Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes 

22 MAY 2012

MEETING OF COUNCIL 

22 MAY 2012 

INDEX OF MINUTES 

1. Opening ........................................................................................................................... 1 

2. Attendance ...................................................................................................................... 1 

3. Public Question Time...................................................................................................... 2 

4. Petitions ........................................................................................................................... 4 

5. Deputations ..................................................................................................................... 4 

6. Applications for Leave of Absence ................................................................................ 4 

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

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ...................................................... 4 

9. Committee Reports ......................................................................................................... 5 

Development Committee ................................................................................................ 6 

DV12.44 Lot 2 (No. 18a) Dilkara Way, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling with 

Undercroft Garage 8 

DV12.45 Lot 1849 (No. 64) Alexander Street, Wembley - Proposed Additions and 

Alterations 12 

DV12.46 Lot 547 (No. 9) Patonga Road, City Beach - Additions and Alterations to 

Existing Dwelling 19 

DV12.47 Lot 387 (14) Chipping Road, cnr Catesby Street, City Beach - Proposed 

Fencing in Street Setback Areas, Bin Area and Pool Equipment Area 20 

DV12.48 Lot 17 (No. 8) Elimatta Way, Cnr Boronia Way, City Beach - Garage and 

Secondary Street Fencing 25 

DV12.49 Lot 1 (No. 45) Kinkuna Way City Beach - Roof Alterations to Single 

Dwelling 28 

DV12.50 Lot 279 (No.7) Callington Avenue, City Beach - Shed Extension 31 

DV12.51 Lot 32 (No. 32) Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Proposed Bin Store 

and Laundry 35 

DV12.52 Lot 23 (No. 288) The Boulevard, City Beach - Increased Paving in Front 

Setback Area 39 

DV12.53 Lot 199 (No. 81) Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Landscaping and Fill 42 

DV12.54 Draft Policy 5.6 - Percent for Public Art - Outcomes of Advertising 46 

DV12.55 State Coastal Planning Policy - Submission to WAPC 52 

DV12.56 Council Policy Review - Development and Sustainability 59 

DV12.57 Street Verge Landscape Policy and Guidelines 62 

DV12.58 Review of Fencing Policy 66 

DV12.59 Development and Sustainability - Fees and Charges 2012 - 2013 70 

DV12.60 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for April 2012 75 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\May 2012\A Council Front.docx 

i

COUNCIL MINUTES 

TUESDAY 22 MAY 2012 

Community and Resources Committee 77 

CR12.57 Council Policy Review No. 5.1.1 - Management of Conservation 

Areas within Public Open Space 79 

CR12.58 Challenger Park Ecozone Trial 82 

CR12.59 Pat Goodridge Car Park - Commercial "Learn to Drive" Training 

Schools 86 

CR12.60 Bold Park Aquatic Centre Development - Remedial and Future Works 91 

CR12.61 50th Anniversary of the British Empire and Commonwealth Games 

Event Celebrations 97 

CR12.62 City Beach Night Surfing Classic 100 

CR12.63 Ocean Gardens Constitution - Minor Amendment 104 

CR12.64 Council Policy Review - Governance 107 

CR12.65 Amendment to Standing Orders Local Law 2007 110 

CR12.66 Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel - Draft Findings 114 

CR12.67 Payment of Accounts - April 2012 119 

CR12.68 Investment Schedule - April 2012 121 

CR12.69 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - April 2012 126 

CR12.70 Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting - 12 April 2012 131 

10. Council Reports .......................................................................................................... 135 

11. Urgent Business .......................................................................................................... 135 

12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................. 135 

13. Confidential Reports ................................................................................................... 135 

14. Closure ........................................................................................................................ 136 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\May 2012\A Council Front.docx 

ii

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE 

COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON 


1. OPENING 

The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.04 pm. 

2. ATTENDANCE 

Present: 

Mayor: 

Councillors: 

Officers: 

Simon Withers 

Rod Bradley 

Louis Carr 

Sonia Grinceri 

Tracey King 

Alan Langer 

Corinne MacRae 

Otto Pelczar 

Colin Walker 

Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer 

Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Neil Costello, Manager Governance 

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) 

Apologies: 

Nil 

Leave of Absence: 

Nil 

Adjournments: 

Nil 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\May 2012\A Council Front.docx 1



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

Written Questions 

Graham Sandover, 30 Valley Road, Wembley Downs 

Re: Item CR12.60 - Bold Park Aquatic Centre Development 

Question 

I am President of the Bold Park Masters Swimming Club, which has a membership of 

some 45 active members. We are extremely concerned re the recent press regarding 

imminent closure of the Bold Park Aquatic Centre. 

Can you assure the public that this extraordinary valuable and unique aquatic centre will 

be not closed and that maintenance funds will be set aside and utilised to preserve the 

pool amenity in accordance with good asset management for the posterity of future 

generations? 

Response 

The Mayor advised that this matter will discussed at tonight's meeting. 

Verbal Questions 

Mr Donatus Michalka, 14 Lichendale Street, Floreat 


Question 

Will community consultation be undertaken prior to a decision being made on whether to 

close Bold Park Aquatic Centre? 

Response 


Clive Miller, 24 Halesworth Road, Jolimont 

Re: Item CR12.59 - Pat Goodridge Car Park - Commercial "Learn to Drive" Training 

Schools 

Question 

Would Council please note that of the 91% of residents of Halesworth Road who were in 

favour of driving training schools operating at Pat Goodridge Car Park, none of the 

residents sought to impose conditions as outlined in the report recommendation? 

Response 





Cheryl Robinson, 30 Perina Way, City Beach 

Re: Item DV12.44 - Lot 2 (No. 18A) Dilkara Way, City Beach 

Question 1 

Will the Council please reassure me that all the fill and rubble that has been dumped onto 

block 18A Dilkara Way will be removed so that the house will be built on the original 

"natural level"? 

Response 

The plans have been assessed against the original natural ground level for the site as 

detailed in 2008 Water Corporation Contour plans. The applicant must build to the 

specific levels detailed on the approved plan. This may require some of the current fill on 

site being removed. 

Question 2 

When excavation begins on the undercroft garage, will Council please assure me that this 

sand will also be removed and not used to increase the height of the block beyond its 

'natural level'? 

Response 

The applicant has to build to the levels specified on the approval. It is more than likely 

that sand from the garage will be taken away. 

Question 3 

Is the house on 18A expected to be only 1 metre higher than the house on 18B based on 

the original 'natural level' of the slope and the by laws governing the height of the house. 

Response 

Director Development advised that it could not be confirmed tonight, however, you are 

invited to meet with the Manager Development to discuss the plans. 

David Morgan, 13 Arbordale Street, Floreat 


Question 

Will community consultation be undertaken regarding Bold Park Aquatic Centre? 

Response 

The Mayor advised that this matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting. 




4. PETITIONS 

A petition containing 9 signatures has been submitted by Martin Coyle, 39 Launceston 

Avenue, City Beach requesting a 3 metre bike path along the street. 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That in accordance with Clause 3.5 of the Standing Orders, the petition be received 

and referred to the appropriate Committee for a report to be prepared. 

Carried 9/0 

5. DEPUTATIONS 

Nil 

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Cr Walker requested leave of absence from 11 to 15 June 2012 inclusive and 15 to 24 

August 2012 inclusive. 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

That in accordance with Clause 3.7 of the Standing Orders, approval be given for 

Leave of Absence to be taken by Cr Walker from 11 to 15 June 2012 inclusive and 

15 to 24 August 2012 inclusive. 

Carried 9/0 

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Walker 

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 24 April 2012 be 

confirmed. 

Carried 9/0 

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION 

The Mayor advised that today he had attended a meeting of Metropolitan Mayors to 

discuss WALGA's response to the Robson Report on Local Government Reform. The 

Report contains 30 recommendations, one of which recommends that the Metropolitan 

local governments be reduced from 30 to either 10 to 12 or 5 or 1. This recommendation 

was rejected by the meeting and agreed that 30 should be reduced to 15 to 20 local 

governments. Two proposals were also rejected by the meeting being:- voluntary 

participation by local governments and community veto. 




9. COMMITTEE REPORTS 

Prior to consideration of the following reports, members of the public present at the 

meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything 

they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification of Council’s position. They 

were advised to wait for written advice from the Council before taking any action on any 

matter that they may have before the Council. 

Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted en bloc, with the 

exception of the following items which were nominated for individual debate. 

Development: Items DV12.44. 51, 53 and 59 

Community and Resources: Items CR12.59, 60, 63, 65 and 66 

Declarations of Interest: 

Item CR12.63 - Mayor Withers, Cr Langer and 

Pelczar - Impartiality Interest 




DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

The report of the Development Committee meeting held on Tuesday 15 May 2012 was 

submitted as under:- 

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING 

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 

6.01 pm. 

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Present : Time of Time of 

Entering Leaving 

Members: 

Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.01 pm 8.40 pm 

Cr Rod Bradley 6.01 pm 8.40 pm 

Cr Tracey King 6.01 pm 8.40 pm 

Cr Otto Pelczar 6.01pm 8.40 pm 

Observers: 

Mayor Simon Withers 

Cr Louis Carr 

Cr Colin Walker 

Officers: 

Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability 

Stevan Rodic, Manager Development 

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) 

Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

8.40 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 


Nil 

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Item DV12.44 

Item DV12.50 

Item DV12.53 

Cheryl Robinson, neighbour 

Richard Wheatley, neighbour 

Peter Lutley, applicant 

Belinda Moharich, Flint and Moharich Lawyers 

6H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\MAY 2012\B DV.DOCX 6

COUNCIL 



That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 17 

April 2012 as contained in the April 2012 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. 

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Nil 

7. REPORTS 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\MAY 2012\B DV.DOCX 7

COUNCIL 


DV12.44 

LOT 2 (NO. 18A) DILKARA WAY, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING 

WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage at No. 

18A Dilkara Way, City Beach. 

The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the 

site works performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and 

objections have been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved 

through a condition of planning approval. 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following 

reasons:- 

• proposal retains the visual appearance of natural levels as viewed from the street and 

adjoining properties and public spaces. 

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for requiring assessment under the performance criteria of the 

R Codes in respect of site works 

BACKGROUND: 

Application: 0039DA-2012 

Owner: 

Michael Carey 

Applicant: Dasco Building Group Pty Ltd 

Zoning: 

Residential R20 

Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted 

Land area: 512 m² 

The Town approved an application for two, two storey dwellings with undercroft garages on 

the original lot at its meeting on 22 April 2008. These dwellings had a height variation of 7.8 

metres in lieu of 7.5 metres and a maximum amount of fill of 1.0 metre in lieu of 0.5 metres. 

The site was subsequently subdivided into two survey strata lots in 2009. 

The Town approved an application for a two storey dwelling on 18B Dilkara Way (the 

western most lot) on 10 March 2010 under delegated authority. 

This application for 18A Dilkara Way was originally submitted in January 2012 with plans 

showing a main ground floor level of 27.0 metres AHD. These plans were assessed and to 

address concerns raised by the Town's Administration the applicant submitted amended 

plans in March 2012 which proposed to lower the main ground floor level by 500mm. 

Following comments received during advertising of the March plans the applicant submitted 


COUNCIL 


a further set of amended plans that reduced the floor level by 300mm so that the building 

height met acceptable development requirements. 

A number of submissions raised concerns over the amount of introduced fill onto the site and 

wished for confirmation that building heights were being taken from 'natural' level and not the 

'existing' levels on the site. A site inspection revealed that some fill has been introduced 

onto the left hand side of the lot from the excavation of the pool on 18B Dilkara Way and 

aerial photos suggest some fill has been spread across the site. In determining the 'natural 

level' of the site, the Town's Administration has gone through records of approvals for the 

site at the time of the subdivision of the lots in 2007, the original approval of two grouped 

dwellings on the site (in 2008) and the approval of the dwelling on 18B Dilkara Way in 2010. 

In addition, Landgate's contours of September 2008, which the Town use as part of our GIS 

system confirm that the 'natural ground level' of the site is consistent with the applicant's 

contour and site survey. 

DETAILS: 

Development description 

• Two storey dwelling with undercroft garage. 

• The site is the result of a green title subdivision of 18 Dilkara Way and is on the east 

side of the site. The west side site (No. 18B) Dilkaray Way has already been 

developed with a two storey dwelling. 

• A park and accessway to the park abuts the site to the rear and right hand side. 

• The site slopes down approximately 2.6 metres from the rear to the front. 

• The dwelling is set further back on the site than the adjoining dwelling on 18B Dilkara 

Way due to the narrow frontage of the lot and therefore has a higher floor level than 

that dwelling. 

• Due to the sloping nature of the lot the building exceeds overall building height 

requirements. 

Applicant's justification 

The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable 

development provisions relating to the retaining and fill variation. A copy of the applicant’s 

justification is available as an attachment to the agenda. 

Neighbour submission 

The Town notified the owners of the two properties on either side of the subject site as well 

as nearby properties on the basis of potential impact on views, being Nos. 16 Dilkara Way 

and 18B Dilkara Way, No.s 30 and 32 Perina Way and No.s 37 and 39A and 39B Taronga 

Way, City Beach. Five submissions were received from the owners of 16 Dilkara Way, 30 

and 32 Perina Way and 37 Taronga Way objecting to loss of views. Following advertising 

amended plans were submitted that satisfied building height requirements. 

The owners of 18B Dilkara Way, City Beach did not object to the building height variation but 

advised that they would prefer that a maximum of 0.5 metres of fill was permitted. A 

summary of the submissions is available as an attachment to the agenda. 


COUNCIL 


Performance criteria assessment 

Site works 

Fill and retaining on side/rear 

boundary 

Proposed Acceptable development 

provision 

1.1 metres of fill on Maximum 0.5 metres on side/ 

western side boundary rear boundary 

Performance criteria: 

Development that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from the 

street or other public place, or from an adjoining property. 

As detailed elsewhere in the report, the subject site originally had a single storey dwelling 

with an undercroft garage across the subject site and the adjoining site at No. 18B Dilkara 

Way. Once demolished, the site effectively had two levels, the front maintaining the original 

undercroft level and the rear maintaining the finished floor level and rear garden level of the 

original dwelling. When No. 18B Dilkara Way was constructed the proposed floor level and 

pool at the rear required some cut and some of this soil was placed onto the adjoining site, 

some of which is obvious as a pile in the rear/northern corner of the site with a small amount 

spread across the site. Photographs from the same point in 2007 and 2012 indicate that the 

levels across the majority of the site have not significantly changed other than the mound in 

the left hand corner. 

The proposed finished floor levels retain the visual impression of the natural level of the site 

with the main finished floor level of the dwelling the same as the existing natural ground level 

on the higher portion of the lot. The levels along the rear of the site abutting the adjoining 

park do not change therefore retaining the visual impression of the natural level of the site 

from the adjoining public place. 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of fill 

adjacent to the western boundary is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria 

for the following reasons:- 

• retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from the street or 

other public place, or from an adjoining property. 

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: 

There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was 

assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning 

Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 

There are no financial implications related to this report. 

STRATEGIC DIRECTION: 

Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for 

the priority area 'Planning for our Community'. 


COUNCIL 


COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: 

This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements 

for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning 

Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Applicant's justification and neighbours comments. 

