposal requires consideration of the Design Principles by the local the Design Principles by the local government under the provisions of the government under the provisions of the Residential Design Codes; Residential Design Codes; (iii) the proposal requires a variation to any (iii) the proposal requires a variation to any Local Planning Policy adopted under Local Planning Policy adopted under clause 82 of the Scheme; clause 82 of the Scheme; (iv) the proposal is on a property which (iv) the proposal is on a property which abuts a regional reservation; abuts a regional reservation; (v) the proposal is for a place that has (v) the proposal is for a place that has been entered in the Register of Places been entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990; Act 1990; (vi) the proposal is for a place the subject of (vi) the proposal is for a place the subject of an Order under Part 6 of the Heritage of an Order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or a Western Australia Act 1990 or a Heritage Agreement with the Town Heritage Agreement with the Town under clause 53 of the Scheme; or under clause 53 of the Scheme; or (vii) the proposal is for a place listed on the (vii) the proposal is for a place listed on the Heritage Schedule under clause 78 of Heritage Schedule under clause 78 of

Page 30 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

the Scheme; the Scheme; (c) the demolition of any building or structure except where the building or structure is:

(i) located in a place that has been

entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990;

(ii) the subject of an order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or a Heritage Agreement with the Town under clause 53 of the Scheme; or (iii) included on the Heritage Schedule under clause 78 of the Scheme.

(c) the following minor residential development (d) the following minor residential development where it complies with this Scheme, the where it complies with this Scheme, the Deemed–to–Comply provisions of the Deemed–to–Comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes and any Local Residential Design Codes, Local Laws and Planning Policy and where the building or any Local Planning Policies and where the structure is not included on the Heritage building or structure is not included on the Schedule under clause 78 of this Scheme: Heritage Schedule under clause 78 of this Scheme: (i) an outbuilding less than 10m2 in area 2 and less than 2.4m in height; (i) an outbuilding less than 10m in area and less than 2.4m in height; (ii) a swimming pool less than 0.5m above natural ground level; (ii) a swimming pool less than 0.5m above natural ground level; (iii) pergolas, shade sails and patio; (iii) pergolas, shade sails and patio; (iv) utilities and facilities including storerooms, rubbish collection/bin areas (iv) utilities and facilities including and clothes drying areas; storerooms, rubbish collection/bin areas and clothes drying areas; (v) external fixtures including solar collectors, aerials, satellite dishes; (v) external fixtures including solar collectors, aerials, satellite dishes; (vi) a rainwater tank with a capacity of 5kL or less; (vi) a rainwater tank with a capacity of 5kL or less; (vii) children’s play equipment; or (vii) children’s play equipment; (viii) fill and associated retaining less than 0.5m or excavation; (viii) fill and associated retaining less than 0.5m or excavation; or where these are located to the side or rear of an existing dwelling; (ix) front fence; where these are located to the side or rear of an existing dwelling (excepting front fences); (e) a home office which is also compliant with (d) a home office which is also compliant with the home occupation requirements of this the home occupation requirements of this Scheme; Scheme; (f) dividing fences with: (e) dividing fences with: (i) A height of up to 1.8m; or (i) A height of up to 1.8m; or (ii) A height between 1.8m and 2.3m, (ii) A height between 1.8m and 2.3m, where both neighbours are in where both neighbours are in agreement as to the height; agreement as to the height; (g) landscaping which does not involve fill over (f) landscaping which does not involve fill over Page 31 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

0.5m; 0.5m; (g) non-illuminated signage or advertising that (h) non-illuminated signage or advertising that complies with the Town’s Local Law Relating complies with the Town’s Local Law Relating to Signs or any Local Planning Policy; or to Signs or any Local Planning Policy; or (h) any works which are temporary and in (i) any works which are temporary and in existence for less than 48 hours or such existence for less than 48 hours or such longer time as the local government agrees. longer time as the local government agrees. Note: Development carried out in accordance Note: Development carried out in accordance with a subdivision approval granted by the with a subdivision approval granted by the Commission is exempt under section 157 of the Commission is exempt under section 157 of the Planning and Development Act. Planning and Development Act. 2. Replacing sub-clauses 98(1)-(6) with the 2. Replacing sub-clauses 98(1)-(6) with the following sub-clauses 98(1)-(4): following sub-clauses 98(1)-(4): 98(1) The local government may, in writing and 98(1) The local government may, in writing and either generally or as otherwise provided either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, delegate by the instrument of delegation, delegate to a committee or the CEO, within the to a committee or the CEO, within the meaning of those expressions under the meaning of those expressions under the Local Government Act 1995, the exercise Local Government Act 1995, the exercise of any of its powers or the discharge of of any of its powers or the discharge of any of its duties under the Scheme. any of its duties under the Scheme. 98(2) Unless prohibited by Council, the CEO 98(2) Unless prohibited by Council, the CEO may delegate to any employee of the may delegate to any employee of the local government the exercise of any of local government the exercise of any of the CEO’s powers or the discharge of the CEO’s powers or the discharge of any of the CEO’s duties under sub- any of the CEO’s duties under sub- clause 98(1). clause 98(1). 98(3) The exercise of the power of delegation 98(3) The exercise of the power of delegation under sub-clause 98(1) requires a under sub-clause 98(1) requires a decision of an absolute majority as if the decision of an absolute majority as if the power had been exercised under the power had been exercised under the Local Government Act 1995. Local Government Act 1995. 98(4) Sections 5.45 and 5.46 of the Local 98(4) Sections 5.45 and 5.46 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the Government Act 1995 and the regulations referred to in section 5.46 regulations referred to in section 5.46 apply to a delegation made under this apply to a delegation made under this clause as if the delegation were a clause as if the delegation were a delegation under Division 4 of Part 5 of delegation under Division 4 of Part 5 of that Act. that Act.

As the proposed changes do not substantially alter the purpose or intent of the scheme amendment no additional advertising is required.

Summary This amendment will significantly improve the efficiency of the Town’s planning department by removing the need for planning approvals for minor development and by extending Council’s ability to delegate approval for commercial and signage applications. The proposed changes to the amendment are considered minor and do not warrant re-advertising of the amendment. As such it is recommended that Council adopt Scheme Amendment No. 125 as modified.

Page 32 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Modify Scheme Amendment No. 125 to read as follows: “1. Replacing sub-clauses 25(1)-(2) with the following sub-clauses 25(1)-(2): 25(1) Subject to clause 25(2), all development on land zoned and reserved under the Scheme requires the prior approval of the local government. A person must not commence or carry out any development without first having applied for and obtained the planning approval of the local government under Part V of this Scheme. Note: 1. The planning approval of the local government is required for both the development of land and the use of land. 2. Development includes the erection, placement and display of any advertisements. 3. Approval to commence development may also be required from the Western Australian Planning Commission under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. 25(2) Permitted development Except as otherwise provided in the Scheme, for the purposes of the Scheme the following development does not require the planning approval of local government: (a) the carrying out of any building or work which affects only the interior of a building and which does not materially affect the external appearance of the building except where the building is: (i) located in a place that has been entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990; (ii) the subject of an order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or a Heritage Agreement with the Town under clause 53 of the Scheme; or (iii) included on the Heritage Schedule under clause 78 of the Scheme with the exception of buildings used for residential purposes only that are not subject to (i) and (ii) above and the works are confined to any of the following reversible and minor works: • Fit out of an existing kitchen, bathroom or laundry with no structural alterations; • Replacement of light fittings; • Painting/wall papering/plastering of internal walls;

Page 33 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

• Internal retiling; • Construction of new internal non-masonry, non-load bearing walls; • New floor covering placed over but not replacing existing floor surface materials; or • Electrical and plumbing works; (b) the erection on a lot of a single storey single house or any single storey extension to a single house except where: (i) the proposal involves a variation to a provision of the Scheme; (ii) the proposal requires consideration of the Design Principles by the local government under the provisions of the Residential Design Codes; (iii) the proposal requires a variation to any Local Planning Policy adopted under clause 82 of the Scheme; (iv) the proposal is on a property which abuts a regional reservation; (v) the proposal is for a place that has been entered in the Register of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990; (vi) the proposal is for a place the subject of an Order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or a Heritage Agreement with the Town under clause 53 of the Scheme; or (vii) the proposal is for a place listed on the Heritage Schedule under clause 78 of the Scheme; (c) the demolition of any building or structure except where the building or structure is: (i) located in a place that has been entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990; (ii) the subject of an order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or a Heritage Agreement with the Town under clause 53 of the Scheme; or (iii) included on the Heritage Schedule under clause 78 of the Scheme. (d) the following minor residential development where it complies with this Scheme, the Deemed–to–Comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes, Local Law and any Local Planning Policy and where the building or structure is not included on the Heritage Schedule under clause 78 of this Scheme: (i) an outbuilding less than 10m2 in area and less than 2.4m in height;

Page 34 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

(ii) a swimming pool less than 0.5m above natural ground level; (iii) pergolas, shade sails and patios; (iv) utilities and facilities including storerooms, rubbish collection/bin areas and clothes drying areas; (v) external fixtures including solar collectors, aerials, satellite dishes; (vi) a rainwater tank with a capacity of 5kL or less; (vii) children’s play equipment; (viii) excavation or fill and associated retaining less than 0.5m; or (ix) front fence; where these are located to the side or rear of an existing dwelling (excepting front fences); (e) a home office which is also compliant with the home occupation requirements of this Scheme; (f) dividing fences with: (i) A height of up to 1.8m; or (ii) A height between 1.8m and 2.3m, where both neighbours are in agreement as to the height; (g) landscaping which does not involve fill over 0.5m; (h) non-illuminated signage or advertising that complies with the Town’s Local Law Relating to Signs or any Local Planning Policy; or (i) any works which are temporary and in existence for less than 48 hours or such longer time as the local government agrees. Note: Development carried out in accordance with a subdivision approval granted by the Commission is exempt under section 157 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. 2. Replacing sub-clauses 98(1)-(6) with the following sub-clauses 98(1)-(4): 98(1) The local government may, in writing and either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, delegate to a committee or the CEO, within the meaning of those expressions under the Local Government Act 1995, the exercise of any of its powers or the discharge of any of its duties under the Scheme. 98(2) Unless prohibited by Council, the CEO may delegate to any employee of the local government the exercise of any of the CEO’s powers or the discharge of any of the CEO’s duties under sub-clause 98(1).

Page 35 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

98(3) The exercise of the power of delegation under sub-clause 98(1) requires a decision of an absolute majority as if the power had been exercised under the Local Government Act 1995. 98(4) Sections 5.45 and 5.46 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the regulations referred to in section 5.46 apply to a delegation made under this clause as if the delegation were a delegation under Division 4 of Part 5 of that Act. 2. Adopt Scheme Amendment No. 125 with modifications. 3. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer and Mayor to affix the Common Seal to Scheme Amendment No. 125 documents; and 4. Forward Scheme Amendment No. 125 to the Honourable Minister for Planning for final approval.

Page 36 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.2.2 FINAL ADOPTION OF SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 130 – NORTH EAST PRECINCT

File No: LND/191 & 107 Attachments: Scheme Amendment No. 130 Document State Planning Policy 3.6 - Development Contributions for Infrastructure (SPP 3.6) Attachment A3.3 to Claremont North East Precinct Structure Plan - Development Contribution Plan Report Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development Author: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014 Date Prepared: 8 January 2014 Financial Implications: Significant Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PD Act) Town Planning Regulations 1967 (TP Regs) Local Government Act 1995 (LG Act) Model Scheme Text (MST) Town Planning Scheme 3 (TPS3) State Planning Policy 3.6 – Development Contributions for Infrastructure (SPP 3.6)

Summary • Council initiated a scheme amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) to introduce Schedule 1 and nominate the Claremont North East Precinct (NEP) as a Development Contribution area on 2 December 2008. • The amendment also addresses the application of development standards which are to be contained within the Schedule. • At the present time development standards within TPS3 override the standards set out in the Claremont NEP Structure Plan (SP). The proposal is for the NEP SP standards for parking to override the TPS3 standards in recognition of the Transport Orientated Design (TOD) status of the NEP. • Since Amendment No. 130 was initiated, the Council and developers of the NEP (LandCorp and other landowner stakeholders) have progressively worked towards the implementation of a private landowner agreement as a more simplistic contribution mechanism administered by LandCorp, in favour of a developer contribution plan administered under the Scheme by the Town. In the event that private arrangements fail, a fall back is required to facilitate the operation of a Development Contribution Plan. • Another emerging opportunity is to consider the introduction of contributions for ‘community infrastructure’, however the State Planning Policy 3.6 – Development Contributions for Infrastructure (SPP 3.6) requirements for this are not satisfied.

Page 37 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

• The amendment has been advertised in accordance with the Planning and Development Act (PD Act) and three submissions were received. • A key concern from submissions was the uncompleted Development Contributions Schedule. • It is recommended that Council adopt the amendment with modifications which provide for the developer contribution arrangements to allow for the preferred private landowner agreement arrangements to apply and modified development arrangements for parking in accordance with the NEP SP and refer it to the Minister for Planning for final endorsement and gazettal without further advertising.

Purpose For Council to consider final adoption of Scheme Amendment No. 130 in order to address developer contributions and parking development standards within the Claremont NEP SP area.