COUNCIL DECISION: 

(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King 

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 

1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling withundercroft garage 

as submitted by Dasco Building Group Pty Ltd at Lot 2 (No. 18a) Dilkara Way, City 

Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 3 May 2012. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.45 

LOT 1849 (NO. 64) ALEXANDER STREET, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED 

ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for single storey additions and alterations to the 

dwelling at No. 64 Alexander Street, Wembley. The plans show a new meals area at the 

rear of the dwelling, adjacent to the existing kitchen. The meals area is proposed to be set 

back 0.92 metres from the northern side boundary which is the same setback as the existing 

dwelling. 


side setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and an 

objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through 

a condition of planning approval. 


reasons:- 

• The proposed addition has no significant impact on access to sunlight and ventilation to 

the adjoining property; 

• The proposed addition is at ground level and has a highlight window facing the adjoining 

property so there are no privacy issues; and 

• The proposed addition is single storey and extends the existing wall by 3.0 metres and 

so is not likely to have a significant bulk impact on the adjoining property. 


PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for additions and alterations requiring assessment under the 

performance criteria of the R Codes in respect of buildings setback from the boundary. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

A Marian 

Applicant: A Marian 

Zoning: 




This application was originally submitted in January 2012 with plans showing a new meals 

area and verandah. The owners of the adjoining property to the north raised objections to 

the proposed development. To address some of the concerns raised by the owners of the 

neighbouring property, amended plans were submitted in March 2012 without the proposed 

verandah. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report. 


COUNCIL 


DETAILS: 


• The existing dwelling is single storey with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. At the 

rear of the dwelling is a kitchen and verandah. The subject site is relatively flat. 

• The proposal is for a meals room addition adjacent to the kitchen, internal alterations 

to a bathroom and to create a linen cupboard, a new dining window and feature stone 

cladding to the wall adjacent to the existing verandah. 


A summary of the applicant's comments in relation to the proposed development is attached 

to this agenda. 


The Town notified the owners of the adjoining property to the north, being No. 66 Alexander 

Street, Wembley. A submission was received objecting to the proposed development. A 

summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. 


Buildings setback from the boundary 


provision 

Side setback (north) 0.92 metres 1.5 metres 


Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: 

• Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; 

• Ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; 

• Provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; 

• Assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; 

• Assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; 

• Assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 

The proposed meals area will extend the wall parallel to, and set back 0.92 metres from, the 

north side boundary by 3.0 metres. A highlight window is proposed in the wall facing the 

north side boundary. The finished ground level around the building in the location of the 

proposed meals addition is brick paved and relatively flat. No change to the dividing fence is 

proposed. 

The owners of the adjoining property to the north raised objections in relation to privacy, 

glare, noise and heat expulsion. These objections were in relation to the original plans 

submitted, which also showed a verandah attached to the meals area and a zincalume roof. 

The owner has since revised the plans, deleting the verandah and amending the plans ot 

show a tiled roof. 


COUNCIL 


Objections were also raised about the existing kitchen window, however, this window was 

approved in 1981. Minor changes to the type of glass and/or frame would not require 

Council approval, provided that the sized of the window did not change. 

The meals area is considered a minor addition, not likely to have a significant detrimental 

impact on the adjoining property to the north in relation to access to sunlight and ventilation, 

and visual privacy and bulk impact. Council has previously supported single storey additions 

that continue the existing setback of the dwelling. The addition will not result in any 

overshadowing or direct overlooking onto the adjoining property. 

Overall, in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the 

development from the north side boundary is acceptable and complies with the performance 

criteria for the following reasons:- 

• the proposed addition has no significant impact on access to sunlight and ventilation to 

the adjoining property; 

• the proposed addition is at ground level and has a highlight window facing the adjoining 

property so there are no privacy issues; and 

• the proposed addition is single storey and extends the existing wall by 3.0 metres and 

so is not likely to have a significant bulk impact on the adjoining property. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Summary of comments from the applicant and neighbour. 


COUNCIL 






1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations submitted by A 

Marian at Lot 1849 (No. 64) Alexander Street, corner Grantham Street, Wembley, as 

shown on the amended plans dated 16 March 2012. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.46 

LOT 547 (NO. 9) PATONGA ROAD, CITY BEACH - ADDITIONS AND 

ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to the side and rear of 

the existing dwelling at No. 9 Patonga Road, City Beach. The plans show a new gym, 

garage and upper storey balcony and a new pool and alfresco building within the secondary 

street setback area. 


street setback and fencing performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R 

Codes). 


reasons:- 

• the alfresco and solid fencing does not detract from the streetscape and makes 

effective use of north facing outdoor living areas. 


PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling requiring 

assessment under the performance criteria of the R Codes in respect of street setbacks and 

fencing. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Philip and Janelle Sherrard 

Applicant: Philip and Janelle Sherrard 

Zoning: Residential R12.5 



This application was originally submitted in November 2011 with plans showing a garage 

within the secondary street setback. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s 

Administration, amended plans were submitted in March 2012. It is the latter set of plans 

that are the subject of the following report. 

DETAILS: 


• Existing brick and tile two storey dwelling on site with primary street setback to 

Canungra Road and secondary street setback to Patonga Road. 

• Site slopes down from the side (south-east) to the secondary street (Patonga Road) 

approximately four metres. 


COUNCIL 


• Proposed development to the rear of the existing dwelling (gymnasium) and to the 

north-west side (new garage and upper storey balcony). A pool and alfresco are also 

proposed on the north-western side of the dwelling and within the secondary street 

setback area. 

• A new solid fence is also proposed within the secondary street setback area. 



development provisions relating to the setback and fencing variations. A copy of the 

applicant’s justification is available for viewing by Elected Members. 


The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the rear boundary of the 

subject site, being No. 7 Patonga Road, City Beach. No submission was received. 


Setbacks of buildings generally 


provision 

Secondary street setback 0.4 metres 3.75 metres 


Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they: 

• contribute to the desired streetscape 

• provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and 

• allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. 

The proposal is to place a pool and alfresco building on the north-west side of the dwelling 

and within the secondary street setback area. 

The proposed alfresco is an open structure but is proposed to have clear glass sliding and 

fixed windows between the solid wall it abuts and the eaves line. 

As it is an open structure, it has the appearance of a carport within the secondary street 

setback area which is consistent with the streetscape. 

The location of the proposed alfresco provide adequate privacy and usable open space 

areas for the dwelling. 

The location of alfresco does not impact on safety clearances for easements. 

Overall, in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the 

alfresco from the secondary street (Patonga Road) boundary is acceptable and complies 

with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

• contributes to the desired streetscape. 

• provides adequate privacy and open space for the dwelling. 


COUNCIL 


Street walls and fences 


provision 

Secondary street fencing 75% solid fencing 60% solid fencing 


Front walls and fences to promote surveillance and enhance streetscape, taking account of: 

• the need to provide protection from noise and headlight glare where roads are 

designated as primary or district distributors or integrator arterials; or 

• the need to provide screening to the front setback; or 

• the need to provide privacy to north facing outdoor living areas. 

The site is on a corner with the front door and living area windows facing the primary street 

(Canungra Road). This frontage remains open to the street as does the corner truncation of 

the lot. The applicant seeks to screen the proposed pool and alfresco with solid fencing 

which has been placed in the secondary street to take advantage of a northern aspect. The 

solid fencing also provides privacy to the dwelling and outdoor living areas from the primary 

school which is directly opposite on the other side of Patonga Road. 

The amount of solid fencing on the secondary street still allows surveillance of the street 

from the dwelling and from the upper storey windows and new balcony whilst providing 

privacy to the new swimming pool. 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing in the 

secondary street setback area along the Patonga Road boundary is acceptable and 

complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

• promotes surveillance of the dwelling and maintains an open front setback; 

• addresses the need to provide privacy to north facing outdoor living areas. 











COUNCIL 





Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 


ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, 

Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling 

submitted by Philip and Janelle Sherrard at Lot 547 (No. 9) Patonga Road, corner Canungra 

Road, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 1 March 2012. 

Committee Meeting 15 May 2012 

During discussion, concern was expressed regarding the amount and height of solid fencing 

on the secondary street. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That a condition be added to the motion as follows:- 

(i) 

the secondary street fencing being reduced to 60% solid fencing in accordance with 

the Town Planning Scheme Policy 6.2.5 - Street Walls and Fences. 

Amendment carried 3/2 

For: 

Against: 

Crs King and MacRae (Casting vote) 

Crs Bradley and Pelczar 


(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) 



1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations to the existing 

dwelling submitted by Philip and Janelle Sherrard at Lot 547 (No. 9) Patonga Road, 

corner Canungra Road, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 1 March 

2012 subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

the secondary street fencing being reduced to 60% solid fencing in accordance 

with the Town Planning Scheme Policy 6.2.5 - Street Walls and Fences. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.47 LOT 387 (14) CHIPPING ROAD, CNR CATESBY STREET, CITY BEACH - 

PROPOSED FENCING IN STREET SETBACK AREAS, BIN AREA AND POOL 

EQUIPMENT AREA 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for fencing, a bin area and a pool equipment area at 

No. 14 Chipping Road, corner Catesby Street, City Beach. The plans show fencing ranging 

in height from 1.2 metres to 2.3 metres along the street boundaries, a bin area adjacent to 

the Chipping Road boundary, and a pool equipment area adjacent to the Catesby Street 

boundary. 


street setback and street walls and fences performance criteria of the Residential Design 

Codes of WA (R Codes). 

The proposal, subject to amendments listed in the conditions, is considered to satisfy the 

relevant performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

• the proposed fencing will complement the dwelling and not obstruct views to the 

dwelling from the street; 

• the roofs over the bin area and pool equipment area will be screened by solid walls. 


PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for fencing in the street setback area, a roofed bin area and a 

roofed pool equipment area requiring assessment under the performance criteria of the R 

Codes in respect of street setbacks and street walls and fences. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

A Worynski 

Applicant: A Worynski 




On 28 April 2009, Council granted approval for a two dwelling with loft and undercroft at the 

subject site. The dwelling received a building licence on 8 December 2009 and is still under 

construction. 


COUNCIL 


DETAILS: 


• The dwelling under construction is at a higher level than both streets, particularly 

Chipping Road. 

• Retaining and fencing (total height 1.2 metres) is proposed along Chipping Road and 

the corner to hold a higher ground level to accommodate the septic tanks and provide 

an step up to the higher level of the dwelling. 

• Solid fencing ranging in height from 1.8 to 2.3 metres is proposed in the Catesby 

Street setback area to screen the pool and a roofed shower, pool equipment, and 

service recess area adjacent to Catesby Street. 

• A roofed bin area is also proposed adjacent to Chipping Road, screened by a 1.9 

metre high solid wall. 


The owner of the adjoining property to the south-east (No. 12 Chipping Road) has signed the 

plans offering no objection to the proposed covered bin area adjacent to their side boundary. 


Setbacks of buildings generally 


provision 

Covered bin area Nil 3.75 m 

Covered pool equipment 

area 


Nil 

6.5 m 

Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they: 

• contribute to the desired streetscape 

• provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and 

• allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. 

The plans show a small bin area between the staircase to the enclosed patio and the east 

boundary, adjacent to Chipping Road. The area is approximately 3.5 metres wide and 3.0 

metres deep. The plans show a 1.9 metre high brick wall on the Chipping Road boundary to 

screen the bin area from the street and a flat concrete roof over the bin area (extends 100 

mm above the screen wall). The dwellings on the subject site and the adjoining property to 

the east are at a higher level than the street so the screen wall and the flat roof over the bin 

store will not impede views to the dwellings from the street and vice versa. The applicant 

has advised that the concrete roof will match the screen wall (ie. rendered and painted). 

The plans also show a shower, pool pump and service recess ('pool equipment area') 

adjacent to the Catesby Street boundary. The area is proposed to be 3.2 metres wide, 1.87 

metres deep and 2.3 metres high and covered by a flat concrete roof similar to the bin area. 

The pool equipment area is proposed to be screened by a 2.2 metre high wall along the 

Catesby Street boundary. 


COUNCIL 


The concrete roof is proposed to extend 100 mm above the wall, increasing the total height 

of the wall to 2.3 metres as viewed from Catesby Street. It is considered that this height is 

excessive for a pool equipment area and should be reduced to a total maximum height of 2.0 

metres as viewed from Catesby Street (ie. screen wall 1.9 metres high and 100 mm flat roof 

above). A condition can be included in this regard. 

Overall, given that the areas proposed to be covered are relatively small, the roofs over the 

areas will be flat, and the roofs and the adjacent walls will be rendered and painted to match, 

the impact of the development on the Chipping Road and Catesby Street streetscape should 

not be significant. Furthermore, the owner of the adjoining property to the east has viewed 

the plans and offered no objection to the covered bin area. 

The proposed locations of the covered bin area and the covered pool equipment area are 

therefore considered acceptable, subject to the following amendment: 

• the overall height of the fence and the roof of the pool equipment area to be reduced in 

height to a maximum of 2.0 metres as measured from Catesby Street. 

Street walls and fences 

Fencing in the primary street 

setback area 


provision 

Solid wall max 0.75 m Solid wall 1.2 m to 1.8 m to 1.9 m 

high 

to 2.3 m high 

Fencing in secondary street 

setback area 

Solid wall max 0.75 m 

for 40% of frontage 

Solid wall 1.2 m high 


Front walls and fences to promote surveillance and enhance streetscape, taking account of: 





The plans show a brick wall of differing heights extending along the Chipping Road and 

Catesby Street boundaries of the site. The 1.9 metre high wall to screen the bin area and 

the 2.3 metre high wall to screen the pool equipment area have previously been discussed 

and it is recommended that the pool equipment wall be lowered to 2.0 metres. The 

remainder of the proposed fencing is further discussed below. 

A 1.2 metre high brick wall is proposed around the corner of the site where the two streets 

intersect. This wall is proposed to increase in height to 1.8 metres adjacent to the pool 

(apart from the proposed higher wall adjacent to the pool equipment area). A new single 

crossover with sliding gate and a pedestrian access with swing gate is also proposed off 

Catesby Street. 

Due to the positioning of the dwelling, Catesby Street is the primary street and Chipping 

Road is the secondary street. According to the Town's Streetscape Policy, the primary 

street setback area should have open style fencing only, whilst the secondary street setback 

area can have up to 60% solid fencing. In this particular case, as the main outdoor living 


COUNCIL 


and pool area is located in the Catesby Street (primary street) setback, solid fencing is 

proposed to screen the area, whilst the Chipping Road (secondary street) setback will be 

relatively open. 

The applicant has advised that the 1.2 metre high wall will include a retaining wall, as the 

septic tanks are located behind this wall and are currently above the ground level. The tanks 

need to be covered, thus requiring the ground level to be raised. As the floor level of the 

dwelling is significantly higher than the street, the proposed 1.2 metre high wall will not 

impede views to the dwelling from the street and vice versa, but will provide a step in height 

up from street level to the dwelling, particularly on the Chipping Road side. The 1.2 metre 

high wall is therefore supported. 

The majority of the 1.8 metre high solid wall is supported, to provide privacy to the north 

facing outdoor living area and pool area, however, it is considered that the two proposed 1.8 

metre high solid wall panels between the 1.2 metre high wall and the dwelling should be 

lowered to 1.2 metres high to increase the open aspect for Catesby Street. Open style infill 

panels to a height of 1.8 metres between piers can be provided above the 1.2 metre high 

solid wall if security is required. A condition can be included in this regard. 

Overall, in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing in the 

street setback areas is acceptable subject to the following amendments: 

• the overall height of the wall adjacent to the pool equipment area not exceeding 2.0 

metres (including the pool equipment roof) as viewed from Catesby Street; 

• the two 1.8 metre high solid wall sections between the 1.2 metre high solid wall and 

the dwelling, adjacent to the swing gate being reduced to 1.2 metres high; and 

• the swing gate and the sliding gate being visually permeable. 













Scheme. 


COUNCIL 


ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for fencing in the street setback areas, covered 

bin area, and covered pool equipment area submitted by A Worynski at Lot 387 (No. 

14) Chipping Road, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 4 April 2012, subject to 

the following conditions: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed development to comply with all details and amendments marked in 

red as shown on the approved plan; Specifically:- 

(a) the height of the solid wall adjacent to the pool equipment area (including 

the roof over the pool equipment area), as measured from Catesby Street 

being reduced from 2.3 metres to 2.0 metres; 

(b) the height of the solid wall between the 1.2 metre high solid wall and the 

dwelling, adjacent to the swing gate, being reduced from 1.8 metres to 1.2 

metres; 

the swing gate and the sliding gate to have a surface with an open to solid ratio 

of no less than 1:1. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.48 LOT 17 (NO. 8) ELIMATTA WAY, CNR BORONIA CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - 

GARAGE AND SECONDARY STREET FENCING 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a colorbond garage and secondary street fence at 

No. 8 Elimatta Way, City Beach. The lot is on a corner and the garage will be partly visible 

from the street. 


provisions of the Town's Local Law 43 in respect to materials of construction. 


reasons:- 

• the garage structure will have no adverse impact upon the amenity of the locality. 

• the structure will be adequately screened from the secondary street and neighbouring 

properties. 


PURPOSE: 

To consider an application under the provisions of Local Law 43 for a colorbond shed within 

the rear setback that will be visible to the street. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Mr RJ Fendick and Mrs MJ Fendick 

Applicant: Andantino Pty Ltd 




DETAILS: 


• The application is for a 8.4 metre x 3 metre garage located 1 metre from the 

rear/eastern boundary and set back 5m from the secondary street with a maximum 

height of 2.84 metres from the existing natural ground level. 

• The primary material of construction is to be 'cream' colorbond. 

• A new solid limestone wall is proposed along Elimatta Road and around the rear 

garden area that meets the acceptable development provisions of the fencing policy. 


COUNCIL 




development provisions relating to the side setback. A copy of the applicant’s justification is 

available for viewing by Elected Members and a summary is available as an attachment to 

this report. 


Local Law 43 

Clause 7: 

Materials of Construction 


Proposed 

Colorbond - 'cream' 

Acceptable development provision 

Brick, stone, concrete or similar 

material 

• General (Clause 2B of Local Law 43): 

i. The development would be consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the 

locality and the preservation of its amenities, and 

ii. 

The use to be made of the land and the non-compliance with the prescribed standard 

or requirement will not have any adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of the 

development or the property in or the inhabitants of the locality or the likely future 

development of the locality. 

• Materials of Construction: Materials that are of a high quality finish may be used, which result in 

buildings of a high architectural and structural standard. 

The proposed garage will be located along the rear/eastern boundary of the subject property 

and will make effective use of an area that is currently open yard space. The shed will be 

built to a maximum height of 2.84 metres, and will be positioned behind a proposed solid 

secondary street limestone fence of 1.8m in height and an existing rear fence. The structure 

is to be set back 5m from the secondary street, greater than the 3.75m permissible in City 

Beach. 

Although the primary construction material of colorbond not being compatible with the 

requirements of Local Law 43, the 5m secondary street setback combined with the proposed 

1.8m secondary street fence and existing rear boundary screen wall, in addition to the 

relatively low 2.84m total height of the structure, will ensure that the garage will not be 

visually prominent and therefore, wont detract from the established building quality and 

character in the area. 

Overall, in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed colorbond garage 

is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

• it will have no adverse impact upon the amenity or proper planning of the locality. 

• the structure will be adequately screened from the secondary street and neighbouring 

properties. 


COUNCIL 














Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Summary of applicant's justification. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for a garage submitted by Andantino Pty Ltd at 

Lot 17 (No. 8) Elimatta Way, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 8 February 2012. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.49 

LOT 1 (NO. 45) KINKUNA WAY CITY BEACH - ROOF ALTERATIONS TO 

SINGLE DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for roof alterations at No. 45 Kinkuna Way, City 

Beach. The plans show the parapet above the viewing lounge being increased to reach the 

already maximum height, and parapet 'wings' being added to the eastern and western sides 

of the southern wall. 


building height performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and 

an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved 

through a condition of planning approval. 


reasons:- 

• minimal impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties, or the existing streetscape of 

Kinkuna Way. 


PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for roof alterations requiring assessment under the performance 

criteria of the R Codes in respect of building height. 

BACKGROUND: 

Application: 0218DA-2011.01 

Owner: 

Ms D H Soet 

Applicant: Mike Richardson Architect 




This application was originally submitted in June 2011 and was approved by Council in 

August 2011 (DV11.71). Amended plans have been submitted making minor alterations to 

the roof, with the addition of parapets to match the design of the previously approved 

additions. 

DETAILS: 


• The applicant proposes to alter the existing skillion roof above the viewing lounge to 

better match the already approved additions. The roof height will not exceed the 

maximum height of the viewing lounge roof as currently exists on site. 


COUNCIL 


• Small triangular parapets will be added to the eastern and western sides of the 

southern wall to better match the remainder of the dwelling. There will be no change to 

the southern wall as seen from the neighbour, and all heights are below the maximum 

permissible 6.5 metres. 



development provisions relating to the building height. A copy of the applicant’s justification 

is available for viewing by Elected Members, and a summary is available as an attachment 

to this report. 


The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the northern and 

southern boundaries, and the three properties directly across from the subject site, being 

No's 34, 38, 41, 46 and 47 Kinkuna Way, City Beach. One submission was received from 

the owners of No. 41 Kinkuna way objecting to the proposed amendments. A copy of the 

submission is available for viewing by Elected Members, and a summary is available as an 

attachment to this report. 


Building height 

Maximum height of a flat or 

skillion roof above natural 

ground level 


provision 

7.87 metres 7.5 metres 


Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise 

the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate: 

• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; 

• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and 

• access to views of significance. 

The proposed alteration to the roof of the viewing lounge will result in some of the roof being 

approximately 0.4 metres over the acceptable development provision. As a portion of the 

roof is already at this height there will be little increased impact on views of significance for 

the dwellings across the street. 

The additions to the roof height will be approximately 21.5 metres from the front boundary 

and 27.0 metres from the road. As the changes to the roof are well set back from the street, 

there will be little impact on the streetscape, and the alterations will be consistent with other 

buildings in the immediate locality. 


COUNCIL 


The adjoining owner has no real objection to the proposed height as it will not be visible from 

her property, but rather objects to the constant seeking of variations by the applicant. The 

additions will have no impact on sunlight to any adjoining dwellings as they are located 

approximately 17.0 metres from the adjoining southern property boundary. Any shadow will 

be directed over the roof of the subject dwelling. 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the 

development is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the following 

reasons:- 

• minimal increased impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties; and 

• will not significantly impact the existing streetscape. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour's objection. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for alterations to the existing roof submitted by 

Mike Richardson Architect at Lot 1 (No. 45) Kinkuna Way, City Beach, as shown on 

the plans dated 9 March 2012. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.50 

LOT 279 (NO.7) CALLINGTON AVENUE, CITY BEACH - SHED EXTENSION 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a shed extension at the rear of No. 7 Callington 

Avenue, City Beach. The plans show a 5.32 metre extension to an existing shed at a height 

of 2.45 metres to the eaves of the pitched roof, and 3.45 metres to the peak. 


buildings set back from the boundary performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes 

of WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period that 

cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. 

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following 

reasons:- 

• does not ensure adequate direct sun being available to adjoining properties 

• does not assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties. 

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for a shed extension requiring assessment under the 

performance criteria of the R Codes in respect of buildings setback from the boundary. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Peter Lutley 

Applicant: Peter Lutley 

Zoning: 

Residential R/12.5 



This application was submitted on 12 April 2012. 

DETAILS: 


• There is an existing shed located to the rear of the lot, located 1.2 metres from the rear 

boundary. It is 6.9 metres in length and 2.45 metres in height to the eaves, with a peak 

of 3.45 metres. The proposal extends this shed for a further 5.32 metres. There is also 

another garden shed located at the rear of the property that is 2.0 metres in length. 

• The shed extension will include a window on the eastern side, 2.45 metre above 

finished floor level. A 1.4 metre wide shade extension is also proposed to be on the 

northern side of the existing and proposed shed. 


COUNCIL 


• The lot has a north-south orientation and slopes down quite significantly at the rear, 

inclining to the south-west. 



development provisions relating to the setback of the shed from the rear boundary. A copy 

of the applicant’s justification is available for viewing by Elected Members. 


The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the rear boundary of the 

subject site, being No. 8 Boscastle Avenue, City Beach. A submission was received 

objecting to the setback of the shed to the rear boundary. A copy of the submission is 

available for viewing by Elected Members. It should be noted that the applicant has provided 

a letter of approval from the owners of No. 5 Callington Avenue, City Beach. 


Buildings setback from the boundary 

Shed setback from 

rear/southern boundary 


provision 

1.2 metre setback 1.5 metre setback 


Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: 

• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; 

• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; 

• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; 

• assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; 

• assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and 

• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal will increase the amenity of the development, this 

will be at the expense of the amenity of surrounding properties. The proposal will impact 

adjoining lots in terms of access to direct sun, ventilation and building bulk. 

The subject site already has a 21m² shed located to the rear of the property. The proposal is 

for an extension to this shed providing a further 16.5m² of internal space, with a 17m² 

shaded area on the northern side of the shed. With the existing portion of the shed already 

located 1.0 metre away from the rear boundary, the extension will significantly increase the 

bulk and result in a 12.22 metre long building, to a maximum height of 3.45 metres. With the 

lot being 20.1 metres wide and the roof projecting above the rear fence, this will dominate 

the rear aspect of the lot. It should be pointed out that as a shed is classed as a an 

outbuilding, the 6.0 metre rear setback is not applicable. 

In summary, the proposal is considered to have too significant an impact on the amenity of 

adjoining lots and given the existing shed provides substantial internal storage space on the 

lot, the extension is not supported. 


COUNCIL 


Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the 

development from the rear boundary is not acceptable and does not comply with the 

performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

• does not ensure adequate direct sun being available to adjoining properties 

• does not assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Summary of applicant and neighbour comment. 


That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, 

Council REFUSES the application for a shed extension submitted by Peter Lutley at Lot 279 

(No.7) Callington Avenue, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 12 April 2012, for the 

following reasons:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

does not meet the acceptable development provisions or performance criteria relating 

to Clause 6.3.1 of the R Codes 'Buildings setback from the boundary'; 

does not ensure adequate direct sun being available to adjoining properties; 

does not assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties. 


COUNCIL 



During discussion, Members were prepared to support the shed extension due to the 

location and setback of the existing shed. 

The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/4 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: 



1, Council APPROVES the application for a shed extension submitted by Peter Lutley 

at Lot 279 (No.7) Callington Avenue, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 12 April 

2012 subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white ('Surfmist') colorbond. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.51 

LOT 32 (NO. 32) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED 

BIN STORE AND LAUNDRY 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a laundry and bin store at No. 32 Cambridge 

Street (Kings Apartments). The plans show a new building, adjacent to the eastern side 

driveway, containing laundry and bin store. The laundry has its own entrance. Clothes lines 

are proposed adjacent to the laundry. 


buildings on the boundary performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R 

Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be 

resolved through a condition of planning approval. 


reason:- 

• the wall is likely to have an adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property, 

particularly in relation to building bulk. 


PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for a laundry and bin store requiring assessment under the 

performance criteria of the R Codes in respect of buildings on the boundary. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Various 

Applicant: Kings Apartments c/- Exclusive Strata Management, Services 

Zoning: 




The plans were previously submitted in July 2009. The owners of the adjoining property did 

not object to the proposed development and the plans were subsequently approved under 

delegated authority on 12 October 2009. This approval has expired, so the applicant has 

submitted a new application. The owners of the adjoining property have decided to now 

object to the proposed development. Accordingly, the plans require a Council determination. 


COUNCIL 


DETAILS: 


• The Kings Apartment building is situated between two driveways, with a large area of 

open space and car parking at the rear of the building. 

• The western driveway is the entrance driveway and the eastern driveway is the exit 

driveway. Currently, the bins (total of 28) are stored along the side of the eastern 

driveway. The rubbish truck empties the bins on site. 

• The laundry is currently situated on the ground floor of the building, in a space that 

could be converted to another unit. 

• The proposal is to construct a freestanding building which will contain a laundry and 

bin store. The laundry will have a separate entrance. The bin store area has been 

designed to accommodate 16 bins. The building is proposed to be located adjacent to 

the eastern side boundary, next to the exit driveway. 


The applicant has provided written justification for the proposed development. A summary of 

this submission is contained in an attachment to this agenda. 


The Town notified the owners of the neighbouring property adjacent to the proposed bin 

store and laundry, being Nos. 28-30 Cambridge Street. One submission was received from 

these neighbours objecting to the proposed nil setback of the building. A summary of the 

objection is contained in an attachment to this agenda. 


Buildings on boundary 


provision 

Side setback (east/right) Nil 1.0 metre 


Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so 

in order to: 

• make effective use of space; or 

• enhance privacy; or 

• otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; 

• not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and 

• ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of 

adjoining properties is not restricted. 

The proposed bin store and laundry building is rectangular, 8.62 metres long and 2.7 metres 

wide, and set back 7.0 metres from Cambridge Street. The openings to the bin store face 

the driveway and apartment building (west) and the laundry door faces north, towards the 

proposed clothes line area. Letterboxes are proposed on the southern elevation, facing 

Cambridge Street. 


COUNCIL 


The building is proposed to have a skillion roof, with the highest point adjacent to the eastern 

side boundary. The boundary wall is proposed to be 3.0 metres high and 8.62 metres long. 

The general waste bins are currently stored in a line in the location proposed for the bin 

store and laundry building. The laundry is currently located on the ground floor of the 

apartment building. 

With regard to the above performance criteria, the applicant has advised that the proposed 

location is preferred, due to its close proximity to the building, convenience for users and 

access to services (water, sewer, electricity, gas). Increasing the setback of the building 

from the eastern side boundary from nil to 1.0 metre would effectively reduce the width of the 

driveway to a minimum of 2.8 metres which would be too narrow for such a development. 

The adjoining property to the east is a duplex development, with a single garage and 

backyard adjacent to the proposed bin store and laundry building. Boundary setbacks serve 

several objectives, including to moderate the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring 

property and to assist with the protection of privacy between adjoining properties. A 3.0 

metre high wall, extending for 43% of the neighbouring property's rear boundary, will have 

an impact on the amenity of the adjoining property, particularly in relation to building bulk. 

The Kings Apartments property is large with ample open space at the rear. 

Notwithstanding the applicant's comments, it is considered that there are other possible 

locations, in particular closer to the rear car park, that would be able to accommodate the 

proposed building, without any significant impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties, 

reduction in the width of the driveway, or removal of the existing screening vegetation along 

the eastern side boundary. Such an alternate location may result in the removal of a car 

bay, however, the car parking area is large and if suitably line marked, it is likely that an 

additional car bay(s) to make up for the loss could be accommodated in this area. 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed bin store and 

laundry wall on the east side boundary is not acceptable and does not comply with the 

performance criteria for the following reason:- 

• the wall is likely to have an adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property, 

particularly in relation to impact of building bulk. 