Background The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal: Date Item/Outcome 2 December 2008 Amendment No. 130 initiated by Council 16 October 2013 Referred to the EPA for assessment and consent to advertise 14 November 2013 EPA response received 29 November 2013 Advertising commenced 17 January 2014 Advertising closed 10 February 2014 Report prepared for Council.

Past Resolutions Council resolved on 2 December 2008 (346/08) to adopt the Claremont NEP Structure Plan, seek Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) approval of the Structure Plan and initiate this amendment. Specifically, Council resolved under part 3 as follows: “3. Subject to Council adoption of the Claremont North East Precinct Structure Plan, and preparation of appropriate Scheme Amendment documentation, Council resolves to initiate a Scheme Amendment to: a) Introduce Schedule 1 to the Town of Claremont Town Planning Scheme No. 3; and b) Nominate the Claremont North East Precinct project area as a Development Contribution Area within Schedule 1.” It is noted that the amendment initiation resolution lacked specific detail with regard to the “appropriate” documentation and also, since Council initiated the amendment, a number of subsequent issues have arisen which need to be addressed by this amendment. These matters relate to the specific development standards applicable in Schedule 1 (appropriate Scheme Amendment documentation), the preference of both LandCorp, the Town of Claremont and other landowners and participants in the NEP to address infrastructure development costs via a more flexible private

Page 38 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

landowner arrangements and proposals to consider other ‘community infrastructure’ development requirements. Accordingly, the amendment documentation has been prepared to respond to the evolving nature of implementing the NEP SP.

Statutory Considerations Scheme amendments are required to be undertaken in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967 (TP Regs). Council has initiated the amendment, referred it to the EPA, advertised it for 49 days (42 days minimum requirement – extended by a week to take into account Christmas/New Year period) and is now required to consider the submissions received and progress the amendment with a recommendation to the Minister for Planning. Council is required to make one of the following resolutions: (a) That the scheme amendment be adopted with or without modification; or (b) That it does not wish to proceed with the scheme amendment. The recommendation is to be forwarded to the Minister for Planning, who has the final determination power over the matter.

Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with the TP Regs for a period of 49 days from 29 November 2013 to 17 January 2014. The following advertising was undertaken: • An advertisement was placed in the Post Newspaper on 29 November 2013; • A copy of the amendment was placed on the Town’s website; • Letters were sent to the affected owners of land within the NEP; and • A copy of the amendment was made available at the front counter. At the end of the consultation period three submissions had been received including two objections and one uncertain response. Details of the submissions are as follows: From Submission Officer’s Comment Public 1. The PTA does not object to the PTA has been party to negotiations with Transport Development Contribution Area (DCA) other stakeholders through LandCorp for Authority however objects to being included as an the development of a private landowner (PTA) agency that may be subject to this agreement. In moving away from the payment. Development Contribution Plan arrangements as initially conceived, the responsibility for the administration of the private arrangements falls to LandCorp. The move away from developer contributions towards the private landowner agreement arrangements will depend on the participants coming to agreement on the sharing on cost for the provision of infrastructure items. In the unlikely event that agreement between the participants cannot be reached, the fallback position will be the existing developer contribution arrangements provided for under clause

Page 39 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

75S of TPS3. This will require the preparation of a Development Contribution Plan and administration of the plan by the Town as detailed below. 2. SPP 3.6 states that its purpose is to SPP 3.6 requirements relate specifically to ensure development contributions are the inclusion of ‘community infrastructure’ charged equitably between those as part of the public infrastructure provided benefitting from the infrastructure. The to facilitate major development projects. PTA strongly believes it is not a The Policy was developed to guide the beneficiary on the following grounds: application of community facility contributions to respond to increased a) The PTA will lose both land and car community needs generated by new parking bays; development.

b) Improved land value of the The progression of the amendment to the remaining land will be negligible; preferred private landowner agreement will be administered by LandCorp and c) The development potential of the equitable contribution towards the Goods Shed will not increase as a infrastructure costs will be determined result of the Structure Plan; through stakeholder negotiations.

d) The Goods Shed is adequately serviced at present;

e) LandCorp has confirmed the Goods Shed is not part of its redevelopment plans; and

f) The benefits associated with the redevelopment including infrastructure and facilities are clearly to the developer (LandCorp) and not the PTA. 3. It is requested that the PTA be excluded Should Council support the progression from the Developer Contribution away from a Development Contribution Scheme for the NEP. Plan towards a private landowner agreement administered by LandCorp, the exclusion of PTA as a contributing stakeholder will be subject to negotiations between the two parties, and to a lesser degree, related negotiations with other stakeholders.

As indicated above, should the private landowner agreement fail, the fallback will be administration of a Developer Contribution Plan, where all landowners within the NEP Development zone are required to equitably contribute to infrastructure works. The land owners within this area include PTA and as a result, PTA will be required to make their equitable contribution as originally conceived. Federation 1. Agree that all landholders should Noted – Equitable contributions are of WA contribute to the cost of infrastructure proposed, however as indicated above, Police and development and facilities as may be stakeholder have been moving away from Community required. Over the past several years the Development Contribution Plan Youth numerous meetings have established a proposals administered through TPS3 to a Centres clear expectation as to the basis of private landowner agreement administered (PCYC) Developer Contributions (DC). by LandCorp.

Page 40 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

2. Disappointed that the proposal lacks the Given the move away from the detail provided in earlier (2008) draft DC Development Contribution Plan proposals Plan. State Planning Policy 3.6 (SPP administered through TPS3 to a private 3.6) outlines the guiding principles for landowner arrangement administered DC Plans – Need, Transparency, through LandCorp, it was not considered Equity, Certainty, Efficiency, necessary to provide details in a Schedule Consistency, Right of Consultation and relative to the engineering infrastructure Accountability. Without any details requirements. Should the amendment affected landowners cannot be evolve to include other ‘community expected to support the amendment. infrastructure’, it will be necessary to address the requirements established under SPP 3.6 in order to gain support for the modification of the amendment by the Department of Planning.

Should the private landowner agreement proposal fail, the fallback will involve the preparation of a Developer Contribution Plan, for all infrastructure cost to apply in accordance with clause 75S of TPS3 as provided for in the Development Contribution Plan as detailed below. 3. SPP 3.6 states that the DC Plan should Noted - It is understood that the reference be based on the Town’s Community to the Town’s 2023 Strategic Infrastructure Infrastructure Plan not the 2023 Plan is Council’s 2023 Strategic Strategic Infrastructure Plan as it does Community Plan. This Plan outlines an not provide sufficient detail. objective to complete a Community Facility Needs Study in 2013/14. The Study aims to provide recommendations for the future development of community facilities in the Town. The Study is presently being undertaken by Creating Communities and final recommendations are expected to be presented to Council in March 2014. See further comments below. 4. The PCYC has previously stated that it Noted – The PCYC’s support for a is prepared to consider a meaningful meaningful contribution to a replacements contribution to a replacement skate skate park is subject to detailed ongoing park. This is clearly community negotiation. infrastructure and further details are needed to determine how it will be handled. 5. In light of the above, the proposed Council is required to forward the amendment should be withdrawn until amendment in its current or modified form details of any DC Plan or similar private to the Minister for Planning for agreements are known. consideration. Should the Minister require any modifications readvertised, Council will be required to facilitate this action. It is however noted that the proposed possible changes to evolve the Development Contribution Plan proposals administered through TPS3 to a private landowner arrangements administered through LandCorp have been detailed in the amendment documentation which was advertised for public comment in an effort to foreshadow this matter and thereby avoid the requirement for additional advertising. Other modifications which have been identified during the final stages of the amendment have also been

Page 41 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

foreshadowed in previous reports and public documents. 6. PCYC is committed to working with all Given the move away from the parties to prepare a DC Plan but does Development Contribution Plan proposals not believe the proposed amendment administered through TPS3 to a private will further this. landowner agreement administered through LandCorp, it was not considered necessary to provide details in a Schedule relative to the engineering infrastructure requirements. LandCorp 1. LandCorp agrees that it is fair for all Noted landowners to contribute towards the cost of utilities infrastructure. 2. We give in principle support for either Noted – the Town’s preference is for the the use of a DC Plan or a Private progression of the amendment to provide Development Contribution arrangement. for a private landowner agreement in lieu of This is consistent with previous the initiated Development Contribution correspondence and outcomes from the Plan. Stakeholders Reference Group (see attached letter and flowchart). 3. Support is subject to:

a) Opportunity to review the proposed As indicated above, the Developer Development Contribution Area Contribution Plan proposal has evolved (DCA) Plan. We note that the through time to a private developer amendment report refers to the contribution arrangement to be Development Zone area forming the administered through LandCorp. DCA however we request a scale Accordingly, the details (other than plan for confirmation. identification of the area applicable – see below) requested by LandCorp are not necessary at this point, unless:

a) Council resolves to modify the amendment to include a private landowner agreement and Development Contribution Plan to cover ‘community infrastructure’; or b) the private landowner agreement fails, in which case the Development Contribution Plan requirements contained in clause 75S of TPS3 will apply, involving the inclusion of the detailed Development Contribution Plan as referred to below.

It is necessary to define the area applicable to the private developer contribution plan/developer contribution plan in the particulars of the land section of proposed Schedule 1. Rather than refer to particular lot volume and folio numbers, it is proposed to identify the area as the North East Precinct Development zone generally bounded by the railway line, Claremont Crescent, Shenton Road, Davies Road, Lapsley Road and Graylands Road.

See comments below relative to the b) The Town confirming in writing any proposed Schedule 1 as advertised and

Page 42 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

proposed modifications prior to modified to insert details relative to finalisation of the amendment. In particulars of the land. particular section 3.2.2 of the report refers to incorporation of a Schedule 1 into the Scheme following advertising, a copy of which has not been included. 4. The State Government is committed to Noted. Council is of the view that deliver the Claremont NEP in additional ‘community infrastructure’ is accordance with the Structure Plan. warranted - see detailed comments below. This includes $16.5m for a new football club facility, 200 parking bays for the Claremont Train Station and upgrades to the public space surrounding the oval. Noted - see detailed comments below. Notwithstanding, Amendment 130 proposes introducing community infrastructure contributions or equivalent Private Developer Contributions. SPP 3.6 provides the framework for such proposals including the guiding principles of Need and Nexus, Transparency, Equity, Certainty, Efficiency, Consistency, Right of Consultation and Accountability. 5. Section 5.5 of SPP 3.6 states that Noted - see detailed comments below. community infrastructure items should be based on need and nexus. LandCorp agrees that a clear and sound basis needs to be established including a 5-10yr community infrastructure plan, a capital expenditure plan, revenue sources, delivery program, projected housing growth figures and methodology for determining proportional costs. 6. Town is yet to commence any of the Noted - see detailed comments below. detailed work mentioned above, creating uncertainty. Therefore LandCorp is unable to support or comment on introduction of community infrastructure at this point. 7. The draft Private Developer Contribution Noted - see detailed comments below. plan which has been worked on over the last two years only refers to utility infrastructure. After the SRG meeting in November 2013 we confirm that resolution of the private contributions arrangements are on schedule for completion by February 2014. 8. LandCorp supports the portion of the Noted amendment that relates to development requirements, in particular parking standards. Full copies of the submissions are attached to this report.

Page 43 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Discussion Reasons for the Amendment The purpose of the proposed amendment is to facilitate financial contributions toward public infrastructure and apply development standards applicable to the NEP parking requirements under the SP in preference to the development standards which apply under TPS3 in consideration of the special circumstances which apply to the NEP transit orientated development (TOD). Current Arrangements Clause 75(S) of TPS3 contains specific provisions relative to Development Contribution Areas (DCA). These areas are to be shown on the Scheme Map as a DCA with a number and also be included within a Schedule to the Scheme. A number of definitions are provided to guide the operation of the DCA, the purpose is detailed, prerequisites for subdivision and development and the preparation of a Developer Contribution Plan (DCP) are identified, the general content and principles of a DCP are explained and financial arrangements are detailed along with general administrative procedures. It is noted that general infrastructure works are identified under clause 75(S) 10 as including “the acquisition of land, including associated infrastructure and structures, for the roads, intersections, sewerage pumping station(s) and community facilities.” Notably, the definition does not include the provision of community facilities – only the land necessary for the provision of these facilities. The Claremont North East Precinct Structure Plan adopted by Council in 2008 included Attachment A3.3 which detailed the Development Contribution Plan Report. The table (attached) specifies that the DCA is to be identified on the Scheme Map, and includes the purpose, time span, operation of the DCP, administrative details, items to be included in the DCP and specific infrastructure elements including the utilities and road upgrades. It is specifically noted that references in the Report indicate that the DCP is prepared in accordance with (the then draft) SPP 3.6 and the specific principles referred to now in SPP 3.6 (relating to need and nexus, transparency, equity, certainty, efficiency consistency right of review and consultation and accountability) are all addressed. It is also specifically noted that ‘community infrastructure’ is not mentioned in the items to be included in the DCP, other than references to inclusion of public art and public amenities (toilets, showers, bike sheds and lockers). Clause 75M of TPS3 indicates that “if a provision of a Structure Plan is inconsistent with the provisions of the Scheme, then the provision of the Scheme prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.” Alterations to Proposed Amendment Amendment No. 130 details how Council’s initial intent for a Development Contribution Plan has evolved to private landowner arrangements and requirements for the Amendment to contemplate inclusion of ‘community infrastructure’.