COUNCIL 





Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Summary of applicant and neighbour comment. 


During discussion, the Administration was requested to discuss with the applicant the 

possibility of repositioning the laundry and bin store by bringing it forward so that it does not 

impact on the adjoining neighbour. Also, that the area between the building and the street 

be landscaped. 

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 



1, Council REFUSES the application for a laundry and bin store submitted by Kings 

Apartments at Lot 32 (No. 32) Cambridge Street, West Leederville, as shown on the 

plans dated 15 February 2012, for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposal does not satisfy the performance criteria of the Residential Design 

Codes of Western Australia relating to buildings on the boundary; 

the wall will have an adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property. 

Council Meeting 22 May 2012 

Members were advised that the Administration has been in discussion with the applicant 

who is open to the option of bringing the development closer to the street. The applicant 

would like to further discuss this option with other owners in the apartment complex and then 

meet with the Administration next week. 

The applicant has requested that the item be referred back to the Development Committee 

to allow the plans to be amended. 



That the item relating to Lot 32 (No. 32) Cambridge Street, West Leederville be 

referred back to the Development Committee for further consideration. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.52 

LOT 23 (NO. 288) THE BOULEVARD, CITY BEACH - INCREASED PAVING IN 

FRONT SETBACK AREA 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received amended plans for the previously approved two storey dwelling at 

No. 288 The Boulevard, City Beach. The amended plans show an increase in the paved 

area within the front setback area to accommodate further on-site car parking spaces. 

The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against 

landscaping in the front setback area performance criteria of the Town Planning Scheme 

Policy Manual. 


reason:- 

• the street setback area does not present a substantially "green" appearance. 


PURPOSE: 

To consider amended plans for a two storey dwelling requiring assessment under the 

performance criteria of the R Codes in respect of landscaping in the front setback area. 

BACKGROUND: 

Application: 282DA-2011.1 

Owner: 

Mrs Maureen De Laurentis & Mr Nicola De Laurentis 

Applicant: Nicola De Laurentis 



Land area: 933m² 

On 14 September 2011, the Town approved a development application for a two storey 

dwelling at the subject property. Condition 1 of this planning approval was as follows: 

"The landscaping areas, as marked in red of the approved plan, to be installed and 

reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction 

of the Town" 

A minor variation to the green/soft landscaping requirement was granted to accommodate 

the wide driveway area based on the retention of the two large street verge trees and the 

implementation of the above mentioned condition. 


COUNCIL 


DETAILS: 


• The subject property slopes upwards gently from south to north by approximately 0.75 

metre and downward gently from west to east by approximately 0.4 metre. 

• Increased paving proposed within the front setback area to accommodate further onsite 

car parking spaces, resulting in a variation to the 60% green/soft landscaping 

requirement (35% proposed). 


The applicant has provided written justification for the variation to the acceptable 

development provisions relating to landscaping within the front setback area. A copy of the 

applicant’s justification is available for viewing by Elected Members. 


Landscaping in the Primary Street Setback Area 


provision 

Green/Soft Landscaping Approximately 35% 60% 


• The street setback area developed and planted to present a substantially "green" appearance, 

allowing views to the dwellings; and 

• Development which minimises impact on the natural topography of the locality and conserves 

significant landscape elements including indigenous trees. 

The proposed variation to the green/soft landscaping requirement of 35% in-lieu of 60% is 

significant. The area set aside for landscaping in the original application is now 

predominately set aside for a further paved area. The applicant's justification that the 

decreased green landscaping area is to accommodate further car parking spaces for his 

family does not have planning merit, as there is already two car bays approved for the 

double garage with room for further car parking spaces in the wide driveway area in front of 

the garage. 

The immediate locality is characterised by open, park style street setbacks with extensive 

green/soft landscaping. The proposed increase in paved area within the front setback area 

would have an undue impact on the amenity of the streetscape and immediate locality and 

would be inconsistent with the existing and desired character of the front setback areas 

within City Beach. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed variation to landscaping in the front setback area 

does not satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reason:- 

• the street setback area does not present a substantially "green" appearance. 


COUNCIL 














Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Applicant's justification. 





1, Council REFUSES the amended plans for increased landscaping within the front 

setback area submitted by Nicola Delaurentis at Lot 23 (No. 288) The Boulevard, City 

Beach, as shown on the plans dated 20 April 2012, for the following reasons: 

(i) 

(ii) 

does not meet the acceptable development provisions or performance criteria of 

Clause 6.2.10 'Landscaping in the Primary Street setback area' of the Town 

Planning Scheme Policy Manual. 

the street setback area does not present a substantially "green" appearance. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.53 

LOT 199 (NO. 81) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH - LANDSCAPING 

AND FILL 

SUMMARY: 

In accordance with Council's decision of 27 March 2012, to issue a directions notice to have 

the works on the site removed, the matter was referred to the Town's solicitors to prepare 

the notice. 

From their examination of all the material relating to this matter, the solicitors have advised 

that there are no legal grounds to issue the notice requested by Council. A (confidential) 

copy of the solicitor's letter, outlining their reasons for the advice they have given, has been 

circulated to all elected members. 

A further opinion is now being sought from the solicitors who had previously represented the 

neighbours on this matter. This has taken some time to arrange as they had to first seek 

release from the neighbours to act on behalf of the Town. They have indicated that they 

expect to be able to provide their advice in time for presentation at the Development 

Committee meeting. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider legal advice received in relation to Council's decision on this matter on 27 March 

2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

When considering this matter at its March meeting, Council decided as follows: 

That:- 

(i) the report on the assessment and approval under delegated authority for the proposed 

landscaping at Lot 199 (No. 81) Branksome Gardens, City Beach, be received; 

(ii) the Town's Solicitors be requested to prepare a Directions Notice under Section 214 of 

the Planning and Development Act 2005 for the works undertaken at 81 Branksome 

Gardens, City Beach, in accordance with planning approval granted on 15 November 

2011, to be removed and the site reinstated to its original levels, prior to 2005; 

(iii) all adjoining owners and neighbours be advised of any future application for 

development on the site during the next 5 years, regardless of whether or not the 

development meets the R Codes and related Council Policies." 

DETAILS: 

In providing their advice to the Town, our solicitors considered whether there is a proper 

basis for issuing the directions notice and if so, what form the direction should take. In doing 

so, they have provided comment generally on issues which the matter gives rise to. 


COUNCIL 


Planning Approval Granted under Delegated Authority - 15 November 2011 

The planning assessment against the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), which gave rise 

to the November 2011 approval, was examined as well as the delegated authority used in 

this case to grant the approval. In this regard, attention was also given to the provisions of 

the R Codes as they relate to neighbour consultation and the exercise of Council discretion. 

From this review it was concluded that the approval was granted within the power of the 

Town Planning Scheme and as such there are no grounds for issuing the Directions Notice 

requested by the Council. 

Discussion with Landowner 

Further to the Council decision in March 2012, discussions have been held with the 

landowner to see if there is the opportunity to modify the works, to reduce the visual impact 

as viewed from the street. In response, the landowner has indicated that he is willing to 

discuss this matter, however, he is not prepared to do this until he has a better 

understanding of his legal position. 

Natural Ground Level 

A question had been raised as to whether the fill associated with the November 2011 

approval creates a new ground level datum from which building height would be measured 

for any future development. Previous advice from the solicitors representing the neighbours 

indicated that this was not the case and this advice is confirmed by our solicitors. 

In addition to the above matter, there have been allegations of unauthorised fill being placed 

on the site when it was purchased in 2005. Preliminary investigations have revealed that 

there appears to be some increase in levels on parts of the site. A surveyor has been 

engaged to investigate this matter in greater detail. 











This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. This is a legal 

question, which does not require consultation. 


COUNCIL 


ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr King 

That discussion of the following matter be regarded as confidential in accordance with 

Section 5.23(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1995. 

Carried 4/0 

At 7.10 pm, the Presiding Member requested all persons other than Elected Members and 

Council Officers to leave the Council Chamber. 

Ms Moharich, Flint and Moharich Lawyers addressed Committee in relation to this matter 

and responded to questions on possible future courses of action. 


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pelcar 

That discussion of the item be deferred to the end of the meeting. 

Carried 9/0 



That, based on legal advice received in relation to its decision on 81 Branksome 

Gardens, City Beach, 27 March 2012, Council determines its future action on this 

matter. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

That the Town of Cambridge enter into negotiations with the owners of 81 Branksome 

Gardens, City Beach to:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

have the sand removed from the front yard of the property with a gentle gradient 

from the front boundary to the front of the existing dwelling; 

re-turf the front yard to the owners' satisfaction; 

at the expense of the Town of Cambridge. 


For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, Langer, King and Walker 

Crs MacRae and Pelczar 


COUNCIL 



That the Town of Cambridge enter into negotiations with the owners of 81 Branksome 

Gardens, City Beach to:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

have the sand removed from the front yard of the property with a gentle gradient 

from the front boundary to the front of the existing dwelling; 

re-turf the front yard to the owners' satisfaction; 

at the expense of the Town of Cambridge. 

Carried 7/2 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, Langer, King and Walker 

Crs MacRae and Pelczar 


COUNCIL 


DV12.54 

DRAFT POLICY 5.6 - PERCENT FOR PUBLIC ART - OUTCOMES OF 

ADVERTISING 

PURPOSE OF REPORT: 

To report to Council the outcomes of advertising the draft Percent for Public Art Policy and to 

present Policy 5.6 - Percent for Public Art (with modifications) for final adoption. 

SUMMARY: 

Draft Policy 5.6 Percent for Public Art Policy has been developed to formalise mechanisms 

for collecting public art contributions from developers for commercial, non-residential and 

mixed use developments with a construction value of $1 million or more. 

The draft policy was advertised in accordance with Scheme provisions and three written 

submissions were received. Submissions on the draft policy generally supported the intent of 

Council to collect public art contributions and provided comments on how Council funds 

should be spent. It is intended that more detailed consideration of public art expenditure 

could occur through the preparation of a Public Art Strategy. 

The draft policy, (as amended) and attached to this report, is submitted for final adoption. 

Other minor changes to the policy have been included to give the Town greater flexibility to 

approve suitable artworks and to include artistic landscaping as part of art works. 

In adopting this Policy, it is of note that for a consistent approach to public art over the Town, 

Council's own infrastructure and works projects should be also complemented by public art 

projects into the future as per Council's existing Art and Culture Policy No 2.1.29. 

BACKGROUND: 

In response to a number of conditions on recent development applications to provide public 

art contributions, Council on 28 February 2011 considered a report (Item DV12.9) on the 

draft Percent for Public Art Policy which aims to formalise development contributions for 

public art. 

Council decided: 

That the draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art:- 

(i) be adopted for the purpose of advertising as specified in accordance with Clause 48 (3) of 

the Town Planning Scheme; 

(ii) be advertised as follows:- 

• an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge 

noticeboard; 

• a notice be included on the Town’s website; and 

• a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local 

ratepayer groups. 


COUNCIL 


This report outlines the outcomes of advertising and modifications to the Policy for Councils 

consideration whether to adopt the draft Policy. 

DETAILS: 

The draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art Policy (as attached) proposes that no less than 

one percent (1%) of the construction cost of development be allocated towards public art 

costs. The draft Policy would apply to all applications for commercial, non-residential and 

mixed use developments with a construction value of $1 million or more. 

In those cases where the public art contribution is $30,000 or greater, the applicant may opt 

to provide public art or provide cash-in-lieu. A public art report will be required to assess the 

suitability of the artwork provided. Where the public art contribution is less than $30,000, the 

Town proposes to require a cash-in-lieu contribution to avoid a piecemeal approach to public 

art instalments. 

Public art is to be designed by an artist and may include building features and 

enhancements, artistic landscaping elements and sculptures and other artworks and should 

be accessible to the public. 

Outcomes of Advertising 

The draft Percent for Public Art Policy was made available for public comment from 10 

March 2012 until 2 April 2012. Public advertising involved:- 

• an advertisement in the Cambridge Post editions dated 10 and 24 March 2012; 

• a notice and copy of the draft Policy on the Town's website under 'Have your say'; 

• a copy of the draft Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission; and 

• an invitation to comment sent to all local ratepayer groups. 

At the close of advertising, three written submissions were received and are summarised in 

the Schedule of Submissions attached to this report. Generally, submissions supported 

Councils move to introduce public art contributions. The main points from the submissions 

are as follows: 

• Public art enhances areas; 

• The policy seems to only allow for constructed artwork and not installations, 

performances or festivals; 

• The developer may not be the most appropriate judge of 'public art'; 

• In international examples, Art Councils are used to plan for public art; 

• The public should have input into the art and how funding is spent including community 

involvement in projects; 

• Indigenous history should be reflected in the art depending on its location; 

• Major renovations should also contribute to public art; 

• There should be more large and interactive artworks in parks. 

No comment was received from the Western Australian Planning Commission. 


COUNCIL 


Response to Submissions and Proposed Modifications 

The draft Policy deals with the mechanisms for the collection of public arts contributions and 

provides general guidance on the provision of public art, as opposed to providing detailed 

direction relating to the nature of public art. A Public Art Strategy could be developed to 

provide further guidance to design aspects of public art and opportunities for public input. 

Further, consideration would be given to these submissions as part of developing the 

Strategy. In the absence of a Strategy, this Policy will be able to give sufficient guidance to 

assess the appropriateness of public art proposals. 

The draft Policy gives scope for community involvement in the creation of art works, 

however, this will depend on the individual nature of the art project. In relation to seeking 

public comment on individual art works, there may similarly be opportunities for public input 

depending on the specific nature of the art project. However, given the subjective nature on 

the suitability of art works, this may prove impractical in many cases, particularly where the 

public art is provided in-kind. 

A number of comments from submissions have also been accounted for in preparing the 

Policy already, including those relating to contributions from renovation works and relating to 

decision-making processes. Renovation works over $1 million, which are subject to planning 

approval, would automatically be covered by the Policy. 

In addition, the following matters were given further consideration during the advertising 

period:- 

Definition of Artist 

It is considered that the use of the term 'professional artist' to define the attributes of a 

person who can undertake public art works may limit opportunities for the Town to approve 

suitable art works. It is proposed to redefine who is able to undertake the artwork from 

'professional artist' to 'artist'. The definition is to be amended to allow anyone with 

demonstrated artistic talent to undertake works to the satisfaction of the Town. 

Notwithstanding this proposed amendment, it remains necessary that the policy specifies 

that an artist is to undertake the work. This is to ensure that the contribution is made towards 

artworks as opposed to structural or architectural features that already feature as part of the 

development. 

Landscaping as public art contributions 

Further consideration has been given to the potential for landscaping works to contribute 

towards enhanced public spaces as part of public art contributions. In some cases, 

landscaping improvements may present a more beneficial streetscape outcome and 

contribution to public spaces than other forms of public art. Accordingly, the draft Policy has 

been amended to include components of public spaces such as special planting which is an 

integral part of the space and contributes towards its artistic value and quality, as public art. 

(Please note that the Draft Policy has also been edited to provide greater clarification on 

roles of the Town and processes, with no changes to the meaning or intent of the Policy 

implied by these changes) 


COUNCIL 


COMMENT: 

Policy content 

Minor changes have been made to the draft Policy to account for matters that have been 

given further consideration since advertising, including the artist definition and landscaping 

as part of public art. Also, reference to the phrase 'in-kind' has been deleted from the draft 

Policy. However these changes are not considered to change the intent of the policy. 

Regardless of the changes, the suitability of public arts work remains at the discretion of the 

Town. 

A copy of the Draft Percent for Public Art Policy (as amended) is attached. Note, 

modifications made following advertising are shown in blue. 

Council projects 

This policy complements Council's existing Art and Culture Policy No 2.1.29, which specifies 

that approximately 1% of Council project budgets should be allocated to public arts. 

Operational matters 

The implementation of the Draft Percent for Public Art Policy will add to responsibilities of 

existing staff, in relation to assessing public art reports and managing expenditure of public 

art funds. It is noted that other local authorities have been required to employ dedicated 

public arts officers to undertake these tasks. 

The Town would also be responsible for maintaining public arts works in the public realm, 

which will add to overall maintenance costs. It is of note however, that an important factor in 

the selection of suitable public art will be its ability to be easily and cost effectively 

maintained, which should reduce long-term maintenance requirements. 


The changes proposed will amend the Policy Manual adopted under Town Planning Scheme 

by including Policy 5.6 - Percent for Public Art. 


The cost of advertising Council's decision on the draft Precinct Policy in the local paper is 

covered in the Town's budget. 

Additional operational costs will be incurred with the introduction of this Policy. 


The proposed draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art would contribute towards achieving the 

goal of 'Attractive and Diverse Shopping and Business Areas' and would assist with fostering 

a 'community village' atmosphere and sense of place throughout the Town's commercial 

areas. 


COUNCIL 



Draft Policy 5:6. Percent for Public Art was advertised in accordance with clause 48 (3) of 

the Scheme and at the close of advertising three written submissions were received. 

In accordance with clause 48 (4), the Council is to:- 

(a) 

(b) 

review the draft Planning Policy having regard to any written submissions; and 

determine, by resolution, to adopt the draft Planning Policy, with or without 

amendment, or not to proceed with it. 

Following Council's decision on the draft Policy, clause 48 (5) requires details of the 

decision:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

to be advertised once in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area; 

where practicable, to be given to those persons directly affected by the Planning 

Policy; and 

to be given to the Western Australian Planning Commission together with, where the 

Council has resolved to adopt the Planning Policy with one or more amendments, a 

copy of the amended Planning Policy, in the case of policies which have previously 

been submitted to the Commission for its consideration under subclause (3) (c). 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art (as amended) 

2. Schedule of Submissions 


Amendment 

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That draft Policy 5.6 - Percent for Public Art be amended as follows:- 

Under definition of Artist, clause (vi) be amended to read as follows:- 

(vi) 

a person who has expertise in creating the form of public art proposed by an applicant 

or the Council under this policy. 

Clause 2.2 be deleted and clause 2.1 to read as follows:- 

The proponent may elect to meet their public art contribution in the following ways:- 

i) by establishing public art 'on-site' as a component of their development; 

ii) by providing public art in the vicinity of the site in the public realm; or 

iii) the proponent to provide cash-in-lieu to the amount specified within the development 

condition. 



COUNCIL 





That:- 

(i) pursuant to Clause 48 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, draft Policy 5.6 - 

Percent for Public Art, as amended and attached to this agenda, be adopted 

subject to the following amendment:- 

"Under definition of Artist, clause (vi) be amended to read as follows:- 

(vi) 

a person who has expertise in creating the form of public art proposed by 

an applicant or the Council under this policy. 

Clause 2.2 be deleted and clause 2.1 to read as follows:- 

The proponent may elect to meet their public art contribution in the following 

ways:- 

i) by establishing public art 'on-site' as a component of their development; 

ii) by providing public art in the vicinity of the site in the public realm; or 

iii) the proponent to provide cash-in-lieu to the amount specified within the 

development condition." 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the adoption of 

Policy 5.6 - Percent for Public Art; 

the Western Australian Planning Commission be advised of Council's decision 

and be provided with a copy of Policy 5.6 - Percent for Public Art; 

those residents that made submissions on the draft Policy 5.6 - Percent for 

Public Art be advised of Council's decision. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.55 

STATE COASTAL PLANNING POLICY - SUBMISSION TO WAPC 

SUMMARY: 

The Department of Planning has released a revised Draft State Planning Policy 2.6 State 

Coastal Planning Policy for public consultation. The policy deals with development and land 

use along the coast and on abutting land; the determination of coastal foreshores; risk and 

hazard assessment (including sea level rises) and management of physical coastal 

processes. 

The key changes to the policy include new requirements for hazard risk assessment and 

adaptation planning and for Coastal Planning Strategies and/or Coastal Foreshore 

Management Plans. The policy also adopts a more locally specific approach to the 

determination of building heights and increases the foreshore setback calculation. 

The new policy is based on a premise that the sea level will rise by 0.9m in the next 100 

years as opposed to 0.38m. On the assumption of a 1m movement of the foreshore from a 

1cm rise in sea level, as a general guide the foreshore is expected to move 90m inland as a 

result of climate change. Other factors such as storm surges and physical coastal attributes 

are also likely to impact the change in shoreline. The change in foreshore would be 

implemented as part of preparing the Coastal Planning Strategy/Coastal Foreshore 

Management Plan. It is noted that the nearest residential development to the coastline is 

currently approximately 180m from the shore in South City Beach. 

Council has no vacant urban land that would be affected by the draft Policy. However, prior 

to development of any kind in the foreshore reserve or abutting areas, a new hazard risk 

assessment and adaptation planning process is required to be completed by a technical 

expert. The Town would be required to undertake hazard risk assessment and adaptation 

planning for the area around the City Beach Surf Life Saving Club in order for the WAPC to 

approve plans for the project. Requests for tenders are currently being sought to undertake 

an assessment to cover this project as well as the Town's coastline. 

Matters that warrant further consideration by the WAPC prior to final adoption of the draft 

Policy include extending the 30 year lifespan of possible development in the coastal 

foreshore (i.e. the variations) and litigation issues relating to development along the coast. 


To report on the draft State Planning Policy 2.6 State Coastal Planning Policy released for 

public consultation and to provide comment to the Western Australian Planning Commission 

(WAPC). 

BACKGROUND: 

On 14 February 2012, the WAPC released draft State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal 

Planning Policy and draft State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy 

Guidelines for comment, (see documents attached) with submissions invited until 31 May 

2011. The draft Policy updates the existing State Coastal Planning Policy which was last 

reviewed in 2003 and follows the preparation of the draft Perth Coastal Planning Strategy in 

2008. 


COUNCIL 


The purpose of draft State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy is to guide 

decision making in and adjacent to coastal reserves. The policy is based on updated coastal 

planning information from local, national and international sources and covers matters such 

as:- 

• management of physical coastal processes; 

• coastal hazard risk assessment; 

• coastal protection and adaptation to changing sea levels; 

• establishment of foreshore reserves; and 

• the management of development and land use change in coastal and abutting areas. 

The Town has an established program of coastal planning and management initiatives and 

has been implementing recommendations and actions from the Coastal Planning Study 

1998, the Coastal Natural Areas Management Plan, City Beach Development Plan 2004 and 

Floreat Beach Upgrade Plan. 

DETAILS: 

Major features of the draft Policy and key changes are profiled and summarised as follows:- 

Coastal Planning Strategy/Coastal Foreshore Management Plan 

The draft Coastal Policy requires that a Coastal Planning Strategy or Coastal Foreshore 

Management Plan is prepared and implemented for coastal foreshores and abutting areas. 

While the existing policy also requires Coastal Plans to be prepared, the Coastal Planning 

Strategy or Foreshore Management Plan is to be prepared at the earliest possible phase of 

planning, whether rezoning, structure planning, subdivision or at the development 

assessment stage, whichever is first and is appropriate in scale for the review. The plan 

should cover elements which are discussed further over following pages including coastal 

hazard risk management and adaptation planning (which is a significant new requirement); 

coastal foreshore calculations; building heights and development guidelines as well as 

allocation of areas for public use and landscape protection. 

Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Planning 

A major new requirement under the State Coastal Planning Policy is the requirement for 

responsible authorities or development proponents to undertake coastal hazard risk 

management and adaption planning in areas at risk of being impacted by coastal hazards 

over the next 100 years, that is, any coastal foreshore and adjacent areas. 

The risk assessment and adaption planning (if this further step is necessary) is required at 

the earliest possible planning phase. For instance, if a local planning strategy is to be 

prepared to cover the area, then the risk assessment and adaption planning should occur at 

this stage. Alternatively, if development is proposed and risk assessment is yet to occur, 

then it will be required before development can proceed (as per the requirements for a 

Coastal Strategy or Coastal Foreshore Management Plan). Once an assessment or plan 

covers a certain area, regardless of the basis of its preparation, then that area will not need 

to be assessed again until it is next subject to review or monitoring. 

The area for any given study is to include at least one 'sediment cell'. This is determined by 

the coastal geology and includes adjacent coastal areas which influence coastal processes 

at the given site and is specified by the Department of Transport. 

Coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning should as a minimum involve 

context assessment, vulnerability assessment, risk identification, analysis, evaluation, 


COUNCIL 


adaptation, funding arrangements, maintenance, monitoring and review. These processes 

are outlined in the Policy Guidelines and the assessment is to be undertaken by an 

appropriately qualified professional. 

The extent of the assessment and detail will depend on the scale of plan or proposal and the 

range of issues related to that area, such that it would be expected that if a coastal hazard 

risk management plan is prepared to cover the whole of the Town's coastline, it would be far 

more comprehensive compared to one that may be required for an individual development 

proposal. 

Where risk assessment identifies that a level of risk exists which is unacceptable to the 

affected community or proposed development, adaptation measures are to be selected from 

the following coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning hierarchy, in the 

following order of preference:- 

1. Avoid the area; 

2. Planned/managed retreat; 

3. Accommodation and adaptation measures (such as design/management strategies); 

4. Coastal protection works. 

The policy presents a general presumption against the 'protection' approach (i.e. changing 

the coast features to allow onshore development). The protection approach should generally 

only be employed in the public interest to ensure that values such as public access, amenity 

and safety can be maintained or to protect high value property and infrastructure. In the case 

of established urban areas, coastal protection works would be most applicable. 

Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Planning will be subject to ongoing 

review. Risk areas are subject to review where new information or methods become 

available to reassess the coastal hazards. Monitoring and review arrangements are to be 

agreed upon upfront as part of management planning. 

Notification of Coastal Hazards 

Where coastal hazards are identified this is to be disclosed to those likely to be affected. 

Upon issue of a development application, lot owners should be made aware of the coastal 

hazard risk by providing the following information on the Certificate of Title: "vulnerable 

coastal area - this lot is located in an area likely to be subject to coastal erosion and/or 

inundation over the next 100 years". 

Coastal Foreshore Reserve Calculation 

The coastal foreshore is defined as "the area of land on the coast set aside in public 

ownership to allow for likely impacts of coastal hazards and provide protection of public 

access, recreation and safety, ecological values, landscape, visual landscape, indigenous 

and cultural heritage". 

As per the existing approach, a location specific approach is applied to coastal foreshore 

reserve calculation which accounts for ecological and physical features including natural 

erosion, coastal processes, sea-level change and land capability as well as the social and 

recreational uses and pressures on the areas. This location specific approach reflects the 

diversity of coastal environments. 

A revised figure of 0.9 metres increase in sea level (which equates to 90 metres movement 

of shoreline) is applied for the impact of sea change over 100 years. This replaces the 

existing 0.38 metre increase in sea level as indicated in the existing policy. The revised 

figure is reflective of more recent scientific studies undertaken by CSIRO and UWA on the 

matter and is in line with interstate figures. 


COUNCIL 


Building height 

The existing provisions of the State Coastal Planning Policy apply a five storey (or 21 

metres) height limit within 300 metres of the coast line foreshore setback, which can be 

increased to eight storeys (or 32 metres) where specified in a local planning scheme. The 

revised policy removes specified building heights and indicates that this should be controlled 

as per local planning strategies taking into account the built form, topography and landscape 

character. 

Variations 

There is provision in the draft Policy for various classes of development to be developed 

within the foreshore reserve. These include public recreation facilities with expected useful 

lifespan of less than 30 years (for instance minor car parks, barbeque areas and pedestrian 

access ways); dune fencing and surf life saving clubs. Developments of this nature should 

only proceed upon the establishment of adequate management and adaptation measures. 

Substantial proposals of this nature should also be reflected within planning strategies. 

On the other hand, coastal roads and car parks should generally be located landwards of the 

coastal foreshore reserve. Coastal pedestrian access ways, where located in the reserve, 

should be outlined in a Coastal Foreshore Management Plan. 

Precautionary Principle 

The precautionary principle is a widely applied principle of sustainability such that "decisions 

should be guided by careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible 

damage to the environment and an assessment of the risk weighted consequences of 

various options". Whilst the existing policy indirectly references this principle, the revised 

policy specifically highlights its relevance to decision-making, although only where practical. 

Funding 

To assist in preparing plans, designs and to construct infrastructure and undertake 

monitoring in order to facilitate the implementation of the policy, local governments can apply 

for 50% funding contributions from the Department of Transport under the existing Coastal 

Protection Grant Scheme. 

COMMENT 

The draft Coastal Policy provides a comprehensive framework to support Council's decision 

making in coastal locations with new procedures to deal with risk management and current 

and future demands on coastal areas. The policy provides a more flexible approach to deal 

with development matters such as building heights and coastal foreshore calculations, 

reflecting local planning strategies. While the objectives and intent of the draft Coastal Policy 

are supported, implications relating to resourcing, litigation and technical aspects under the 

policy are raised. 

Area and extent of impact 

As there is limited development near the Town's coastline, it is considered that the draft 

Policy will have minimal impact on the physical environment or development. Most of the 

Town's coastline features a sandy shore and vegetative strip ranging in width from 

approximately 175 metres to 300 metres from the shoreline. This area is reserved under the 


COUNCIL 


MRS as Parks and Recreation and under the control of the Western Australian Planning 

Commission. There are some structures and developments within this reserve including the 

City Beach Surf Life Saving Club, the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club, Clancy's Fish House, 

Floreat Kiosk, South City Beach Kiosk and other recreational based infrastructure including 

parks, walkways and toilets. 

With regard to residential areas near the coast, in the northern part of City Beach residential 

dwellings have been set back 400 metres from the shoreline and are mostly elevated ten 

metres above sea level. As such, it is expected that the draft Policy will minimal relevance to 

this area. The impacts of coastal processes may, however, require further exploration in 

South City Beach under the requirements of the draft Policy, as residential dwellings are 

located closer to the shore line (up to approximately 180 metres) with a number of properties 

in less elevated locations across this area. The draft Policy provides the framework for risk 

assessment and adaptation planning to deal with any issues that may emerge; but given the 

extent of reserve, short-term impacts on residential areas are unlikely. 

Notwithstanding the above, the area of influence of the draft Policy is only generally defined 

as the coast and abutting area. The exact limit of the impact of the draft Policy is not certain 

and will only be determined through the more detailed studies. 

Infrastructure 

There will still need to be consideration for impacts on and planning for recreational 

infrastructure and other amenities and facilities associated with the coast within this reserve. 

However, these forms of infrastructure and facilities are necessary in these locations and 

there is an accepted level of risk in having these in the area. 