It is considered appropriate for Council to seek modifications to the Amendment to go down the preferred path of private landowner arrangements. The advantages of this approach are: 1. It fairly distributes general infrastructure works and direct developer costs amongst the participants;

Page 44 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

2. Simplicity in application by LandCorp; and 3. Significant cost and time savings to the Town by not having to administer a DCP. The disadvantage of the proposal for a private landowner agreement is that LandCorp and the participants do not recognise inclusion of ‘community infrastructure’ as a necessary and justified contribution. It is also noted that if the private landowner arrangements fail, the fallback position will be a Council administered DCP in accordance with clause 75S of TPS3. As indicated above, the planning for the DCP was foreshadowed in Attachment A3.3 of the NEP SP adopted by Council in 2008 and the infrastructure elements adopted at that time and required to be incorporated into the Scheme did not include ‘community infrastructure’ other than toilets, showers, bike sheds and lockers.

Whether or not the amendment is able to evolve to cover ‘community infrastructure’ is to be considered by Council in the context of State Planning Policy 3.6 Development Contributions for Infrastructure (SPP 3.6) requirements and ultimately by the Minister for Planning in approving the amendment. SPP 3.6 indicates that ‘community infrastructure’ may include sporting and recreation facilities, community centre, child care and after school care centres, libraries and cultural activities and such other services and facilities for which development contributions may reasonably be requested. A clear and sound basis for the contribution is to be established, linked to the local government’s strategic and financial planning and processes, a community infrastructure plan which identifies services and facilities required over the next five to ten years (supported by demand analysis and identification of service catchments), a capital expenditure plan which identifies capital costs, revenue sources and programs for delivery, projected housing growth figures and the methodology in determining proportional costs. These plans are generally associated with green- field development sites where no community infrastructure exists.

There have been suggestions of seeking contributions for matters such as a multi- storey car park at the railway station to replace lost PTA parking; improved recreation and community facilities to replace lost PCYC facilities and meet additional demand from the NEP; an underpass in Shenton Road to cater for additional pedestrian demand from NEP; and provision of underground power in Davies, Graylands and Shenton Roads. However, there has been no clear direction or planning from Council on these matters. As indicated above, Council’s 2023 Strategic Community Plan outlines an objective to complete a Community Facility Needs Study in 2013/14. This Study aims to provide recommendations for the future development of community facilities in the Town. The Study is presently being undertaken by Creating Communities and final recommendations are expected to be presented to Council in March 2014.

The SPP 3.6 parameters required to justify the inclusion of these matters are not satisfied and will take considerable time and resources (capital and staff) to complete. Difficulties are envisaged with: 1. The proposal for underground power in adjacent areas as it has no direct link to the NEP development; 2. Provision for additional car parking as it directly conflicts with previous decisions of Council when approving the original NEP SP – whilst it is

Page 45 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

appreciated that no current Elected Members were either on the Council or in support of the NEP proposals at the time, it would be difficult to justify a change of tack of the Council as an entity. In this regard it is specifically noted that when Council adopted the NEP SP in 2008, report 14.3.1 on 2 December indicated that “Section 9.0 to be modified to recommend 200 Park and Ride bays, rather than “a maximum of 200”. Reason: despite the strong TOD focus of the project, senior officers of the Public Transport Authority will not recommend approval of the Structure Plan with a “maximum of 200 bays” in the park-and-ride facility. The Public Transport Authority required a “minimum of 200 bays”; thus a compromise solution was struck, with the recommendation stating that 200 park-and-ride bays should be provided”. It is noted here that the point of structure planning is to identify the impacts a development may have on its locality and to address those impacts through the plan. Whilst it is acknowledged that approximately 250 bays which are essentially associated with Town Centre parking will be lost as a result of this development, this was either not taken into consideration at the time, or it was acknowledged that Council would have to address this matter – hence the development of strategic parking plans for the Town Centre; 3. With regard to pedestrian access across Shenton Road to cater for additional pedestrian demand from the NEP, this is clearly something for which any concerns should have been addressed in the initial SP; and 4. A dollar value on this list could be upwards of $30 million and there is no funding source for such expenditure. Whilst it is still open for the Town to attempt to negotiate a contribution towards ‘community infrastructure’ with the major stakeholders, being LandCorp and PCYC, it is necessary to progress the Amendment in accordance with the TP Regs. In doing so it is recommended that Council acknowledges its past decisions relative to the adoption of the NEP SP and accept that the redevelopment of the Claremont Football Club will be a significant community asset and drawcard/generator of public investment (and therefore rates revenue) in the Town. Progression of the amendment will facilitate the steady development in the NEP and the improved amenity outcomes within the locality. The additional rates revenue will assist in facilitating future community projects within the Town along with existing ratepayers.

Proposed Modifications to Amendment A number of modifications have already been foreshadowed in the amendment document. Having reviewed this matter as a result of the submissions received, it is necessary to add further clarification to the amendment through the inclusion of additional modifications. These modifications have been foreshadowed previously with the inclusion of Development Contribution Plan Report as Attachment A3.3 to the Claremont North East Precinct Structure Plan adopted by Council in 2008 (modified only to bring up to date with current proposals and time). It is noted that the Schedule prepared is not fully comprehensive in that it does not provide details on cost allocation and apportionment. This is acknowledged in the document and in the unlikely event that private landowner arrangement fail and the Development Contribution Plan is required to be implemented, these details will be provided in accordance with clause 75S of TPS3 following consultation with the stakeholders. Accordingly, in making these modifications to the amendment it will be submitted to the Minister that no further advertising of the amendment is warranted. Proposed

Page 46 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

modifications foreshadowed both in the amendment document and this report include: 1. Include Schedule 1 - modified to include land particulars, provide for the NEP Development zone as a Development Contribution Area and allow the private landowner agreement to apply administered through LandCorp and for the varied parking requirements as proposed in the NEP SP to apply. 2. Include Schedule 2 - modified Attachment A3.3 Development Contribution Plan Report to the Claremont North East Precinct Structure Plan to take into account and augment changes to the requirements of SPP 3.6 and the current preferred private landowners arrangement. 3. Delineate the Claremont North East Precinct Development zone as DZ1 and DCA1 on the Scheme Map and modify the legend of the Scheme Map to include references to: Development Zone – DZ Development Contribution Area - DCA 4. Modify Clause 75(S) (1) to add the following sentence: Development Contribution Areas under the Scheme may be administered by the Town of Claremont in accordance with this clause, or alternatively by an external party to the Town of Claremont’s approval and satisfaction as a private landowner agreement to the satisfaction of all landowner stakeholders.

Summary In summary, it is clear from the above that Council missed the opportunity to seek ‘community infrastructure’ contributions many years ago. Had Council progressed plans for ‘community infrastructure’ in accordance with SPP 3.6 there may have been an opportunity to include these options together with the private developer contribution arrangements. However, even if this opportunity had been addressed, the scope of the proposed community infrastructure likely to be approved would be considerably narrower than discussed in this report. Whilst the private contribution arrangements have been accepted as the Town’s preferred option for many years, it would be extremely difficult to change tack at this juncture. Council was locked into a process of amending the Scheme to address these matters back in 2008 and the process and ultimately the Minister’s decision will determine the final outcomes. It is unlikely that progression of the amendment through the Minister’s office will result in any further contributions to ‘community facilities’ as part of this project.

It is accordingly recommended that Council resolve to note the submissions received during advertising and progress the amendment with modifications to the Minister for Planning for final approval without further advertising.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council: A Modify Scheme Amendment No. 130 to read as follows:

Page 47 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

“1. Include Schedule 1 in Town Planning Scheme No. 3 as follows:

Schedule 1 – Development Zone

Particulars of Location Purpose and Requirements Land

1 Claremont Claremont North 1. Include the Claremont North East East Precinct North East Precinct Precinct Structure Plan Development zone as area as shown as Development Contribution Development Area. zone on the 2. Allow for private Scheme Map and landowner generally arrangements to apply bounded by administered by Lapsley Road, LandCorp in lieu of Davies Road, arrangements under Shenton Road, Clause 75S of the Claremont Scheme. Crescent, railway line and 3. Provide for parking Graylands Road. standards contained in Table 2 of this Scheme, where inconsistent with the approved Claremont North East Precinct Structure Plan to be varied to accord with the requirements of the approved Structure Plan or Detailed Area Plan.

2. Include Schedule 2 in Town Planning Scheme No 3 as follows:

Schedule 2 – Development Contribution Areas Development The Development Contribution Area is identified on the Contribution Scheme Map as DCA1. Area Relationship to The Development Plan generally conforms to the other planning Claremont North East Precinct Structure Plan. instruments Purpose The purpose of this Development Contribution Plan is to: a) provide for the equitable sharing of the costs of infrastructure and administrative costs between owners; b) ensure that cost contributions are reasonably required as a result of the subdivision and

Page 48 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

development of land in the Development Contribution Area; and c) coordinate the timely provision of infrastructure. The Developer Contribution Plan may be administered by the Town of Claremont in accordance with clause 75S of the Scheme, or as a private landowners arrangement by LandCorp. All references within this Schedule to Developer Contribution Plan provide for both options to apply. Period of 10 years, to commence from the date of Gazettal of the operation Claremont North East Precinct Structure Plan Development Contribution Area. Operation of The Development Contribution Plan has been prepared in the accordance with State Planning Policy 3.6 Development Development Contributions for Infrastructure. It will come into effect Contribution on the date of Gazettal of the Amendment to the Local Plan Planning Scheme to incorporate the Development Contribution Plan or such prior period to that date as agreed to by participating stakeholders in the alternate and preferred private landowners arrangements administered by LandCorp. Application Where a subdivision or development application or an Requirements extension of land use is lodged which relates to land to which this Development Contribution Plan applies, Council shall take the provisions of the Development Contribution Plan into account in making a recommendation on or determining that application. Infrastructure Administration Costs and • Costs to prepare the Development Contribution Plan administrative • Costs to prepare and review estimates items to be • Costs to prepare the Cost Apportionment Schedule funded • Valuation costs • Administration costs: − Costs to prepare the Structure Plan in accordance with Council’s Local Planning Scheme including: • Structure Plan and report • Design Guidelines • Landscape Master Plan • Local Water Management Strategy • Urban Water Management Strategy • Council costs, including legal costs • Costs to prepare Amendments to Council’ Local Planning Scheme, including the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

Page 49 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Infrastructure Elements • Utilities: − Water − Power (underground and standard) − Sewer − Gas − Stormwater Drainage − Telecommunications − Greywater − Street Lighting − Closed Circuit Television (or other security / surveillance infrastructure) − Computer data line − Public Art − Public Amenities (toilets, showers, bike sheds, lockers) • Road, verge and footpath upgrading: − Lapsley Road − Graylands Road (Alfred Road to Shenton Road only) − Davies Road (Alfred Road to Shenton Road only) − Land and construction for Shenton Road (Stirling Road to Shenton Road Underpass / Subway) − Traffic management − Landscaping and tree planting − Relocation of trees − Claremont Crescent intersection with Shenton Road − Shenton Road – Graylands Road intersection treatment − Traffic signals or round-about (if agreed at Shenton Road and Davies Road intersection) − Stirling Road Underpass/ Subway − Plaza − Taxi Rank − Principal Shared Path Implementation The above administrative and infrastructure items are to and method for be included in the Development Contribution Plan. In the calculating event that the preferred private landowners arrangement contributions is not implemented, full financial costings and apportionment of these costs to stakeholders will be prepared in consultation with the stakeholders in accordance with Clause 75S of the Scheme.

The Council’s Claremont North East Precinct Structure

Page 50 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Plan identified the needs that impact on the Development Contribution Plan. The contributions outlined in this plan have been based on the need for facilities generated by the additional development in the Development Contribution Plan. This calculation excludes the: • Demand for a facility that is generated by the current population; • Demand created by external usage – the proportion of use drawn from outside of the main catchment area; and • Future usage – the proportion of usage that will be generated by future development outside of the development contribution timeframe. Review The Development Contribution Plan will be reviewed when considered appropriate by Council, having regard to the rate of subsequent development in the Development Contribution Area since the last review and the degree of development potential still existing.

The estimated infrastructure costs shown at Schedule 2 will be reviewed at least annually to reflect changes in funding and revenue sources and indexed based on Building Cost Index as approved by the qualified person undertaking the certification of costs referred to in MST clause 6.3.11.3. 3. Delineate the Claremont North East Precinct Development zone as DZ1 and DCA1 on the Scheme Map and modify the legend of the Scheme Map to include references to: Development Zone – DZ Development Contribution Area - DCA 4. Modify Clause 75(S) (1) to add the following sentence: “Development Contribution Areas under the Scheme may be administered by the Town of Claremont in accordance with this clause, or alternatively by an external party to the Town of Claremont’s approval and satisfaction as a private landowner agreement to the satisfaction of all landowner stakeholders.”

B Adopt Scheme Amendment No. 130 with modifications.