The draft Policy also considers that variations to allow development in the coastal foreshore 

should only apply to development with a lifespan of up to 30 years. It would be expected that 

various infrastructure and buildings, particularly major proposals such as the City Beach Surf 

Life Saving Club, which are necessary to be located in the coastal foreshore, may well have 

a lifespan of more than 30 years. Accordingly, it is suggested that consideration be given to 

extending the timeframe for the lifespan for such elements to beyond 30 years. This will 

provide for more efficient and long-term investment in coastal infrastructure. 

Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Planning 

The Town will be required to undertake coastal hazard risk management and adaptation 

planning and prepare coastal management plans in the short-term (for any planning works). 

The implementation of outcomes of these processes are not expected to present significant 

costs to the Town, yet the cost of undertaking technical studies requires supplementary 

funding. 

As it is expected that the draft Coastal Policy will be in place by the time that plans for the 

City Beach Life Saving Club and Commercial Development project are considered by the 

WAPC, it is likely that coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning will be 

required for the area and the adjacent area of coastline. Given that the whole of the Town's 

coastline will need to be covered by coastal hazard risk management and adaptation 

planning, assessment and planning for the entire Town's coastline has been included as part 

of the tender request for the detailed planning for the City Beach development. This is 

expected to reduce costs for assessment in the long-term. 


COUNCIL 


The Town can seek up to 50% funding for the preparation of the study under the Coastal 

Protection Grant Scheme. Given the broader use of coastal areas by residents over the 

metropolitan area, beyond Cambridge's boundaries (as referenced in Department of 

Transport Reports - see Attachment 3), it is considered that the Town and other local 

governments in a similar position should have access to increased funding sources. 

Furthermore, applications are required to be eligible for grant funds and the availability of 

State government funding is not ensured to the Town. To allow for co-ordinated planning for 

coastal areas, a mechanism which provides greater certainty over access to funding would 

be beneficial. The cost of studies may also be impacted by what is defined as the abutting 

area to the coast, which is yet to be fully defined and may vary from site to site. 

Review and Monitoring 

The requirement for ongoing review and monitoring of risk is important, yet presents issues 

in terms of ensuring compliance; having sufficient procedures in place and having access to 

sufficient resources, skills and expertise to undertake reviews. In order to assist local 

governments in meeting these requirements, there is an additional case for financial 

assistance from State Government. 


Upon the introduction of the proposed Policy, no redevelopment or development may be 

approved in the coastal foreshore or those areas abutting the coastal foreshore by either 

Council or the Western Australian Planning Commission, until such time coastal hazard risk 

management and adaptation planning has occurred for that area and a coastal management 

strategy or coastal plan is prepared for the area. 


The requirement to prepare Coastal Management Plans with hazard risk assessment and 

adaption planning will require Council funding in future budgets. 


This report is consistent with the following elements of the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020. 

• 'Priority Area - Planning for Our Community' - Goal 'a wide range of quality, accessible 

recreation facilities 

• 'Priority Area - Environmental Leadership' - Goal 'Environmentally sustainable 

practices for Town operations (Protecting and enhancing biodiversity). 

ENVIRONMENTA L 


The Department for Planning has released Draft State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal 

Planning Policy for comment, with submissions invited by 31 May 2012. 

Consultation processes outlined in the Report. 


COUNCIL 


ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Draft State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy 

2. Draft State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy Guidelines 




That:- 

(i) 

in response to the advertising of the draft State Planning Policy 2.6 - State 

Coastal Planning Policy, the Western Australian Planning Commission be 

advised as follows:- 

• In principle, Council supports the objectives of the Draft State Planning 

Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy; 

• Funding arrangements to prepare hazard risk management and adaptation 

planning and risk monitoring should be reviewed further to give local 

government increased access to State Government funding and more 

reliable funding sources, reflecting the regional use of coastal locations. 

• The draft Policy should be amended to allow major infrastructure and 

projects considered in the variations category to have a lifespan more than 

50 years. 

• The draft Policy should provide further clarification over legal matters 

relating to coastal development; 

(ii) 

the full report on the draft State Planning Policy 2.6 be submitted to the Western 

Australian Planning Commission for consideration. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.56 

COUNCIL POLICY REVIEW - DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY 


To review the Council's Development and Sustainability policies and recommend any 

updates or changes that may be required. 

BACKGROUND: 

In accordance with Council Policy 1.2.1, Council Policies are reviewed and updated as 

necessary biennially within six months after ordinary Council elections. This review on a 

regular basis ensures policies reflect current operating practices and procedures. 

The policies presented here are Council and not administrative policies. The purpose of the 

policies is to provide a guide to the Administration, assisting it to function in an efficient and 

effective manner and respond to enquiries from residents as soon as possible. The policies 

are a guide to Council’s position in regard to the various subject matters to enable the 

Administration to act without unnecessary and repetitious reference to Council. The policy 

manual is not a reference manual of solutions to all problems that Council may be requested 

to investigate. 

Where changes have been effected, text to be deleted has been struck through and any 

additional text proposed has been underlined as detailed in the report attachment. 

DETAILS: 

4.1 Building 

4.1.1 Allocation of Street Numbers 

No change. 

4.1.2 Setback Requirements - variation to Residential Design Codes for Eaves to 

Boundary Clearances 

No change. 

4.1.3 Building Application Fees 

No change 

4.1.4 Dust Suppression at Demolition Sites 

No change 

4.2 Health 

4.2.1 Paving and Drainage of Rights of Ways 

No change. 


COUNCIL 


4.2.2 Revocation of Environmental Protection Notices 

No change 

4.2.3 Control of Ants and Termites on Local Government Property 

No change 

4.2.4 Out of Hours Construction Projects 

4.3 Environment 

4.3.1 Transferred to Community Development 22 April 2008 

No change. 

4.3.2 Sustainable Procurement 

No change. 

4.4 Law and Order 

4.4.1 Dog Control 

No change. 

4.4.2 Reserved Parking (On and Off Street) 

No change. 

4.4.3 Vehicle Parking on Commercial Property 

No change. 

4.4.4 Public Car Marts in the Council's Parking Areas 

No change. 

4.4.5 Trading in Public Places 

No change. 

4.4.6 Enforcement 

No change. 


There are no changes proposed to any of the policies for Development and Sustainability. 


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. 


COUNCIL 



The review of Council policies pertaining to Governance supports a number of Key Priority 

Areas of the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance 

with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is 

required. 

SUMMARY: 

Council's policies have proven to be valuable throughout previous years and only minor 

changes have been recommended to ensure they remain relevant and up to date with the 

Town's operations. Once adopted, the policies will be made available on the Town's website. 

Each policy will remain in place until the next review in April 2014, unless circumstances 

warrant a review prior to that time. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 




That the policies relating to Development and Sustainability be retained unchanged. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.57 

STREET VERGE LANDSCAPE POLICY AND GUIDELINES 


To review Policy 5.2.19 'Road Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance' in response to 

increasing non-compliance with the current Policy, in view of providing a more flexible 

approach to verge compliance, as requested by Elected Members during Council Forum on 

6 December 2011. 

BACKGROUND: 

A presentation was delivered at the above mentioned Council Forum by the Manager and 

Coordinator of Compliance, to highlight common non-compliances in verges within the 

Town. Discussion raised during the presentation revealed that whilst enforcement of verge 

policy is inherently difficult, more flexibility within the Policy would allow for increased 

compliance. 

Although Policy 5.2.19 'Road Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance' was last reviewed 

and accepted with no change by Council on 24 April 2012, it was noted that a full review of 

the Policy was in progress and would be presented to Council at the earliest opportunity. 

DETAILS: 

To provide a more flexible approach, draft 'Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance 

Guidelines' have been developed, and are supported by a draft policy - 'Policy No 5.2.19 

Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance'. 

In response to Elected Members' requests, a positive approach to verge compliance has 

been addressed in the form of a 'Verge Development Assistance Scheme', incorporated into 

the guidelines. 

The Forum also revealed a number of built structures, as well as rockeries on verges, 

contrary to the requirements of the current Policy. However, as some structures & rockeries 

do not pose a safety risk to the public, and in some cases enhance the appearance of the 

street verge, and therefore any orders from the Town to remove such structures or rockeries 

would be unwarranted. 

In response to the above, the draft guidelines state that 'the installation of built structures 

such as planter boxes or retaining walls are only permitted under certain conditions and 

require approval by the Town'. In addition, the statement 'the placement of extrinsic objects 

and/or barriers on the street verge such as fencing, concrete slabs, bricks, rock, logs, 

bollard, reticulation boxes, garden ornaments, garden stakes etc' has been included under 

'Not Permitted' in the guidelines. 

However, it is recognised that rockeries and other objects located close to the kerb line on 

the verge may cause a hazard to passengers alighting from parked vehicles and therefore 

the draft guidelines require that the kerb, and a distance of one metre immediately adjacent 

to the kerb, be kept clear to allow for passengers to safely alight from any vehicle parked on 

the road, and to prevent damage to vehicle doors opening out over the kerb and verge. 


COUNCIL 


The current policy states that 'plants should not be prickly, poisonous or cause allergic 

reactions' whereas the draft guidelines simply state that 'plants on the verge that may cause 

injuries or harm to pedestrians and road users are not permitted'. This change will allow 

some discretion where desirable (ie rose bushes aligning a front fence on a wide verge). 

To ensure an all encompassing document, the guidelines include requirements of the Street 

Tree Policy No 5.13 and the Treescape Plan, as well as Local Government Public Property 

Local Law. In particular, the guidelines include information stating that 'the construction or 

installation of tree houses or play equipment within street trees, or any other play or sport 

equipment within the street verge (trampolines, basketball hoops etc) is not permitted due to 

safety issues'. 

In response to recent specialist advice requested by the Town, and contrary to the existing 

policy, the draft guidelines actively discourage the use of permeable artificial grass. This 

amendment has been included due to environmental and performance concerns surrounding 

the use of permeable artificial grass. 

In summary, the draft guidelines are designed to be informative and constructive, and 

therefore include website links for information regarding waterwise plants, information 

regarding irrigation installation advice, and the inclusion of vegetable gardens as permitted 

verge landscaping treatments. 

Most importantly, there is a greater emphasis on safety and the elimination of hazards on 

verges, and recognition that both the Town and the owner/occupier have a role to play in 

ensuring a safe verge environment for all to enjoy. 


Current Policy No. 5.2.19 'Road Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance' to be renamed and 

amended to Policy No 5.2.19 'Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance'. 


It is suggested that $20,000 be budgeted annually for the Verge Development Assistance 

Scheme. This will allow approximately 15-25 verges a year to be redeveloped, dependant on 

their size and traffic management requirements. This figure does not take into account the 

cost for waste removal of the topsoil removed from verges. 


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Plan 

2009 -2020:- 

• Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; 

• Continuously adapt and improve our services; 

• Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to 

ensure their sustainability for future generations; and 

• Understand our environmental impacts and respond appropriately. 


COUNCIL 



This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. 

In accordance with the Community Consultation Matrix, information will be provided to the 

community without requiring a response. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Policy No 5.2.19 Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance 

2. Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines 


Amendment 

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That the Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines be amended as follows:- 

Page 2 - Not Permitted 

Last paragraph to read "The construction or installation of tree houses in street trees", 

and consequently 

Page 5 - Street Trees - remove second last paragraph. 





That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

Policy No. 5.2.19 'Road Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance' be renamed and 

amended as ' Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance', as detailed in the 

above report and as attached to the Agenda; 

the 'Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines', as detailed in the 

above report and attached to the Agenda, be adopted subject to the following 

amendment:- 

"Page 2 - Not Permitted 

Last paragraph to read "The construction or installation of tree houses in street 

trees", 


COUNCIL 


and consequently 

Page 5 - Street Trees - remove second last paragraph." 

(iii) 

consideration of $20,000 for inclusion in the 2012/2013 budget for the proposed 

'Verge Development Assistance Scheme'. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.58 

REVIEW OF FENCING POLICY 

SUMMARY: 

Council has raised a number of issues in relation to the street walls and fences requirements 

of the Town’s Streetscape Policy. In particular at its 24 April 2012 meeting, Council decided 

that the Administration submit the fencing policy for review to the next Development 


The Administration is seeking direction from Council on what particular aspects of the 

Town’s fencing requirements require review. 

PURPOSE: 

To obtain direction from Council on what aspects of the Town’s fencing requirements require 

review. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council has raised a number of issues in relation to the street walls and fences acceptable 

development requirements of the Town’s Streetscape Policy. Issues have been raised 

regarding the open to solid infill ratio, the height of solid fencing, fencing on corner lots, and 

fencing adjacent to parks. 

At its meeting held on 24 April 2012, Council considered an application for additions and 

alterations to the dwelling at No. 8 St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville (ref: DV12.36). 

Whilst no change to the existing solid front fence was proposed with the application, Council 

decided to add the following two conditions to the approval after viewing photographs of the 

site: 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the solid front fence be removed or modified to comply with the Town’s Planning Policy 

3.2 Streetscape within 3 months of approval of this building application; 

the Administration submit the fencing policy for review to the next Development 


DETAILS: 

Current fencing requirements 

The relevant parts of the Town’s Policy 3.2: Streetscape, being ‘Definitions’ and ‘Part 6.2.5 

Street Walls and Fences’ are reproduced below. 

DEFINITIONS 

In the case of a site that has access from more than one public road: 

Primary street: 

The road where the dwelling is set back the furthest distance. 


COUNCIL 


Primary street 

setback area: 

Secondary 

street setback 

area: 

The area that extends from a point on the side and secondary street 

boundaries corresponding with the required primary street setback 

(see Figure 1 below). 

The area that extends from a point on the side boundary 

corresponding with the required secondary street setback to a point 

where it intersects with the required primary street setback (see 

Figure 1 below). 

6.2.5 STREET WALLS AND FENCES 

A5.1 The height of a fence or wall is measured from natural ground level at the lot 

boundary on the street side to the top of the fence and includes any decorative 

finishes, columns and the height of any retaining wall. 

A5.2 Fences in the street setback area that are constructed in a style and materials 

compatible with those of the dwelling or adjoining fences. Fibre cement and 

metal sheeting is not accepted along the primary street boundary. 

A5.3 Picket fences in the primary street setback area 

Picket fences in the primary street setback area: 

· that do not exceed a height of 1.2 metres above natural ground level; and 

· with pickets that do not exceed 75 millimetres in width and are spaced at 

not less than half the width of the pickets. 

A5.4 Solid walls and fences with or without piers and infill panels above, in the 

primary street setback area 

i. Solid walls and fences that do not exceed a height of 0.75 metres above 

natural ground level. 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

Walls and fences with piers and visually permeable infill panels above 

that do not exceed a maximum average height of 1.8 metres for the infill 

panels and 2.0 metres for the piers, including the height of any retaining 

wall below it (Note: only fencing above 1.5 metres in height is included in 

the calculation of average height). 

Walls and fences above a height of 0.75 metres above natural ground 

level that are visually permeable, ie: 

• infill panels with a surface with an open to solid ratio of no less than 

1:1; and 

• the width of the piers not exceeding 0.5 metres; and 

• the distance between the piers not less than the height of the piers 

except where pedestrian gates are proposed (see Figure 2 below). 

Where retaining is proposed within 3.0 metres of the front boundary as 

per 6.6.1 of the R-Codes, the wall may be up to 0.75 metres high. 