C Authorise the Chief Executive Officer and Mayor to affix the Common Seal to Scheme Amendment No. 130 documents; D Forward Scheme Amendment No. 130 to the Honourable Minister for Planning for final approval; and E Forward a copy of this report and Council’s resolution on this matter to all respondents to advertising of the amendment.

Page 51 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.2.3 LOT 4 (16) OTWAY STREET, SWANBOURNE – PROPOSED CARPORT ADDITION TO A HERITAGE DWELLING

File No: A-2773 Attachments: Location and Submission Plan Photograph Plans Letter from Applicant

Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development Author: Josh Wilson Urban Planner Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014 Date Prepared: 10 January 2014 Planning Application No.: DA 2013.206 60 Days Due Date: 12 January 2014 Property Owner: Craig and Odette Smith Submitted By: Craig and Odette Smith Lot No.: 4 Area of Lot: 733m2 Zoning: Residential Financial Implications: Nil Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA) Town Planning Scheme 3 (TPS3) Residential Design Codes (RDC) Council Policy for Retention of Residential Heritage (LV124) Local Planning Policy No. 108 - Retention of Residential Heritage (LPP108)

Summary • Application for planning approval received for a double carport addition to a heritage listed dwelling. • Item was prepared for Delegated Authority determination on 6 December 2013 and was “called up” by an Elected Member. • Proposal seeks a minor variation to the RDC and Policy requirements. • Proposal is supported by the Town’s Heritage Officer. • The application was advertised to five surrounding neighbours and no submissions were received. • Application is recommended for approval.

Page 52 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Purpose The application involves the construction of a lightweight, curved carport roof, partially attached to the side of an existing heritage listed dwelling. The proposal was prepared for Delegated Authority determination on 6 December 2013 and was “called up” to by an Elected Member.

Background The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal: Date Item/Outcome 12 November 2013 Planning Application received by Council 13 November 2013 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment 25 November 2013 Advertising commenced 3 December 2013 Advertising closed 6 December 2013 Council advised of intent to determine under delegation 7 December 2013 Council requests report on application for OCM 10 January 2013 Report prepared for Council

Past Resolutions At its meeting held on 27 March 1995 the Council resolved to refuse an application for a similar carport structure and advised the applicant that Council would require the carport to have a pitched roof to match that of the existing verandah.

Local Planning Policy Retention of Residential Heritage (LPP108) was adopted by Council at its meeting held on 17 August 2010. LPP108 contained detailed work procedures for consideration of development applications which are summarized in an abridged version of the Policy adopted by Council on 5 October 2010. The abridged version is now known as LIV124 Retention of Residential Heritage. LPP108 states that “the purpose of the policy is to ensure that the heritage places that contribute to the domestic scale and architectural character of the Town are retained and that, where adaptations or extensions are necessary to ensure their ongoing sustainability, development does not reduce the heritage value of the places or their contribution to the streetscape and character of the Town.”

Heritage The property is listed on the Town's Schedule of Heritage Places. As such the proposal was referred to the Town’s Heritage Officer for comment who advised that:

“According to the current Municipal Inventory the original portion of the building was constructed in 1898 and is one of the few existing pre-1900 Federation Bungalows within the Town of Claremont. Taking into consideration the location of the parking area in relation to the heritage listed building, it is essential that any additions or alterations do not dominate the overall streetscape amenity of the place or obscure key architectural features such as the verandah and entryway. The proposed carport is a contemporary minimalist design that by way of its scale and form clearly differentiates itself from the historic fabric of the place. The application is supported as a good example of modern intervention which sensitively responds to the heritage dwelling, the immediate setting and streetscape.

Page 53 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

It is important to note that there are multiple design approaches that can be taken when making additions or alterations to a heritage listed building. The three most commonly accepted and used approaches are a pastiche (or a celebration on the design) of the original form of the existing building (with subtle detailing variances to distinguish the old from the new), a modern intervention (which is contemporary and very distinct from the original building) and a combination of the two where the design queues of the existing building are respected in the design features of the extension. The approach that is taken should be a response to the requirements of the place and its setting.”

Details of the proposals compliance with Council’s Retention of Residential Heritage Policy (LV124) is discussed further in this report.

Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Council Policy LG525.

Five neighbours were consulted and no submissions were received.

Discussion Description The carport is a lightweight, curved steel structure with a translucent ‘Danpalon’ (grey in colour) roof. It is proposed to attach the carport directly to the verandah posts at the side of the house and to the limestone wall along the property boundary. It will be set back 6.6m from the front of the lot, approximately 0.5m behind the front wall of the house and 2.6m behind the front verandah. The proposed carport will reach approximately half way up the verandah as the existing ground level is 1.4m below the floor level of the verandah.

The applicant has provided a letter in support of proposal which has been included as an attachment. The applicant provides the following justification for the proposal: “1. The Burra charter supports contemporary design of additions in such circumstances; 2. The proposed design approach has been consistently supported by the Heritage Council of Western Australia; 3. Carports that matched the dwelling were unheard of at the time the house was constructed; 4. The design is a separate and recessive visual element that leaves the form of the house fully visible; and 5. Existing landscaping will further diminish the visual impact of the carport.”

Compliance Town Planning Scheme No. 3 and Council Policy TPS3 contains a number of provisions which may apply to this application.

Clause 36(1) states that: “Council may permit the construction of an outbuilding, including a garage or carport that is detached from the main dwelling subject to:

Page 54 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

(a) Where an outbuilding is visible from a street and is located less than 5m from the predominant building on the site, the outbuilding shall be constructed in similar style and materials to the predominant building.”

Under the RDC an ‘Outbuilding’ is defined as an enclosed non-habitable structure that is detached from any dwelling, but not a garage. Clause 36(1) specifically includes a detached garage or carport as the definition of an outbuilding would not include them. Having regard to the relevant definitions, the Clause is specific to detached structures only, therefore as the proposed carport is partially attached to the predominant dwelling this provision does not apply to this proposal.

Clause 49 states that: “(1) Where an application is submitted to construct additions to a dwelling and that addition when completed will be visible from a street, Council may only approve of the application if the materials used in and the nature of the construction will be consistent with those of the dwelling. (2) In exceptional cases, where the applicant can show that: (a) it is not possible to obtain the materials, or (b) it is impractical to follow the existing style of the dwelling, the addition may be constructed in materials and a style as approved by Council.

In addition to the above, particular reference to the addition of a carport on a heritage listed site is detailed in Clause 36(2) which states that: “In considering an application for a carport, Council will, subject to subsection (4) (relating to width of carport relative to frontage) of this Clause, have regard to the following: (d) Council will consider other appropriate options for carports for places referred to in Clause 79.”

Clause 79 of TPS3 refers to the preservation of historic and other buildings, objects and places. As the subject site is listed on the Town’s Heritage Schedule the proposal has been assessed against the requirements of the Council’s Retention of Residential Heritage Policy (LV124) and LPP108.

Work procedures adopted by Council under LPP108 at the time of finally adopting LV124 states that “the design of Garages and Carports to dwellings included in the Schedule shall meet the following requirements: • Carports or garages should not visually dominate the original building or obscure the original front door or main entrance as viewed from the street; • Where possible, back lanes should be used for access to garages, carports or parking areas to reduce their impact on views of the dwelling from the street and on the streetscape itself; • Garages or carports may be constructed to match the style of the existing dwelling or in a style that is compatible with the original. Simple contemporary designs will be considered.

Page 55 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

• Where possible the overall width of carports or garages should be restricted to 6m overall or 35% of the frontage of the lot, whichever is the lesser; • Where possible, garages or carports should be set back a distance of 1.2m behind the building line in the same manner as additions; • Where there is no viable alternative, carports or garages may be constructed within the front setback but extreme care must be taken to ensure that the design of the structure is sympathetic to the dwelling and not visually dominant. The proposed carport generally complies with the requirements of LPP108, being located to the side of the existing dwelling and designed as to minimise any impact on the dwelling or the streetscape. It is noted that the proposed carport is not setback 1.2m behind the building line of the existing dwelling as required by the Policy. It is considered that in this instance this variation to the Policy can be supported as the carport is setback approximately 0.5m behind the building line and 2.6m behind the verandah line and in combination with its contemporary design the carport is clearly distinct from the original dwelling. The proposal complies with the general principles of the Policy applicable to additions to a significant building being that additions should take account of the significance of the existing building and should be designed to not disrespect or copy the exact detail of the existing building.

It is considered that the proposed carport is designed to minimise the visual impact on the heritage listed dwelling through its lightweight modern design. The carport does not detract from the design and significance of the dwelling nor compete with the heritage features creating a clear distinction between the old and the new. The proposed carport is considered to be a sympathetic to the design of the dwelling as it is a light weight structure which does not compete for visual dominance over the existing dwelling and will not adversely impact on the streetscape.

Residential Design Codes The carport is proposed to be setback 0.75m from the western boundary of the site in lieu of 1m as required under the DTC of the RDC.

The proposal is considered to the comply with the DP’s of the RDC as the carport will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent property by way of bulk, access to light or overlooking, as the proposed carport roof extends above the height of the existing boundary wall. It is considered that the proposed variation is minor and can be supported in this instance.

Summary The proposed carport generally complies with the TPS3, RDC and Policy requirements. It has been located and designed to minimise the impact on the heritage listed dwelling as viewed from the street. Based on the above, it is recommended that approval be granted subject to the conditions in the officer’s recommendation.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

Page 56 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION THAT Council grant planning approval for a proposed carport at Lot 4 (16) Otway Street, Swanbourne, subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. All storm water is to be retained on the site. 2. All efforts being taken to minimise damage to the original fabric of the building. 3. In all other respects, development shall occur in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application for Planning Approval (Planning Application DA 2013.206), as amended by these conditions. 4. This application is valid only if the development is commenced within 24 months of the date of approval. Advice Notes: (i) This is a Planning Approval only. A Building Permit must be obtained from the Town’s Building Services unit prior to the commencement of any building works. (ii) This property is listed on the Town of Claremont's Heritage Schedule and/or the Heritage Council of Western Australia's Register of Heritage Places. Any future alteration to the building or development on the land requires planning approval and the application may be referred to the Heritage Council. (iii) The owner is advised that under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 no construction work is to be permitted or suffered to be carried out: a) Before 7.00am or after 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive; or b) On a Sunday or on a public holiday. (iv) If an applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of appeal may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An appeal must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au) within 28 days of the determination.

Page 57 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.2.4 LOTS 616 AND 718 (19) QUEENSLEA DRIVE, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED UPGRADES TO CHAPEL FOR CHRIST CHURCH GRAMMAR SCHOOL

File No: A-2929 Attachments: Location Plan Photograph Plans Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development Author: Josh Wilson Urban Planner Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014

Date Prepared: 15 January 2014

Planning Application No.: DA-2013.221

60 Days Due Date: 27 January 2014

Property Owner: Christ Church Grammar School

Submitted By: Donaldson and Warn Architects

Lot No.: 616 and 718

Area of Lot: 2,841m2

Zoning: Residential

Financial Implications: Nil

Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA) Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3)

Summary • Application for planning approval received for proposed internal and external upgrades to the existing chapel within Christ Church Grammar School (CCGS). • Application has been referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for approval under the Metropolitan region Scheme (MRS) as the subject lot is partially located within the regional Parks and Recreation reservation (PRR). Approval is still required under TPS3 as the development is within the zoned portion of the lot. • Upgrades are required to accommodate the student population (1,600) and bring the building to current standards and codes. • No advertising was required as the proposed works are internal to the site and not visible from any other property. • The application is recommended for approval. Page 58 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Purpose The application involves the upgrade of the existing chapel on the CCGS site to accommodate the increased student and staff numbers since originally constructed in 1970. The application requires the Council’s determination as the proposal is of a non- commercial nature.

Background The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal: Date Item/Outcome 27 November 2013 Planning Application received by Council 27 November 2013 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment 28 November 2013 Application referred to the WAPC for approval under the MRS 6 February 2014 Meeting held with CCGS regarding Transport Plan 14 January 2014 Report prepared for Council

Past Resolutions Council approved a major alteration/addition to the R-Block at its Ordinary Council Meeting 5 June 2013. Conditions included 1.2 and 1.7 as detailed below: “1.2. Student enrolments not exceeding the School's stated cap of 1600 students for the Claremont campus without the prior approval of the Council. 1.7. A Traffic Management and Transport Plan for staff, students and parents being prepared and implemented by the school to reduce the number of vehicle trips required to deliver children to and from the school to the satisfaction of the Local Government. The Plan is to be prepared in consultation with the community and is to be approved by the Local Government. Implementation is required on an ongoing basis commencing prior to occupation of the development.” A second part of the Council resolution stated: “That the Town Liaise with CCGS and other schools in the general locality with regard to seeking implementation of integrated measures which may assist in the reduction of school related traffic on the local and regional road networks.” This approval established a student enrolment cap of 1600 and requirements for a Transport Plan to manage traffic problems and increase walking and cycling to school.

Heritage The property is listed on the Town's Schedule of Heritage Places however the chapel, which was constructed in 1970, is not considered significant. The development is not considered to impact on any of the significant buildings on the site.

Consultation The application was not advertised in accordance with Council Policy LG525 as the chapel is not visible from any surrounding properties or public spaces.

Page 59 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Discussion Description The application proposes the following changes to the existing chapel building: • Extended mezzanine level to provide 380 additional seats; • New operable glazing to the north and south facades; • New glass canopy/verandah to the north side of the building; • Renewed landscaping for the northern forecourt; and • Internal refurbishment.

The applicant has advised the Town that the proposed upgrade is required to meet the current needs and future expectations for the space. It is proposed to increase the chapels seating capacity, improve the building’s thermal comfort levels, upgrade the building to comply with current standards and codes and upgrade the chapel’s finishes and setting.

Compliance The development complies with the TPS3 and Council Policy requirements. It is considered that the proposed upgrades to the chapel and forecourt will improve the function and use of the chapel and have a positive contribution to the school grounds. As such it is considered that the proposed works will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the locality and can be supported.

Student numbers The current student numbers are capped at 1,600 based on a stated enrolment of 1598 for 2012 and any increase requires Council approval. The school confirms the current enrolment does not exceed this, however by 2015 it is expected that the student population will increase to 1,650 as a result of the cohort changes in 2008 (Year 7 into the senior school allowing for additional classes in the Preparatory School (i.e. plus 4)) and modifications to the intake year for the senior school, lowering from year 8 to 7. This has had the impact of gradually increasing the school population by 200 students during this period.

Previous Approvals CCGS was granted approval for R-Block works totalling $5.2m in value in June 2012. Condition 1.7 (see past resolution above) required a Traffic Management and Transport Plan to be prepared and implemented in consultation with the Town. In order to achieve this, CCGS has appointed consultant traffic engineers Uloth and Associates to prepare the plan. The Plan was submitted in August 2013 following a workshop held at the school for the public in May.

The plan does not presently satisfy the Town and requires further modifications. A meeting was held between the school, its consultant and Council’s planning and engineering staff to resolve outstanding issues on 6 February. The consultant is expected to address the Town’s concerns and resubmit the Plan within the month, following which the plan will be referred to Council for endorsement.

Page 60 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

As this matter does not relate directly to the application for the chapel it does not affect the officer’s recommendation. It is however recommended that Council stress the importance of completing and implementing the Transport Plan within the next month.

Summary Based on the above, it is recommended that the application be approved.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION THAT Council grant planning approval for proposed alterations to the existing chapel on Lots 616 and 718 (19) Queenslea Drive, Claremont subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. All storm water is to be retained on the site with drainage details and calculations being provided as part of the Building Permit application. 2 Student enrolments not exceeding 1650 students for the Claremont campus without the prior approval of the Council. 3 In all other respects, development shall occur in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application for Planning Approval (Planning Application DA 2013.221), as amended by these conditions. 4 This application is valid only if the development is commenced within 24 months of the date of approval. Advice Notes: (i) Under the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme, approval to commence development must also be obtained from the Western Australian Planning Commission and your application has been forwarded to the Commission for their determination. (ii) This is a Planning Approval only. A Building Permit must be obtained from the Town’s Building Services unit prior to the commencement of any building works. Permits for non-residential development MUST be certified prior to submission; (iii) This property is listed on the Town of Claremont's Heritage Schedule and/or the Heritage Council of Western Australia's Register of Heritage Places. Any future alteration to the building or development on the land requires planning approval and the application may be referred to the Heritage Council. (iv) The applicant/owner is advised of the following health requirements from the Town’s Health Services. For further information please contact the Town’s Health Services on 9285 4300: a) Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 no construction work is to be permitted or suffered to be carried out: a) Before 7.00am or after 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive; or

Page 61 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

b) On a Sunday or on a public holiday; and b) The building is required to comply with the Health (Public Building) Regulations 1992 including maximum occupancy which is to be determined with regard to floor space, emergency exits and toilet facilities. (v) If an applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of appeal may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An appeal must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au) within 28 days of the determination.

Page 62 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.2.5 LOT 59 (249) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOWROOM TO OFFICE

File No: A-3652 Attachments: Location and Submission Plan Photograph Plans Car Stacker Information Sheet Sketch Plan 1.7146 (139-b) Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development Author: Jeremy Swan Senior Planner Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014 Date Prepared: 4 February 2014 Planning Application No.: DA-2014.00001 60 Days Due Date: 8 March 2014 Property Owner: Beverley Gordon Submitted By: Knightcorp Insurance Brokers Lot No.: 59 Area of Lot: 774m2 Zoning: Highway Financial Implications: Nil Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA) Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3)

Summary • Application for planning approval received for a change of use from ‘Showroom’ to ‘Office’. • An Office use is a Permitted (‘P’) use in the Highway zone. • The car parking requirement is for 15 bays. 13 bays are currently provided on site and the applicant has agreed to provide two car stackers at the rear of the site to make up the parking shortfall. • Eleven neighbours were consulted and no submissions were received. • Application was referred to Main Roads WA (MRWA) for comment as a portion of the site is located within a Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) reserve for Primary Regional Road (PRR). • Application is recommended for approval, subject to relevant conditions.

Page 63 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Purpose The application involves the change of use from Showroom to Office at 249 Stirling Highway, Claremont. The application requires the Council’s determination due to application being of a non-residential nature.

Background The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal: Date Item/Outcome 7 January 2014 Planning Application received by Council. 8 January 2014 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment. 30 January 2014 Applicant submitted consent from neighbours. 4 February 2014 Report prepared for Council.

Past Resolutions There are no past Council resolutions relevant to this application.

Heritage The property is not listed on the Town's Schedule of Heritage Places.

Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Council Policy LG525.

Eleven neighbours were consulted and no submissions were received.

Metropolitan Region Scheme Metropolitan Region Scheme (Main Roads Referral) The subject site is located partially within a Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) reserve for ‘Primary Regional Road’ (PRR). Under the Planning and Development Act (PDA) MRS Instrument of Delegation (Del 2011/02), the Council has delegated authority to approve development within or adjacent to the Stirling Highway MRS reservation subject to any decision being consistent with the comment and recommendation of Main Roads WA (MRWA).

The subject application has been referred to MRWA for comment. MRWA advised that they have no objection to the proposed additions and alterations subject to the following conditions: a) No earthworks shall encroach onto the Stirling Highway road reserve; b) No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Stirling Highway road reserve; c) No permanent structures are permitted on the land required for upgrade of Stirling Highway as specified on Plan Number 1.7146 (139-b); d) The driveway shall be designed to have an internal turn around facility or area that enables vehicles to turn around and exit the driveway in a forward movement; and e) The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge vegetation within the Stirling Highway reservation.

Page 64 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

If Council supports this application, it is recommended that any approval be conditioned to comply with the above requirements.

Discussion Description The application proposes to change the use of the existing double storey building at 249 Stirling Highway. The site was previously approved as a showroom and the only proposed alterations to the building are an internal office fit out. 15 car parking bays are required to satisfy the car parking requirements of TPS3. No signage is proposed as part of this application.

Compliance The development complies with the TPS3, Council Policy and Local Laws.

Land Use In considering an application for planning approval for development in the Highway zone the Council, in addition to any other matter is required or permitted to consider, shall have regard to the following objectives.

1. A mixture of residential and commercial developments; 2. The restriction, to a minimum, of direct vehicular access to and from Stirling Highway; 3. The volume of traffic likely to be generated; 4. A landscape and townscape within the zone compatible with the scale of Stirling Highway; 5. The preservation of all buildings referred to in Clause 78. The proposed ‘Office’ use is considered to be in keeping with the overall intent of land use and development in the Highway zone. The use is also considered to have minimal amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.

Car Parking Gross Leasable Parking Ratio Bays Required Bays Provided Shortfall Area 426.24m2 1/30m2 14.2 (15) 15 Nil

The site has a Gross Leasable Area (GLA) of 426.24m2 which requires a total of 15 car parking bays to be provided on site. The applicant has proposed 13 bays to be provided surrounding the building and a further two bays to be provided via car stackers. The stackers are to be located behind the office building adjacent to the western boundary.

The initial application proposed a total of 13 on site bays. After a preliminary assessment was conducted, it was established that the proposed land use required 15 bays to satisfy the requirements of TPS3. The applicant subsequently amended the plans to include two car stackers at the rear of site to provide the extra two bays.

The car stackers proposed are ‘Comfort Type 411-200’. The stackers fit two cars each (one above the other), have a height of 4.2m and have a platform width of

Page 65 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

2.5m. The location of the stackers is at the rear of the building on the western boundary. The location abuts a parking/bin storage area of the adjacent commercial site and therefore, the stackers are not considered to create any detrimental impacts on the amenity of the surrounding sites.

An information sheet on the stackers is included as an attachment to this report.

Summary Based on the above, it is recommended that approval be granted subject to the conditions in the officer’s recommendation.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION THAT Council grant planning approval for a proposed change of use from Showroom to Office at Lot 59 (249) Stirling Highway, Claremont, subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. Compliance with Main Roads WA requirements. 2. Tandem car bays and car stackers are to be reserved for staff parking only. 3. In all other respects, development shall occur in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application for Planning Approval (Planning Application DA 2014.00001), as amended by these conditions. 4. This application is valid only if the development is commenced within 24 months of the date of approval. Advice Notes: (i) This is a planning approval only. A building permit must be obtained from the Town’s Building Services unit prior to the commencement of any building works. Permits for non-residential development MUST be certified prior to submission. (ii) The property is affected by Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1210/41 Rationalisation of Stirling Highway reservation. Enquiries on the amendment may be directed to the Department of Planning on (08) 6551 9187. (iii) Applicant is advised that Main Roads WA require compliance with the following: a) No earthworks shall encroach onto the Stirling Highway Road Reserve; b) No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Stirling Highway road reserve; c) No permanent structures are permitted on the land required for upgrade of Stirling Highway as specified on Plan Number 1.7146 (139-b);

Page 66 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

d) The driveway shall be designed to have an internal turn around facility or area that enables vehicles to turn around and exit the driveway in a forward movement; and e) The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge vegetation within the Stirling Highway reservation. (vi) If an applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of appeal may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An appeal must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au) within 28 days of the determination.

Page 67 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.2.6 LOT 1 (394) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT – PROPOSED SIGNAGE FOR ‘MATCH’

File No: A-3859 Attachments: Location and Submission Plan Photograph Plans Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development Author: Jeremy Swan Senior Planner Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014 Date Prepared: 5 February 2014 Planning Application No.: DA-2013.00233 60 Days Due Date: 10 February 2014 Property Owner: Giglietto and Ngarie Pisano Submitted By: The Match Group Lot No.: 1 Area of Lot: 1,722m2 Zoning: Residential (R30) Financial Implications: Nil Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA) Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) Local Law Relating to Signs (LLRS)

Summary • Application received for planning approval for two ‘Horizontal Signs’ for ‘Match’ at 394 Stirling Highway, Claremont. • Proposal complies with the Local Law Relating to Signs (LLRS). • Application referred to Main Roads WA (MRWA) for comment as part of the subject site is located within a Metropolitan region Scheme (MRS) reserve for Primary Regional Road (PRR). • Three neighbours were consulted and no submissions were received during the advertising period. • It is recommended that the Council approve the application subject to relevant conditions.

Purpose For Council to consider an application for planning approval for two horizontal signs at Lot 1 (394) Stirling Highway, Claremont.

Page 68 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

In accordance with Delegation DA22, the Council’s determination of this application is required due to the commercial nature of the proposal.

Background The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal: Date Item/Outcome 12 December 2013 Planning Application received by Council. 18 December 2013 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment. 23 December 2013 Advertising commenced. 28 January 2014 Advertising closed. 5 February 2014 Report prepared for Council.

Past Resolutions There are no past Council resolutions relevant to this application.

Heritage The property is listed on the Town's Schedule of Heritage Places and as such was referred to the Town’s Heritage Officer for comment. It is advised that the proposal does not affect the heritage listed building and can be supported.

Consultation Three neighbours were consulted in accordance with Council Policy LG525 and no submissions were received.

Metropolitan Region Scheme The subject site is located partially within a Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) reserve for ‘Primary Regional Road’ (PRR). Under the Planning and Development Act, (PDA), MRS Instrument of Delegation (Del 2011/02), the Council has delegated authority to approve development within or adjacent to the Stirling Highway MRS Reservation subject to any approval being in accordance with the recommendation of Main Roads WA (MRWA).

The application has been referred to MRWA for comment. MRWA advised that they have no objection to the proposal with the following conditions being provided to the applicant: • The sign and sign structure is to be placed on private property and shall not overhang or encroach on the road reserve. • Main Roads agreement is to be obtained prior to any modifications. • If illuminated, it must be of low level not exceeding 300cd/m2 not flash, pulsate or chase. • The device shall not contain fluorescent, reflective or retro reflective colours or materials. • The type of sign and location must comply with all relevant by-laws and planning schemes made by Council. • No other unauthorised signing is to be displayed.

Page 69 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

If Council supports the application, it is recommended that any approval be conditioned to comply with the above requirements.

Discussion Detail Approval is sought for two horizontal signs for ‘Match’. The first sign is 1.2m x 1.2m and contains the ‘Match’ symbol and is illuminated. The second sign is 4.0m in length and 0.5m high and has the street number and letterbox built into the structure (not classified as signage). This sign is not illuminated and contains the words ‘The Match Group’. Both signs are proposed with a ‘rust affect’ finish.