COUNCIL 


A5.5 Fencing in the secondary street setback area in City Beach and Floreat 

A minimum of 40% of the area of any fence within the secondary street setback 

area that complies with A5.3 and A5.4 above. The remaining 60% may be 

solid, provided that the average height of the fence does not exceed a 

maximum average height of 1.8 metres between the piers and 2.0 metres for 

the piers, including the height of any retaining wall below it (note: only fencing 

above 1.5 metres in height shall be included in the calculation of average 

height). 

If an application does not meet these requirements, the application is assessed against the 

relevant performance criteria of the R Codes, being: 

Front walls and fences to promote surveillance and enhance streetscape, taking 

account of: 





Review of fencing policy 

Part 5: Local planning policies of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R 

Codes) allows Councils to adopt local planning policies that include provisions that vary or 

replace the acceptable development provisions relating to streetscape. The acceptable 

development provisions relating to streetscape include requirements for street walls and 

fences. 

Prior to the gazettal of the R Codes, the Town’s fencing requirements were contained in its 

Residential Design Guidelines. These fencing requirements were transferred into the 

Town’s current Streetscape Policy (Policy 3.2) with only minor amendments following the 

gazettal of the R Codes. 

Some of the issues raised by Council include the following: 1:1 permeability, retaining wall 

and fence combined height, screen planting, privacy (pools) and solid fencing allowed along 

corner lots. 

Town Planning Scheme No. 1 outlines the process for reviewing policies, and the R Codes 

allow for more detailed and stringent requirements for fencing in the streetscape. Further 

investigation will be required as to how the Town could impose design requirements for 

fencing adjacent to reserves, as this is not a streetscape issue. 


Council will provide direction on what aspects of the Town’s fencing requirements, contained 

in Policy 3.2 Streetscape of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Policy Manual, should be 

reviewed. 




COUNCIL 








Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Extract from Streetscape Policy. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

Council confirms its request to review Part 6.2.5 Street Walls and Fences 

requirements of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. 

the review is to address the following issues:- 

• 1:1 address open to solid ratio; 

• retaining walls combined with fence; 

• screen planting; 

• privacy (pools); and 

• solid fencing allowed along corner lots. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.59 DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY - FEES AND CHARGES 2012 - 2013 


To adopt fees for the regulatory and administration function of the Council in Development 

and Sustainability Services. 

BACKGROUND: 

Each financial year, the Council must review and establish the fees and charges to be 

levied. The most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget, 

so that the new fees and charges can be reflected in the budget. 

DETAILS: 

This report addresses the fees and charges levied for the administrative and regulatory 

functions in Development and Sustainability. A copy of proposed schedule of fees and 

charges for the financial period 2012-2013 is attached. 

Many of these fees and charges are statutory charges set under other legislation such as 

Planning and Development Act, Building Act, Health Act, Food Act or subsidiary regulations. 

Statutory charges cannot be increased by the Council but are included in this report and fee 

schedule, so that an overall perspective of the fees and charges levied can be obtained. 

A review of all fees and charges has been undertaken for the following sections:- 

1. Planning Services, 

2. Building Services, 

3. Environmental Health Services, 

4. Ranger Services, 

5. Planning, Building, Environmental Health and Ranger Information Charges. 

1. Planning Services 

Local Government Planning Charges 

Planning fees for development applications and other planning services are set by the 

Planning and Development Regulations 2009 made under the Planning and Development 

Act. The Department of Planning reviews these fees and charges annually and increases 

are made in line with general cost escalation. These fees usually are announced in June 

each year. 

Development Assessment Panel (DAP) Fees 

A separate DAP fee is required to be paid under the Planning and Development 

(Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011 (DAP Regulations). The amended fee 

schedule for 2011/12 includes the current DAP fees, which are required to be remitted to the 

Department of Planning. 


COUNCIL 


2. Building Services 

All fees relating to building applications are statutory charges specified in the Building 

Regulations 2012. These fees were adopted by the Council at its meeting in April 2012 

following the commencement of the Building Act 2011 on 2 April this year. It should be 

pointed out that these fees were recently advertised. 

3. Environmental Health Services 

The majority of the Environmental Health Services fees are statutory. The Department of 

Health increases fees annually by the relevant CPI for regulations made under the Health 

Act. However, the Department is still in the process of undertaking this task. The fees in the 

schedule identified by an asterisk will be increased when the Town has been formally 

informed. 

Food Act Fees 

A review of Food Act fees has revealed that Medium risk food businesses are being undercharged 

relative to the Town's costs in undertaking the annual surveillance program for this 

class of food business. The current annual inspection fee for Medium Risk Food Businesses 

is $350 (plus GST), whereas the actual cost is just over $400. The current annual inspection 

fee for Medium Risk Food Businesses with additional classifications is $450 (plus GST), 

whereas the actual cost is $525. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that: 

• the annual surveillance/inspection fee for Medium Risk Food Businesses be increased 

to $400 (plus GST), 

• the annual surveillance/inspection fee for Medium Risk Food Businesses with 

additional classifications be increased to $500 (plus GST). 

The adoption of the Food Act in 2008 resulted in a mandatory requirement for all food 

businesses providing food to vulnerable persons to submit a Food Safety Program to their 

respective local governments for verification by mid 2011, and that those verified programs 

be subject to statutory auditing by approved auditors. Considerable time has been 

expended by Environmental Health Services over the past two years in encouraging and 

assisting the 12 local businesses to prepare food safety programs/plans, and to verify those 

programs. 

Now that these food businesses have verified food safety programs in operational use and 

are subject to regular audit by approved auditors it is considered fair and equitable that the 

annual assessment fees for such food businesses be reduced to reflect the reduced 

frequency that EHO's need to assess the business. 

Accordingly, it recommended that food businesses operating with a verified Food Safety 

Program that has been successfully audited by an approved auditor be charged a 50% 

reduction in the relevant annual Food Act Surveillance/Inspection Fee. 

Stallholder fees 

The fee established under the Trading in Public Places Local Law for the issue of a stall 

holder's permit (includes a temporary food stall) has not been reviewed for many years. 

The current fees of $50 per week or $150 per six months do not reflect the cost of 

processing applications and inspecting stalls, such as those at Garden Week and other 


COUNCIL 


events. The average cost for the same permit across metropolitan and Peel local 

governments is $108 per week. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that the fee for the issue of a stall holder's permit (includes a 

temporary food stall) be increased to $75 for a one week permit and to $225 for a six month 

permit. 

Administration Fees 

The Health Services administration fees have been reviewed. Only one new change is 

recommended. 

The Town has a responsibility under the Aquatic Facilities Regulations to monitor and 

sample public swimming pools to ensure compliance with chemical and microbiological 

water quality standards. 

Therefore, the Town's Environmental Health Officer's undertake water sampling of high risk 

public swimming pools every month and medium risk public swimming pools in the six 

summer months. (Medium risk public swimming pools are those associated with multiple 

residential properties having more than 30 units). 

The average cost per swimming pool sample is $130, and the program costs the 

Administration in excess of $4,200 per annum. It should be noted that these are the 

Administration's cost. The laboratory costs are free at present. Whilst there is a social 

benefit to the sampling program, the swimming pool operators are the principal beneficiaries 

of this service as they tend to rely on the sampling results to monitor their pool water quality, 

rather that undertake appropriate due-diligence sampling of their own accord. Accordingly, it 

is considered appropriate that owners of public swimming pools contribute towards the cost 

of the sampling program. 

It is recommended that owners of public swimming pools pay an annual swimming pool 

water sampling administration fee of $60 per pool water sample. 

4. Ranger Services 

Statutory fees levied by the Fines Enforcement Registry and the Department of Transport 

are normally increased prior to the end of the financial year; the Schedule only lists their 

current fees. 

Other Ranger and parking fees have been reviewed and no changes are proposed. 

5. Planning, Building, Environmental Health and Rangers Services Information 

Charges. 

The schedule of administrative charges for information services have been have been 

reviewed and no changes are proposed. 


Sections 6.16 and 6.17 of the Local Government Act 1995 apply; there are no policy 

implications related to this report. 


COUNCIL 



Financial implications relate to some small increases in revenue. . 


The proposed fees are consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan which requires the review 

of servicing delivery methods by assessing the costs and benefits of service delivery 

(Economic Management). 


This matter has been considered under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as 

'Inform'. Fees and charges are determined and amended by the Council in accordance with 

the Local Government Act and the budget will be advertised for public comment prior to 

adoption. All Fee and Charge Schedules are available to the public and are published on 

the Town's web site, once adopted. 

SUMMARY: 

In accordance with sections 6.16 and 6.17 of the Local Government Act 1995, it is 

recommended that the attached Schedule of Fees and Charges for Development and 

Sustainability Services be adopted. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Development and Sustainability Services Schedule of Fees and Charges, 2012 - 2013. 



That:- 

(i) 

the Development and Sustainability Services Schedule of Fees and Charges for 

the 2012 - 2013 financial year, as detailed in the attached Schedule, be adopted 

with effect from 1 July 2012 noting the following modifications:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

the annual surveillance/inspection fee for Medium Risk Food Businesses 

be increased to $400 (plus GST); 


with additional classifications be increased to $500 (plus GST); 

the fee for the issue of a stall holder's permit (includes a temporary food 

stall) be increased to $75 for a one week permit and to $225 for a six month 

permit; 

the administration fee for public swimming pool water sampling be $60 per 

sample. 


COUNCIL 


Amendment 


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

(e) 

certification of class 2-9 buildings under the Building Act 2011, minimum fee 

$180 for development up to $20,000 then 0.09% for development above that 

figure, based on estimated construction value. 



That:- 

(i) 

the Development and Sustainability Services Schedule of Fees and Charges for 

the 2012 - 2013 financial year, as detailed in the attached Schedule, be adopted 

with effect from 1 July 2012 noting the following modifications:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 


be increased to $400 (plus GST); 


with additional classifications be increased to $500 (plus GST); 

the fee for the issue of a stall holder's permit (includes a temporary food 

stall) be increased to $75 for a one week permit and to $225 for a six month 

permit; 

the administration fee for public swimming pool water sampling be $60 per 

sample; 

certification of class 2-9 buildings under the Building Act 2011, minimum 

fee $180 for development up to $20,000 then 0.09% for development above 

that figure, based on estimated construction value. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


DV12.60 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR APRIL 2012 


To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the 

Council of other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters. 

DETAILS: 

The following items (for the month of April 2012) have been dealt with under delegated 

authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects 

with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- 

• 8 Elimatta Way, City Beach - Garage 

• 340 The Boulevard, City Beach - Retrospective approval - kitchen 

• 90 Chipping Road, City Beach - Two storey dwelling 

• 9 Kenmore Crescent, Floreat - Two storey dwelling 

• 153 The Boulevard, Floreat - Patio 

• 131 Grantham Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 34 Kenmore Crescent, Floreat - Two storey dwelling 

• 27 Orrel Avenue, Floreat - Patio 

• 16 Kirkdale Avenue, Floreat - Patio 

• 6a Jukes Way, Wembley - Single storey grouped dwelling 

• 53a Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 130 McKenzie Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 119 Holland Street, Wembley - Patio and decking 

• 113 Essex Street, Wembley - Front fence 

• 110 McKenzie Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 3 Daglish Street, Wembley - Front fence 

• 31a Reserve Street, Wembley - Alfresco 

• 68 Nanson Street, Wembley - Front fence 

• 22 Marlow Street, Wembley - Patio and re-roof 

• 123 Daglish Street, Wembley - Re-roof - patio and parapet wall 

• 48-56 Grantham Street, Wembley - change of Use from shop to office 

• 290 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Change of use - shop (beautician) to educational 

establishment (cake decorating school) 

• 8 Veryard Terrace, Wembley - Two storey dwelling 

• 87 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Two storey groupd dwelling 

• 156 Railway Parade, West Leederville - Two storey offices with undercroft carpark 

• 74 Woolwich Street, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a 

recommendation for approval:- 

• 56 Challenger Parade, City Beach - Two lot subdivision/amalgamation 

• 30 Barrett Street, West Leederville - Two lot survey strata subdivision 

• 53 Marlow Street, Wembley - Two lot survey strata subdivision 


COUNCIL 


The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s 

information:- 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - received 

No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against 

decisions of the Council during April 2012. 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined 

No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during April 

2012. 




That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated 

authority for the period ending 30 April 2012 be received. 

Carried 9/0 




COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

The report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on Monday 14 May 2012 

was submitted as under:- 

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING 

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources 

Committee open at 6.03 pm. 

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Present : Time of Time of 

Entering Leaving 

Members: 

Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.03 pm 7.23 pm 

Mayor Simon Withers 6.03 pm 7.23 pm 

Cr Louis Carr 6.03 pm 7.23 pm 

Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.03 pm 7.23 pm 

Cr Colin Walker 6.05 pm 7.23 pm 

Observers: 

Cr Corinne MacRae 

Officers: 

Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks 

Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance 

Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development 

Neil Costello, Manager Governance 

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance) 

Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

7.23 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 


Nil 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\MAY 2012\C CR.DOCX 77



4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Nil 


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee 

held on 16 April 2012 as contained in the April 2012 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. 

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Item CR12.63 - Mayor Withers and Cr Langer - Impartiality Interest 

7. REPORTS 




CR12.57 

COUNCIL POLICY REVIEW NO. 5.1.1 - MANAGEMENT OF CONSERVATION 

AREAS WITHIN PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 


To review Council Policy No: 5.1.1 "Management of Conservation Areas Within Public Open 

Space". 

BACKGROUND: 

At its meeting held on 24 April 2012 (Item CR12.43), Council decided:- 

"That the Council's policies relating to Infrastructure, excepting Policy No. 5.1.1 - Management 

of Conservation Areas within Public Open Space, be retained unchanged, amended or deleted 

as detailed in the above report and attachments, and the changes be incorporated into the 

Council Policy Manual." 

During discussion, it was considered the clause under Management Strategies - Fire Control 

relating to minimum mowing height required review. 

DETAILS: 

This policy is intended for the Administration to provide direction and a consistent approach to 

the management of Council owned and vested conservation Areas throughout the Town of 

Cambridge. 

Items 4 and 5 of the "Fire Control" Management Strategy (page three of the policy), is proposed 

to be amended as follows:- 

Fire Control - Objectives - Item 4 - Existing Statement 

Along private property fence line, a 2.5 metre wide strip is to be kept clear of vegetation 

over 300mm high for security reasons. All dead material is to be kept out of this area so 

that it will act as a fire break. Any mowing to be at a minimum height of 75mm-100mm. 

Fire Control - Objectives - Item 4 - Proposed Change to Statement 

Adjacent private property fence lines, a 2.5 metre wide strip is to be maintained as 

follows:- 

• Trees to be removed if considered a risk; 

• Shrubs to be pruned to a maximum height of 300mm; 

• Grass to be mown/slashed to a maximum height of 100mm; 

• Dead material to be removed from this area to control fuel load. 

Fire Control - Item 5 - Existing Statement 

Selected dead vegetation to be annually removed from areas of indigenous vegetation to 

reduce fire hazard and maintain tidy appearance following an annual site inspection. 




Fire Control - Item 5 - Proposed Change to Statement 

For conservation areas adjacent to the 2.5 metre strip, selected dead vegetation is to be 

annually removed to reduce fire hazard and maintain tidy appearance following an annual 

site inspection. 

The above changes are either shown as text to be deleted and have been struck through and 

any additional text proposed has been underlined as detailed in the report attachment 1. 