Compliance The Town’s Local Law Relating to Signs (LLRS) specifies relevant design principles for advertising signage stating that all signs shall: • In design, colour and location be sympathetic and harmonious with the surrounding street way, footpath, public place or private property and environment and the building structure to which it is attached or affixed; • Be designed, placed and constructed so as not to endanger public safety; and • Have all sign writing, design work, lettering and colouring thereto carried out in a competent and professional manner.

It is considered that the proposed signage complies with the above objectives and does not have an adverse impact on the streetscape or locality.

Further to the above, the LLRS states that no sign or advertising device shall be erected unless it is of a type specifically mentioned in Division 4 of the Local Law.

The design requirements for a horizontal individual sign under Division 4 are considered to be met as the signs are not greater than 2.0m2 in size (not including the street number and letter box component), the signs are fixed parallel to the wall to which it is attached and do not project more than 600mm from the wall to which it is attached. The signs also fall within the size limitations imposed by cl.26.2 of LLRS as the maximum height of the ‘motif’ sign is 1.2m and the maximum height of the larger sign is 0.5m. Division 4 also contains design requirements which, if approved, should be applied as conditions to this proposal.

The sign is considered to comply with the Council’s LLRS and given that the sign is not considered to create any adverse impact on the amenity of the locality, it is recommended that the Council approve the application subject to relevant conditions.

Summary Based on the above, it is recommended that approval be granted subject to the conditions in the officer’s recommendation.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

Page 70 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION THAT Council grant planning approval for the proposed two horizontal signs for ‘Match’ at Lot 1 (394) Stirling Highway, Claremont, subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. Development shall occur in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application for Planning Approval (Planning Application DA 2013.00233), as amended by these conditions. 2. Compliance with Main Roads WA requirements. 3. The illuminated sign and any boxing or casing enclosing it shall be constructed entirely of non-flammable material with the exception of the insulation of electric wires. 4. The illuminated sign shall be protected so that if any glass, other than the glass of fluorescent tubing, breaks none of the glass can fall on any street, way, footpath or other public place. 5. The electrical installations of an illuminated sign shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of and to the satisfaction of Western Power and in accordance with S.A.A. Code 3000- 1986. 6. The illuminated sign may not be blinking or flashing. 7. This application is valid only if the development is commenced within 24 months of the date of approval. Advice Notes: (i) This is a Planning Approval only, and a Sign Licence is required to be obtained from the Local Government. (ii) Applicant is advised that Main Roads WA requires compliance with the following: a. The sign and sign structure is to be placed on private property and shall not overhang or encroach on the road reserve; b. Main Roads agreement is to be obtained prior to any modifications; c. The illuminated component must be of low level not exceeding 300cd/m2, must not flash, pulsate or chase and not interfere with traffic control lights; d. The device shall not contain fluorescent, reflective or retro reflective colours or materials; e. The type of sign and location must comply with all relevant by- laws and planning schemes made by the Council; and f. No other unauthorised signing is to be displayed. (iii) If an applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of appeal may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An appeal must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au) within 28 days of the determination.

Page 71 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.3 PEOPLE AND PLACES

13.3.1 VIBRANT CLAREMONT – COMMUNITY FUNDING POLICY AMENDMENT

File Ref: CRD/00013 Attachments: Vibrant Claremont – Community Funding Program PE404 Responsible Officer: Liz Ledger Executive Manager People and Places Author: Maryanne Martino Community Development Coordinator Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014

Purpose To make an amendment to the ‘Vibrant Claremont - Community Funding Policy PE404’ to become ‘Vibrant Claremont – Community Support Policy PE404’, and include the free use of Meals on Wheels building for community and not for profit groups that meet the criteria and support a vibrant Claremont.

Background In 2012 the Town of Claremont developed a Vibrant Claremont Community Funding Policy to provide direction for the Town’s funding program to support local community development and community capacity building.

The Town of Claremont recognises the importance that local not for profit, community groups, schools and businesses all play a role in creating a vibrant, sustainable Town. Council recognises the difficulties these community groups can face with accessing funds to support initiatives, and as such has developed the funding program policy to assist and contribute to a vibrant Claremont community.

The Meals on Wheels facility is a community asset currently used by a number of community groups on an informal basis. The proposed amendments to this policy are to formalise the arrangements between the parties, assisting with the management of this facility for the foreseeable future.

Discussion

The current Policy; ‘...supports the Program through the provision of funds in the Annual Budget, where appropriate, providing exemption on Planning applications for community development activities...’ Part of the recommendation is to add the line ‘providing use of the Town’s community facility at no cost to these community groups’ makes sense within this policy and aligns with the objectives in the Corporate Business Plan 2013/14 to 2016/17 (Please refer to Table 1).

Page 72 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Table 1

Objective 3.2: 3.2.5 Create opportunities for and Continued funding and support to access to social participation and community groups and nor for profit groups inclusion in support of community that contribute to the town’s vision. health and wellbeing

Objective 3.5 3.5.1 Improve the capacity of local Review and implement a community funding community groups program to support- vibrant claremont

3.5.2 Provide leadership in creating communication opportunities to assist groups and clubs to be sustainable

3.5.3 Create and promote opportunities at community events to promote and involve local community groups/clubs.

Current usage The number of hours and days of the week that the facility is currently used and by who is provided in the table below Table 2: Currently the user groups consist of:

Name of Type of Group Community of Group Benefit BINGO not for profit community groups Western Suburbs providing a service to the community

VIDEO CLUB not for profit community groups Western Suburbs providing a service to the community

FUTURE not for profit community groups Broad metro reach VISIONS providing a service to the community

L’ARCHE not for profit community groups Broad metro reach COMMUNITY providing a service to the community

CITY OF External provider (City of Stirling) ToC residents STIRLING providing a meals on wheels service to the residents of the Town of Claremont. (NB: the Town pays for this service, however the usage of the venue subsidises the cost of this service)

Page 73 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Policy PE404 provides the direction for the Town’s funding program which provides grants for one off community development focussed programs and projects. To further support community development, the Town can include the provision of the free use of the ‘Meals on Wheels’ facility to groups that fulfil the criteria.

As such the amendments to the current policy would be as follows:

Remove Include Former title of policy: New title of policy: Vibrant Claremont – Community Vibrant Claremont – Community Funding Program Support Program N/A Provide the use of the Town’s community facility known as ‘Meals on Wheels’ at no cost to approved not-for- profit community groups.

Eligible community groups will receive a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Town of Claremont and the community group outlining their roles and responsibility in relation to the use of the venue.

The MOU is to formalise what is already in place and as a record for future reference, and provides the Town the ability cease the arrangement on notice. The MOU’s are being developed for each community group and will be updated annually, based on Council’s requirement and the community group need for the building.

The amended Policy will provide clear direction for future groups who may enquire to use the building and ensures that both the arrangement between the Town and the community group is acknowledged formally.

Past Resolutions N/A

Financial and Staff Implications Resource requirements are in accordance with existing budgetary allocation.

Policy and Statutory Implications Vibrant Claremont- Community Funding Program PE404

Publicity N/A

Strategic Community Plan People

We live in an accessible and safe community that welcomes diversity, enjoys being active and has a strong sense of belonging.

Improve the capacity of local community groups.

Page 74 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Create opportunities for and access to social participation and inclusion in support of community health and wellbeing.

Urgency There is some urgency to set the direction for the short term use of the facility, in order to formalise current arrangements between the Town and user groups through a Memorandum of Understanding.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council approve the changes to Policy PE404 by changing the title of the policy from Vibrant Claremont- Community Funding to Vibrant Claremont- Community Support and for Council to provide the use of the Town’s community facility known as ‘Meals on Wheels’ at no cost to approved not-for- profit community groups.

Page 75 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.4 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE

13.4.1 LIST OF PAYMENTS 1-31 JANUARY 2014

File Ref: FIM/00062/02 Attachments: NAB Purchase Card – January 2014 Schedule of Payments January 2014 Responsible Officer: Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance Author: Edwin Kwan Finance Officer Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014

Purpose For Council to note the payments made in January 2014.

Background Council has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from the Municipal Fund or Trust Fund. The CEO is then required to prepare a list of accounts, for recording in the Minutes, detailing those payments made since the last list was presented.

Discussion Attached is the list of all accounts paid totalling $1,532,480.34 during the month of January 2014.

The attached schedule covers: • Municipal Funds electronic funds transfers (EFT) $ 1,131,775.02 • Municipal Fund vouchers (39050-39070) $ 21,912.99 • Municipal Fund direct debits $ 363,840.04 • Trust Fund electronic funds transfer (EFT) $ 14,952.29 • Trust Fund vouchers $ 0.00

All invoices have been verified, and all payments have been duly authorised in accordance with Council’s procedures.

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 4 February 2014, Resolution 6/14: THAT Council notes all payments made for December 2013 totalling $ 2,755,372.51 comprising;

The attached schedule covers: • Municipal Funds electronic funds transfers (EFT) $ 2,170,944.02 • Municipal Fund vouchers (39037-39049) $ 48,773.50 • Municipal Fund direct debits $ 496,405.63 • Trust Fund electronic funds transfer (EFT) $ 39,249.36

Page 76 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

• Trust Fund vouchers $ 0.00

CARRIED (NO DISSENT)

Financial and Staff Implication Resource requirements are in accordance with existing budgetary allocation.

Policy and Statutory Implications Regulations 12- 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. Town of Claremont Delegation Register Item 37.

Publicity N/A

Urgency N/A

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION THAT Council notes all payments made for January 2014 totalling $1,532,480.34 comprising; Municipal Funds electronic funds transfers (EFT) $ 1,131,775.02 Municipal Fund vouchers (39050-39070) $ 21,912.99 Municipal Fund direct debits $ 363,840.04 Trust Fund electronic funds transfer (EFT) $ 14,952.29 Trust Fund vouchers $ 0.00

Page 77 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.4.2 2013-14 BUDGET - MID YEAR REVIEW

File Ref: FIM/00050 Attachments: Statement of Budget Review for period ending 31 December 2013 Responsible Officer: Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance Author: Hitesh Hans Finance Manager Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014

Purpose Report presents outcome of analysis of Council’s Annual Budget 2013-14 as at 31 December 2013. The 2013-14 Budget was adopted by Council on 4 June 2013, amended on 17 September 2013 on finalisation of 2012-13 accounts, with further amendments approved by Council during current year.

Background As required by the Local Government Act 1995 and associated regulations, it is a requirement for Council to undertake a mid-year review of its adopted Annual Budget by 31 March each year.

The mid-year review is a part of Council’s annual budget round and provides the opportunity to identify areas of concern where budget provisions may need to be re- allocated and genuine savings that may contribute to a surplus carried forward.

The Statements of Budget Review (Nature or Type and Statutory Reporting Program) compares the reviewed Annual Budget with YTD Actual to 31 December 2013. It highlights identified permanent variances, which will directly impact upon the end of year result (Closing Funding Surplus/Deficit).

Within the above Statements, Note 1 outlines the accounting framework on which the statements are based and Notes 2 and 3 provide graphs of both year-to-date and forecast operating, capital and liquidity comparisons against budget and previous year results.

Note 4 provides a further breakdown of both “permanent” and “timing” variances.

Discussion It is predicted that Council will end the financial year with a Closing Funding Surplus (CFS) 30 June of $427,396. This remains favourable against the adopted Budget CFS of $92,353 however represents a $201,075 decrease against the amended budgeted CFS of $628,471. This net position is based on a projected increase in operating revenue of $275,623 (excluding non-cash profit on asset disposal), net increase in operating expenditure of $505,777 (excluding non-cash loss on asset disposal), an increase in capital revenue of $5,213, and decrease in capital expenditure of $23,866. The opening surplus balance remains unchanged at $609,345.

Page 78 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

An overview of the significant impacts to the 2013-14 Budget are outlined below and detailed within the attached notes.

Operating Revenue

Within operating revenue, a permanent positive variance of $275,623 has been determined. As detailed in Note 4 of the attached financial report, areas of increased revenue include those within rates ($24,008), aquatic centre revenue ($126,060), parking services ($68,500), and lease revenue ($40,901).

The timing variance of $309,741 relates to monthly budget allocations requiring adjustment in some areas and the incorporation of increased revenue within budget re-allocations for the balance of the financial year. These variances are not expected to impact the year end CFS.

Operating Expenditure

Within operating expenditure, a permanent variance of $505,777 has been identified, which reduces the CFS. As reflected in Note 4, there is a requirement of increased expenditure allocations in areas of the employee costs ($235,543), and materials and contracts ($231,227).

While no net increase in labour requirements is recognised (ie. approved staff levels), employee costs has increased due to; • an increase in the Town’s superannuation expenses with the additional take up of 2% offered to employees who contribute 1%. This year also recognises the 0.25% increase in the superannuation guarantee contribution from 9.0% to 9.25%. • a shift from contract labour to employee costs for the golf course supervisor and Customer Service/Community Development officer (CSO/CD) positions. The course supervisor position has been under contract for many years and has been converted to employee status to correctly recognise the status of the arrangement within current legislation. The CSO/CD position has been accommodated through the FTE reduction in the community service officers from 2 to 1.5 with the balance funded through reduction in contract labour within the administration area. • realignment of salaries to recognise higher remuneration levels to obtain required skill and experience requirements. This is particularly evident in planning area. • recognition of those salaries impacted by June 2013 Enterprise Agreement increase not captured in the 2013-14Budget. • unbudgeted paid parental leave (PPL) relating to employees on maternity leave. This is offset through an increase in reimbursement income from the Australian Government PPL program.

Materials and contracts expenditure increases reflect;

• retention of the infrastructure and parks/gardens maintenance budget at previous year levels. Tree maintenance including programmed trimming was

Page 79 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

reduced from last year’s allocation to fund capital work however remains necessary to maintain asset management plan service levels. • recognition of $70,000 to undertake the GRV revaluation in May 2014. This was not included in the 2013-14 Budget.

A timing variance of ($1,145,943) anticipates the current rate of expenditure will increase during the second half of the year. This will not impact the year end result.

Capital Revenue

It is anticipated, at this stage that all capital revenue will be received by year end and the timing variance of ($1,867,387) will be accounted for during the second half of the financial year. Minor permanent variance is increase in transfer from Reserve (PWC Lakeway GST Project) and forecasted reduction from proceeds from disposal of Plant and Equipment.

Capital Expenses

Net savings of $23,866 is anticipated. This is due to the reduction in funding requirement for the parking services software upgrade, non-replacement of EMPP vehicle ($33,600) and the reallocation of some costs associated with the Christmas lights to operations. These are offset to some extent by the server upgrade ($40,000), works associated with strategic asset review ($25,000) and buildings ($15,169) and a net overspend in capital infrastructure projects ($18,079).

Summary – Closing Funding Surplus

The review of the 2013-14 Budget has included a comprehensive analysis of Town’s financial performance against its adopted (June 2013) and amended (September 2013) budgets. All business units’ income and expenditure results have been assessed against budgets with variances considered to materially impact the 2013- 14 Budget, either actual or forecast, identified.

The net result is a variance of $201,075 to the amended Budget which will result in a forecast year end Closing Fund Surplus of $427,396. While acknowledging this presents a lesser CFS, the review forecasts a strong and achievable second half to 2013-14 with Council delivering its strategic objective with no loss of service level or standard, and a healthy closing surplus. It is recommended Council adopt the mid- year review as presented.

Other proposals

During the review process a number of proposals were presented for Council consideration. Those detailed below either; 1. represent urgent works and are recognised with Council’s Asset Management Plan, or 2. complement projects works with matching funding.

They do not form part of the reviewed budget and may be funded from the CFS:

1. - Kindergarten Painting and repairs (15,000)

Page 80 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Maintenance for this building was responsibility of the previous tenant who terminated the lease in October 2013 due to difficulties in obtaining enrolments numbers to attract government funding. Council has recently approved a lease with a different operator and inspection of property during the vacant period identified works to make good the property for lease. These include removal of asbestos, replacement of guttering and lighting and some painting.

2. - Anzac Cottage Painting ($17,000)

The building requires exterior painting. The weatherboard is exposed and will only deteriorate over time. Council has invested $80,000 in the past three years to upgrade this State Heritage Register building and the Town has an obligation to ensure it is adequately maintained.

3. - Fencing and Site preparation work at Lake Claremont ($50,000)

Friends of Lake Claremont has been successful in obtaining further grant funding to undertake restoration and preservation works. The grants are subject to contribution by Council through completion of preparatory ($35,000) works and fencing ($15,000).

It is recommended additional funds of $82,000 be allocated from the reviewed CFS to progress the above proposals.

Council also requested (resolution 99/13) administration prepare a plan for the ingress of Stirling Highway traffic on to Richardson Avenue for consideration with the mid-year review. This plan will be presented separately once finalised.

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 17 September 2013, Resolution 272/13 – Presentation of Financial Statements including budget amendments incorporating 2012-13 account finalisation.

Ordinary Council Meeting 4 June 2013, Resolution 107/13 – Adoption of 2013-14 Budget.

Financial and Staff Implications Resource requirements are detailed with the body of this report.

Policy and Statutory Implications Local Government Act 1995 Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996

Publicity N/A

Strategic Community Plan Governance and Leadership

We are an open and accountable local government that encourages community involvement and strives to keep its community well informed.

Page 81 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Provide and maintain a high standard of governance, accountability, management and strategic planning.

Maintain long term financial stability and growth.

People

We live in an accessible and safe community that welcomes diversity, enjoys being active and has a strong sense of belonging.

Maintain, effectively manage and enhance the Town’s community facilities in response to a growing community.

Liveability

We are an accessible community, with well maintained and managed assets, and our heritage preserved for the enjoyment of the community.

Maintain and upgrade infrastructure for seamless day to day usage.

Urgency A review of the annual budget is required to be carried out between 1 January and 31 March in each financial year, and is to be submitted to Council within 30 days of completion. Once considered by Council, a copy of the review and determination is to be forwarded to the Department of Local Government.

Voting Requirements ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council; 1- Adopts the 2013-14 Budget Mid Year Review, adjusting the Amended 2013-14 Budget by $201,075 as detailed in the attached Review of Budget Report to provide a Closing Funding Surplus at 30 June 2014 of $427,396, and

2- Approves the additional proposed works totalling $82,000 from the Closing Funding Surplus for works at the Kindergarten ($15,000), Anzac Cottage ($17,000) and Lake Claremont ($50,000).

Page 82 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.5 INFRASTRUCTURE

13.5.1 WALTER STREET - FOOTPATH

File Ref: RDS/00251 Attachments: Austroads (Guide to road design part 6A: Pedestrian and cyclist paths) Footpath Policy LV125 Responsible Officer: Saba Kirupananther Executive Manager Infrastructure Author: Matthew MacPherson Manager Engineering Services Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014

Purpose For the Council to decide on the eventual width for the footpath upgrade on the east side of Walter Street from the commercial area (end of the new 1.5m wide footpath installed in December 2013) to Smith Street.

Background At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 5 November 2013 Council approved the alteration of the scope of footpath works on the southern end of Walter Street.

A letter drop was conducted informing of the proposed upgrade works from which the Town received objections from the residents on the south east side. This group of residents requested that the work be altered further and for the ‘Claremont cream’ colour insitu concrete replacement path to be the same width as the existing slab path of 1.2m. The reasoning for the request was:

1. Residents believe there is no heavy foot traffic and no need for a wider path 2. The wider path will impact on their existing reticulated green lawn 3. It will be too close to the newly planted street trees 4. It will disturb the reticulation system

As there was no objection to the widening of the portion along the commercial properties on the eastern side, this portion and the western portion decided in the report have been completed. This objection now leaves a possible disparity between the upgraded width in the south eastern side, and compromise of the Town’s disability access inclusion plan, Town Footpath Policy and Australian Standards.

Discussion On the basis of the letter drop conducted the majority preferred to remain with the existing width of 1.2m.

The Council policy clearly states the following principles relevant to this issue: • “Footpaths should be universal access and include pram ramps”

Page 83 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

• “Minimum width of a residential footpath is 1.5m” While the Town strives for paths around 2m wide to facilitate mixed use of children on bikes and parents with prams, a minimum width of 1.5m will encourage and facilitate more walking and for the walkers to have a pleasant experience of walking together rather than falling behind when someone comes from the opposite direction. To factors are critical given the nearby St Thomas Primary, and bus stop on Stirling Highway.

More importantly however this minimum width allows a wheelchair and a pram or two wheelchairs to pass simultaneously, without need to walk or roll over garden beds or lawn. This is important as those with mobility issues, who may already be self conscious, should not be put in an awkward situation where others are required to move aside or walk on garden beds and vice versa for them.

The Town’s disability access and inclusion plan recognises by identifying that ‘an accessible and inclusive community as one in which people with a disability can a ccess and are welcomed in all local government functions and facilities in the same manner and with the same rights and responsibilities as other members of the comm unity. This access and inclusion plan also states that “Paths and ramps continue to be upgraded” by the Town.

Increasing the width at this opportunity will also ‘future proof’ the footpath for anticipated demand. This upgrade may in turn promote or encourage people to use a well maintained and comfortably wide path network, and ultimately cut down on un- required vehicle journeys.

After investigation by the Town’s officers it has been determined that Impact on the existing verge will be minimal and will not interfere with the verge trees. And damage to reticulation will be rectified and has been considered as part of the budget estimates for this project.

Considering the above points and reasons from the residents it could be recommended to replace with a 1.5m path instead of either a 1.2m [existing] or 1.8m [preferred]. This will still satisfy the minimum policy requirement, comply with the Australian Standard and satisfy the Town’s disability access and inclusion commitment.

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 5 November 2013, Resolution 327/13:

That Council: 1. Approves altering the scope of the Walter Street footpath project to full width footpath, from Stirling Highway to the car park on the south west corner and upgrade the east side footpath from Stirling Highway to Smith Street at 1.5m width; 2. Increases the budget for this project by $13,500 to a new total of $63,500; And 3. Allocates the additional cost of $13,500 from the projected 2013-14 budget surplus. CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY (327/13) (NO DISSENT)

Page 84 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Financial and Staff Implications As per the approved budget.

Policy and Statutory Implications Australian Standard Austroads 2009 Town of Claremont footpath Policy (LV 125) Asset Management Policy LG526

Publicity Notify the adjoining residents of Walter Street of Council’s decision.

Strategic Community Plan Liveability

We are an accessible community, with well maintained and managed assets, and our heritage preserved for the enjoyment of the community.

Clean, usable, attractive, accessible streetscapes and public open spaces.

Maintain and upgrade infrastructure for seamless day to day usage.

Urgency An early decision is required to complete the capital works program 2013-14.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council 1. Reaffirms the construction of a 1.5m wide Claremont cream colour concrete footpath on the south east side of Walter Street from the commercial area to Smith Street, as to comply with Austroads (Guide to road design part 6A: Pedestrian and cyclist paths) and the Council’s policy.

2. Inform the adjoining residents of Walter Street of the Council decision.

Page 85 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

13.5.2 SHADE OVER PUBLIC PLAYGROUNDS

File Ref: PRK/00120 Attachment; Draft Policy EN309 Shade Over Public Playgrounds Responsible Officer: Saba Kirupananther Executive Manager Infrastructure Author: Grayden Provis Manager Parks and Environment Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014

Purpose For Council to consider draft Policy EN309 Shade Over Public Playgrounds and inclusion of $50,000 on the draft 2014-15 budget for shade sails at First Avenue Park playground.

Background As blocks get smaller and houses get bigger, public playgrounds become increasingly important places for children to play and people to gather. The Town has nine playgrounds at present representing an investment of around half a million dollars. Adequate shade over and around these facilities increases their usability and maximizes that investment. Shade also protects the playgrounds against UV degradation and extends their life.

The Town is fortunate to have well established parks with mature trees which provide shade for users. This includes shade over the play equipment for at least part of the day in most cases. In instances however where playgrounds receive direct sun for part of the day, requests for shade sails are sometimes received.

Discussion An officer from the Town of Claremont conducted regular visits to the Town’s public playgrounds during December 2013 and January 2014 to get a feel for patronage and shade patterns.

The playgrounds are located at: • Stirling Rd Park • Maclagan Park • Cresswell Park • John and Jean Mulder Park • First Avenue Park • Mofflin Reserve • Rowe Park • Claremont Park Page 86 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

• Mrs Herbert’s Park Half the visits were during school term and the other half during school holidays. Each playground was visited a total of 30 times at different times of day.

Table 1 shows the number of times there were users present at each time of day.

Table 1: Playground Usage Patterns Playground Morning Midday Afternoon Stirling Rd Park 4 2 6 Maclagan Park 2 0 3 Cresswell Park 2 2 1 John & Jean 0 0 3 Mulder Park First Ave Reserve 0 0 1 Mofflin Reserve 1 3 3 Rowe Park 3 4 3 Claremont Park 4 3 3 Mrs. Herberts 5 4 4 Park Table 1: Number of times there were users present at each playground during a particular time of day.

While obviously only a limited sample, Table 1 suggests that most playgrounds are being used throughout the day, even in summer.

Table 2 shows the amount of shade present at each playground at different times of day. It shows that most playgrounds have at least some shade most of the time. It is noted that the only playground with shade sails – Mofflin Reserve – does not have a usage pattern significantly different to some other parks.

Table 2: Playground Shade Patterns Playground Morning Midday Afternoon Stirling Rd Park Partially Shady Partially Shady Partially Shady Maclagan Park No Shade No Shade Mostly No Shade Cresswell Park Mostly Shady Partially Shady No Shade John & Jean Mostly No Shade Partially Shady or Mostly Shady Mulder Park Mostly No Shade First Ave Reserve Partially Shady No Shade No Shade Mofflin Reserve Mostly Shady Mostly Shady Mostly Shady Rowe Park Partially Shady Partially Shady Mostly Shady Claremont Park Partially Shady Partially Shady Mostly Shady Mrs. Herberts Partially Shady or Partially Shady Partially Shady Park Mostly No Shade

Combining the information in Tables 1 and 2 suggests that some people will continue to use playgrounds even when there is little or no shade but will tend to do so earlier or later in the day when the UV Index is lower (eg Maclagan Park and John and Jean Mulder Park).

Comments from playground users

Page 87 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Playground users were approached and asked how the amount of shade over the playground affected their use of it. Most responded that the biggest impact was on the duration of their stay.

When asked if they prefer natural shade (trees) or built shade, most said natural shade for aesthetic reasons. They would however be agreeable to built shade in some cases.

One user at Mrs. Herberts Park said they liked the numerous shady areas around the playground but the actual play equipment needed more direct shade over it as the playground was popular with children attending educational programs at the nearby Museum at different times of the day.

A user at John & Jean Mulder Park said that on hot days they will only use the playground when it is in shade later in the afternoon.

Comments from the Cancer Council The Cancer Council has produced “The Shade Handbook” which discusses the potential dangers associated with excess sun exposure. The handbook’s comments on the advantages and disadvantages of natural shade versus built shade include the following:

Built Shade: • the shade is more predictable • the structure can also provide some protection from rain • some types can be installed quickly • some types can have supplementary benefits such as collecting rainwater or supporting solar panels Structures can be permanent or demountable. Shade sails tend to be popular because they are demountable – ie taken down in winter when sunshine and light is desirable. They do not generally provide complete shade cover in summer. UV radiation can still enter from the sides and through gaps in the sails.

Natural Shade: • trees are more aesthetically pleasing • trees provide seasonal variation in perfume, colour and sounds as well as the attractive visual appearance of their flowers, bark and foliage • trees provide environmental benefits – eg habitat for wildlife, absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and enrichment of the soil • trees can screen unwanted views and provide a degree of privacy • trees can provide wind protection • trees can reduce the air temperature under them in summer up to 30% Care must be taken however when choosing trees for playgrounds. For example, species that drop a lot of limbs, are toxic, attract bees or have thorns will usually be

Page 88 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

unsuitable. Canopy density and size should also be considered. Some species may provide over 90% UV protection while others may be as low as 30%. Large, spreading canopies obviously have the potential to create shade for a greater part of the day than trees with a more upright habit. Deciduous trees are often favoured as they allow sunshine in during winter.

Comments from other Councils Other local governments were contacted regarding their policies on shade sails. Their comments are summarized in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Other Local Governments comments on shade sails Authority Policy City of Stirling Will install shade structures over regional and major playgrounds; other playgrounds are considered only where establishment of adequate natural shade is difficult or impossible

Town of No formal policy Cambridge Some playgrounds have shade sails Sails taken down in winter Cottesloe No formal policy Have increasingly provided shade sails over last 6-8yrs City of No formal policy Nedlands City of No formal policy Geraldton Would take guidance from Australian Standards if using shade sails City of Sydney No formal policy Many of their playgrounds are designed to take advantage of natural shade City has 90 playgrounds; 20% have shade sails, some permanent, some taken down in winter Willoughby City No formal policy Council (NSW) City tends to avoid using shade sails due to vandalism (slashing and burning) City tries to use shade from existing trees or plant new trees Alice Springs No formal policy Town Council Bay County, No formal policy Florida USA Table 3: Responses from other local government agencies on shade sail policy.

Cost of shade sails The shade sails erected at Mofflin Park in 2012 cost around $35,000 plus overheads. The expected life span of the sails themselves is about 10 years, the poles 15 – 20 years. The annual install / take down of the sails would typically be around $1400 per site which is obviously significant when multiplied by the life span of the structure.

Officer comments The Town of Claremont currently has shade sails at only one of its nine playgrounds - Mofflin Park. Most of the other playgrounds have partial shade from trees during at Page 89 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

least part of the day. The notable exceptions are Maclagan Park and First Avenue Park which have little shade at any time of the day and John and Jean Mulder Park which has little shade in the mornings.

It seems most people agree that in the long term, natural shade from suitable trees is preferable to shade structures because of the aesthetic and environmental advantages. However the cost of shade from trees over the long term will also be much less than shade sails. Well chosen trees can provide shade for 60 – 70 years with minimal maintenance while shade sails would need to be replaced a number of times over the same period, plus require annual installing / dismantling to allow winter sun in.

It is suggested therefore that the Town pursue a more vigorous tree planting program around its playgrounds. Deciduous, wide canopy trees can be planted around the north, west and east sides of playgrounds to make them more accessible for a larger part of the day during summer. However there is obviously going to be a time lag for the trees to provide the shade required and the Town may wish to invest in shade sails at the more exposed sites in the interim. The trees can be planted concurrently so that they are providing good shade by the time the shade sails reach the end of their useful life.

First Avenue Reserve and MacLagan Park are playgrounds where the interim shade sail approach could be used. Of these two, First Avenue Park is perhaps the higher priority given that the Creswell Park playground is a reasonably shady, nearby alternative for Maclagan Park users. There have also been a number of requests for increased shade at First Avenue Park over the last twelve months.

A “Playground Shade Provision Plan” that prioritizes playgrounds, their need for improved shade, the most appropriate type of shade and the total costs involved will be created and submitted to Council for consideration in due course.

Past Resolutions There are no past resolutions available relevant to this item.

Financial and Staff Implications Cost estimate for a new shade sail structure is $50,000. This could be considered in the 2014-15 budget.

Policy and Statutory Implications Local Government Act 1995

Publicity An article could be included in the Town Talk.

Strategic Community Plan Liveability

We are an accessible community, with well maintained and managed assets, and our heritage preserved for the enjoyment of the community.

Page 90 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Clean, usable, attractive, accessible streetscapes and public open spaces.

Develop the public realm as gathering spaces for participation and enjoyment.

Maintain and upgrade infrastructure for seamless day to day usage.

Environment

We are a leader in responsibly managing the build and natural environment for the enjoyment of the community and continue to provide sustainable, leafy green parks, streets and outdoor spaces.

Provide education and communication on leading practices to the community.

Urgency Not applicable

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council • Council adopt Policy EN309 Shade Over Public Playgrounds

• Include an allocation of $50,000 for consideration in the draft 2014-15 budget for shade sails over First Avenue Park playground

Page 91 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

14 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING PERSON

15 ELECTED MEMBERS’ MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Page 92 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

15.1.1 SHENTON ROAD PARKING RESTRICTIONS – CR BROWNE

Motion;

THAT COUNCIL introduces the following parking control in Shenton Road; • No parking at anytime in Shenton Road between Wright Avenue and Australind Street and no parking during peak hours (from 7.30 am to 9 am and from 3 pm to 5 pm), on the southern side of Shenton Road between Australind Street and Saladin Street and then 2 hours parking outside of those times.

Reason; To reduce congestion and allow free flow of traffic in both directions.

SHENTON ROAD PARKING RESTRICTIONS File Ref: RDS/00242 Responsible Officer: Saba Kirupananther Executive Manager Infrastructure Author: Matthew MacPherson Manager Engineering Services Proposed Meeting Date: 18 February 2014

Purpose For council to consider the elected member’s motion regarding the recently changed parking restrictions on Shenton Road, between Wright Avenue and Franklin Street, Claremont.

Background The Town received a petition on 11 March 2013 with 8 signatures requesting that parking restrictions be introduced on Shenton Road. They stated that they were having issues accessing driveways and that vehicles were parking on the road for lengthy periods.

A letter, feedback form and drawing No.P0027A [existing] and No.P0027B [proposed] were sent to the residents of Shenton Rd from Franklin St to Wright Ave seeking their views about a 2 hour parking limit (road or verge) on Shenton Road, both sides, from Franklin St to Wright Ave (8am-6pm Mon-Sat). A 1 hour parking restriction was also proposed for the parking bays on the northern side from Devon Road to house No.87 (8am-6pm Mon-Sat, residential permits exempted). Bus zones and no stopping on corners were also included in the proposal at existing locations.

47 letters were issued by Infrastructure with a closing date for reply of 31 May 2013. There were 7 feedback forms returned with 1 (14%) in favour of the proposal, 3 (43%) against, and 3 (43%) not indicating if they were in favour or against. The number of replies received is very low but this may be due to the fact that the residents who raised the original petition would not fill in the form as they wanted a site meeting to go through the parking issues that they were concerned about. For

Page 93 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

this reason a site meeting was held by the Senior Ranger on 26 June 2013. The 6 residents in attendance at this meeting requested:

• A 2 hour parking restriction with a residential parking permit for residents • Increasing the parking time allowed at the parking bays on the northern side of Shenton Rd/Devon Rd intersection to ½ hour. • That the yellow lines (No Stopping) are reinstated around all the intersections. The notion of a ‘clearway’ was also raised at this time which was rejected by residents in favour of the submitted plan and the requests listed above.

Consideration of this on site feedback in addition to those who already responded would bring the feedback to 7 (54%) in favour, 3 (23%) against, and 3 (23%) unsure. This is assuming those in favour will still be so.

Listed below is a brief summary of the regular comments contained in the feedback forms and an assessment of these concerns: • Parking around corners at intersections - (Single yellow no stopping line at corners to highlight this restriction and enforcement by the Town’s Rangers) • Vehicles blocking driveways - (The enforcing of the Road Traffic Regulation 166 “No parking across a driveway” will address this). • Increase the parking restriction from ¼ Hr to ½ Hr on the parking bays at the northern side of Shenton Rd/Devon Rd intersection.

After an onsite inspection and discussion among the officers (from both engineering and rangers) and the comments from the residents, the proposed parking restrictions were finalised. The amended proposal also reflects the comments received from the residents at the site meeting with the Senior Ranger on 26 June 2013. The proposal included 2 hour parking restriction in Shenton Road from Wright Avenue to Franklin Street (excluding the areas of 1/2 hour in front of the shops, no stopping on corners of intersections, and bus zones).

The revised proposal is shown on the attached as drawing No.P0028C and this parking restriction layout is on site presently.

Discussion Late in 2013 and earlier this year both the Headmaster of Scotch College and their Architect contacted the Town to express concern over the revised parking restrictions and that it would invite parents to park on Shenton Road causing congestion. It was discussed that the restrictions are in place of what was previously un-restricted parking which operated without issue and, if anything, further restrictions such as the new 2 hour parking instead of all day should discourage parking.

The width of Shenton Road is 8.6m [nominal] which permits parking on both sides and one ‘official’ width through lane. The actual functional capacity would be dependent on vehicle width and ability to park. The road width of Shenton Road has not changed for decades and over the past few years there has been no history of vehicles parking both sides of the road causing obstruction even though drivers were permitted to do so. Page 94 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

It is the Headmaster’s concern that the signage would actually notify drivers of their ability to lawfully park on Shenton Road, whereas the lack of signage previously had the tacit effect on drivers that they were not permitted to park on Shenton Road, as is the case between Wright Avenue and Stirling Road.

As the residents were originally against a ‘clearway’ which would require them to move their vehicles during peak times, speeding and the lack of history of parking both sides being an issue, the Town’s administration was reluctant to act until evidence of such a concern arose. The Town was also concerned about the possibility of a clearway on one or both sides of the road as this would essentially ‘widen’ the road for use by vehicles, with the only obstructions being when buses are present. This scenario of additional width would likely lead to higher speeds along Shenton Road, which is undesirable near any school.

It was agreed with Scotch College and their representatives that the Town would monitor the parking restriction during the first weeks of the school year, to see if any incidents occurred, how often and how severe, and should the school’s concerns come to fruition, the Town would act immediately. At the time of writing this report only 4 school days have occurred and the Rangers monitoring the situation have seen no incidents of parking on Shenton Road at peak times which has lead to congestion issues.

The only congestion issue the Rangers observed were at the intersection of Australind Street and Shenton Road, originating from the Scotch College car park, which will require further consideration to resolve in future.

On this basis and the basis that any parking on both sides at the same time will lead to congestion and not immediate safety concerns, the Town’s officers would like to continue to monitor the situation through routine patrols and feedback from the public. Should parking on both sides occur and become a regular occurrence the Town would pursue “No Parking” on the south side between Wright Avenue and Australind Street at times concurrent to the typical ‘school zone’ times of 7:30-9am and 2:30-4pm. The residents and original petitioners would also be notified of the changes to parking restrictions brought about to resolve a tangible issue. If, however Council instructs that the changes proposed by this Elected Member motion be introduced, it is suggested that residents be advised of the Council’s decision.

Past Resolutions N/A

Financial and Staff Implications Resource requirements are in accordance with existing budgetary allocation.

Policy and Statutory Implications Local Government Act 1995 Parking Local Law 2012

Publicity Inform Scotch College and/or resident of the Council’s decision.

Page 95 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

Strategic Community Plan Liveability

We are an accessible community, with well maintained and managed assets, and our heritage preserved for the enjoyment of the community.

Clean, usable, attractive, accessible streetscapes and public open spaces.

Balancing the Town’s historical character with complementary, well designed development.

Develop the public realm as gathering spaces for participation and enjoyment.

Maintain and upgrade infrastructure for seamless day to day usage.

Provide a responsible and well managed urban environment, with sustainable development outcomes.

Urgency N/A

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

Page 96 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 18 FEBRUARY, 2014

16 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION OF MEETING

17 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

18 FUTURE MEETINGS OF COUNCIL

19 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING

Page 97