The management of fire breaks within the boundaries of private property is managed within 

Council's Compliance "Procedure - Management of Fire Breaks". This is not a Council policy 

and relates to complying with the Bush Fires Act 1954 as detailed in the report attachment 2. 

The Town's general requirement to comply with the Bushfires Act 1954 in relation to this 

procedure is:- 

a) Any land greater than 2,000 square metres shall have a minimum 3 metre firebreak 

around the boundary of the property; and 

b) Any land of 2,000 square metres or less shall be cleared entirely and mowed to a 

maximum height of 50mm. 


There are no Statutory Implications related to this report. This report recommends amendment 

to Policy No. 5.1.1. 




This policy provides guidance to the Administration and community on Council's consistent 

decisions which reflect the Council's Strategic Plan. 


No consultation is required as this review is administrative. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Council Policy No. 5.1.1 - Management of Conservation Areas Within Public Open 

Space. 

2. Procedure - Management of Fire Breaks. 






Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr 

That the Council Policy No. 5.1.1 - "Management of Conservation Areas Within Public 

Open Space" be retained and amended as detailed in the above report and attachments, 

and the changes be incorporated into the Council Policy Manual. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.58 

CHALLENGER PARK ECOZONE TRIAL 


To review and consider for inclusion in the Draft Budget process a proposed Ecozone Trial at 

Challenger Park. 

BACKGROUND: 

In September 2010, (Item CR10.5), Council decided that:- 

"(i) 

(ii) 

the Best Practice Irrigation Management Strategy, as outlined in the report, be received; 

the Administration investigate and report back to Council on an Ecozone program, for 

implementation in the Town." 

An Ecozone can be defined as the division of a park or reserve into zones of turf or natural 

areas to promote biodiversity and conserve water, while keeping the area's amenity and 

function. This basically means replacing areas of turf, which have limited use, with native 

gardens that require less water to survive. Areas of turf that are non-irrigated such as the dog 

exercise area at Lake Monger Reserve and the west side of the west lake at Perry Lakes 

Reserve can also be defined as Ecozones because they conserve water. 

However, care should be taken in making decisions for permanent removal of turf areas. At a 

recent seminar in 2011, the "Centre for the Built Environment and Health School of Population 

Health", University of Western Australia, it was stated amongst other benefits that research 

indicates public open space with higher amounts of grass and trees are used more frequently 

and increased neighbourhood "greenness" is associated with better physical and mental health. 

Further information is presented in attachment 1. 

There are a number of established and naturally occurring Ecozones that provide a positive 

contribution to biodiversity values throughout the Town including:- 

• 110Ha of bushland parks and coastal dunes; 

• The many remnant bushland areas within recreation parks such as Ocean Village Park; 

• Ocean Mia Park; and 

• Lake Monger Reserve on the eastern side adjacent the freeway. 

The Town installed its first Ecozone in 2006 on a section of West Coast Highway median near 

The Boulevard intersection, which was a water wise project partially funded by the Town, Main 

Roads WA and a grant from the State Government. 

In addition, the Town has since installed Ecozones in the Oceanic Drive median, The 

Boulevard median (between Templetonia Crescent and West Coast Highway) and one is 

currently being established in the verge area between Chipping Road and Hale Road. These 

Ecozones have been favourably received by the majority of residents during the 

implementation of these projects, possibly due to the fact that the turf in these locations was 

mainly providing aesthetic value and very little public use value. These projects have 




demonstrated to the community not just the values and benefits of replacing turf with native 

plants, but what Ecozones will look like. 

It is noted that the construction of Ecozones require significant budgets. In addition, to maintain 

them, a higher maintenance budget is required in the order of plus 25% when compared to turf, 

particularly in the first 5 years from establishment. These costs are associated with the 

following issues:- 

• Weed Control; 

• Replacing dead plants; 

• Replenishing mulch; and 

• Pruning of plants. 

DETAILS: 

Discussions between the Manager Infrastructure Parks, City Beach resident Mr Kingsley Dixon 

(Member of Cambridge Coastcare) and Mayor Withers have identified a proposal to undertake 

an Ecozone Trial at a small portion of Challenger Park, City Beach. The location is bounded by 

Challenger Parade, Jubilee Crescent and Boscombe Avenue and the north/south path. A map 

of this location is included as attachment 2. 

The aim of the proposed trial is to demonstrate to the community the value of Ecozones in a 

park environment. The turf area within the trial location has minimal use value and fits the 

criteria for Ecozoning. 

Details of the proposed trial are as follows:- 

• Replace all of the lawn area on the west side of the north/south path with native 

vegetation (highlighted in yellow on attachment 2); and 

• Rehabilitate the dunes area including weed control and planting of native vegetation 

(highlighted in blue on attachment 2). 

A total budget of $20,000 is required to implement the above works including:- 

• Undertake Weed Control $5,000; 

• Prepare site and mulch $11,000; and 

• Planting $4,000 (600 plants). 

All works will be undertaken on the west side of the north/south path. 

During discussions it was established that if the trial is successful, approximately after about 3 

years, Ecozone works could be proposed for extension to Jubilee Park (by replacing some turf 

with native plants) and all of Fred Burton Park to the north between Fred Burton Drive and 

Challenger Parade. This is aimed at improving ecological connectivity between the dunes on 

the south side and the north side of City Beach Park and possibly link this area to Bold Park. 

For this larger project, it was understood, a long term landscape concept plan was to be 

prepared (at no cost to Council) and there is opportunity to attract grant funding through 

Lotterywest for the works. 




Comment 

The Administration considers that prior to establishing Ecozones in parks, suitable road 

reserves such as the Lake Monger Drive median, The Boulevard median between Durston 

Road and Chipping Road and The Boulevard verges between Empire Avenue and Durston 

Road, be converted to Ecozones first. Statistics will be prepared for both Road Verges and 

Medians together with Parks to detail how much area is under irrigation and how much area is 

actually used. This will detail the areas available to Ecozone. 

This has two benefits:- 

1. Replacing turf which has mainly aesthetic value; and 

2. Will assist in increasing community appreciation of Ecozones. 

The proposed trial is mainly for the benefits of the community. The Administration, as a result of 

the Ecozones previously installed in the Town, has gained appropriate knowledge and 

experience for planning, budgeting, implementing and maintaining Ecozones. 


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


If the trial is endorsed an amount of $20,000 will be required in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget for 

Council consideration. 


This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

• Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; 

• Preserve the character of our suburbs 

• Develop and improve the Town's main beaches and reserves; 

• Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure 

their sustainability for future generations; and 

• Understand our environmental impacts and respond appropriately. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following 

consideration of the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, limited 

consultation is recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no external 

impacts envisaged. 

There are two residential properties adjacent to the proposed trial area and one of them 

belongs to Mr Dixon. Should a trial be adopted Council will advise adjacent residents of the 

proposal. It would also be appropriate to install appropriate signage at the works area to inform 

adjacent residents and the community of the aims of the trial prior to any works commencing. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. The role of turf in the health of populations. 

2. Ecozone Trial overview map. 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed Ecozone Trial described in this report and as shown on attachment 2 map, 

at a section of Challenger Park bounded by Challenger Parade, Jubilee Crescent and 

Boscombe Avenue be supported for consideration in future budgets; 

a further report be submitted on road reserve Ecozone projects together with Parks 

Ecozone projects for implementation in future budgets. 


During discussion, Mayor Withers suggested that the proposed Ecozone Trial should 

considered for inclusion in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget. 

Cr Walker entered the meeting at 6.05 pm. 

Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Carr 

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

(i) 

the proposed Ecozone Trial described in this report and as shown on attachment 2 map, 

at a section of Challenger Park bounded by Challenger Parade, Jubilee Crescent and 

Boscombe Avenue be supported for consideration in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget. 





That:- 

(i) the proposed Ecozone Trial described in this report and as shown on attachment 2 

map, at a section of Challenger Park bounded by Challenger Parade, Jubilee 

Crescent and Boscombe Avenue be supported for consideration in the Draft 

2012/2013 Budget; 

(ii) 

a further report be submitted on road reserve Ecozone projects together with Parks 

Ecozone projects for implementation in future budgets. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.59 

PAT GOODRIDGE CAR PARK - COMMERCIAL "LEARN TO DRIVE" TRAINING 

SCHOOLS 


To seek direction from Council regarding the use of the Pat Goodridge Car Park by commercial 

Learn to Drive Training Schools. 

BACKGROUND: 

For a number of years, the Pat Goodridge car park has been used as a facility for Learn to 

Drive organisations and parents teaching their children how to drive a motor vehicle or 

motorcycle. However, due to an increasing number of private organisations using the Pat 

Goodridge carpark for learner drivers without the approval of the Town and complaints from a 

nearby resident, the use of the car park for this activity ceased. It should be noted that private 

learn to drive training (i.e. by parents, families, etc) is still allowed. 

A petition containing 189 signatures was submitted to Council at its meeting held on 27 March 

2012 requesting that consideration be given to allowing learner drivers to continue to use the 

Pat Goodridge car park for practice and lessons. 

DETAILS: 

A survey was undertaken to ascertain the views towards the use of the car park by learner 

drive schools of adjacent residents, (specifically Halesworth Road - 27 households). A copy of 

the survey is provided as an Attachment. 

A total of twelve surveys were returned, representing a 44.4% rate of return. Eleven of the 

twelve surveys (91.6%) supported the use the current Pat Goodridge car park for Learn to 

Drive Training Schools. An opportunity to add further comments was also provided in the 

survey. 

A summary of the responses is provided as an Attachment which shows overwhelming support 

for continued use of the Pat Goodridge car park as a venue for learner driver training, both 

commercial and private, subject to a number of conditions being met by any commercial users. 

These include: 

• a booking being made with the Town; 

• display of signage for authorised use; 

• the appropriate fee and bond is paid; 

• adequate Public Liability and Professional Liability coverage is obtained; 

• a Risk Management Plan is completed to the satisfaction of the Town; and 

• adherence to the Town's General Conditions of Hire and Environmental Protection 

(Noise) Regulations 1997. 

The proposal would restrict the use of the Pat Goodridge car park for commercial Learn to 

Drive operators during daylight hours on weekdays. This was suggested by survey 

respondents from Halesworth Road and is supported. Any weekend use would clash with 

sporting events at both Pat Goodridge and Matthews Netball Centre. 





Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, General Conditions of Hire 


Income would be derived from commercial Learn to Drive Training Schools hiring the Pat 

Goodridge car park facility. Estimated income derived from previous booking records is $3,000 

to $5,000 per annum. 

The fees charged are in accordance with the Town's current 2011/2012 Fees and Charges 

Schedule: 

Category 

Amount 

(ex GST) 

Per Hour $33 

Half Day Rate $166 

Full Day Rate $333 


The use of the Pat Goodridge car park car park by commercial Learn to Drive Training Schools 

supports one of the Goals of the Delivering Our Services priority area within the Town's 2009- 

2020 Strategic Plan, namely: 

"Community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained" 


A survey was undertaken of Halesworth Road residents to ascertain their views in relation to 

the use of the Pat Goodridge car park for learner driver training, both private and commercial. 

Twelve of 27 surveys were returned (44%) with 11 of the 12 respondents supporting the use of 

the Pat Goodridge car park for learner driver training. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Pat Goodridge Car Park Survey 

2. Summary of Survey results and comments 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the comments received from survey respondents be noted; 

the use of the existing Pat Goodridge car-park area for both private and commercial 

operators be approved, subject to commercial operators complying with the following: 



• the appropriate fee and bond being paid; 

• adequate Public Liability and Professional Liability coverage being obtained; 

• a Risk Management Plan being completed to the satisfaction of the Town; and 







During discussion, the Administration was requested to consider the proposed fees prior to the 

next meeting of Council as they appeared too high. Cr Walker suggested that adequate Public 

Liability and Professional Liability coverage should be supplied to the Town rather than 

obtained. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

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

(ii) 

the use of the existing Pat Goodridge car-park area for both private and commercial 

operators be approved, subject to commercial operators complying with the following: 




• adequate Public Liability and Professional Liability coverage being supplied to the 

Town; 





FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 22 May 2012) 

At the Corporate and Resources Committee meeting held on 14 May 2012, concerns were 

expressed regarding the cost to hire the Pat Goodridge car-park and times of use. Further 

information and suggested amendments to the Committees recommendation areoutlined 

below: 

Hire Fees 

A distinction needs to be made in relation to hirers of the Pat Goodridge car-park, private 

(Family teaching members to drive) and commercial operators. 

In relation to private learn to drive activities, it is not the intention to charge fees and no 

administration processes are required. 

In relation to commercial operators, it is proposed to introduce two (2) specific charges: 

1. Casual (less than 30 minutes at a time, 5 times per week); 

2. Fixed Term (6 months and 12 months). 




Rather than charge the commercial operators what is outlined in the Council endorsed fees and 

charges, under the category of "Driver Training ", an alternative seasonal licence fee could 

apply. This fee was introduced a number of years ago to manage commercial fitness groups 

who were exclusively using the Town's various reserves and sports grounds. These groups pay 

a licence fee based on one or more classes per week, specifically: 

• 6 Months $316 (ex GST) 

• 12 Months $632 (ex GST) 

Times of Use 

The times of use was also discussed and it would be the intention to limit the use of the carpark 

area (both private and commercial) to daylight hours only and weekends would be subject 

to availability(to avoid clash with its use by sporting groups that hire Pat Goodridge Reserve 

and the Perth Netball Association facility). 

This suggestion was put forward by a resident at 46 Halesworth Road 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the comments received from survey respondents be noted; 

the use of the existing Pat Goodridge car-park area for both private and 

commercial operators be approved, subject to commercial operators complying 

with the following: 




• adequate Public Liability and Professional Liability coverage being supplied to 

the Town; 


• adherence to the Town's General Conditions of Hire and Environmental 

Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. 

Amendment 


That the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the comments received from survey respondents are noted; 

the use of the existing Pat Goodridge car-park area for driver training for 

both private and commercial operators be approved during daylight hours only 

with weekends subject to availability; 




(iii) 

fixed term commercial driver training operators be required to: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

complete booking form 

display signage for authorised use 

supply to the Town adequate Public and Professional Liability Insurance 

coverage 

provide a Risk Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Town; 

agree not to permanently store equipment in the car-park area; and 

adhere to the Town's General Condition's of Hire and Environmental 

Protection Noise) Regulations 1997; 

(iv) 

fees applicable for the use of the Pat Goodridge car-park area for driver training be 

as follows: 

(a) Private Nil 

(b) Commercial 

- Less than 30 minutes at a time, 5 times per week Nil 

- Fixed Term (6 months) $316(ex GST) 



For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, Pelczar, Walker 

Cr MacRae 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the comments received from survey respondents are noted; 

the use of the existing Pat Goodridge car-park area for driver training for 

both private and commercial operators be approved during daylight hours only 

with weekends subject to availability; 

fixed term commercial driver training operators be required to: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

complete booking form 

display signage for authorised use 

supply to the Town adequate Public and Professional Liability Insurance 

coverage 

provide a Risk Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Town; 

agree not to permanently store equipment in the car-park area; and 

adhere to the Town's General Condition's of Hire and Environmental 

Protection Noise) Regulations 1997; 

(iv) 

fees applicable for the use of the Pat Goodridge car-park area for driver training be 

as follows: 

(a) Private Nil 

(b) Commercial 

- Less than 30 minutes at a time, 5 times per week Nil 






CR12.60 

BOLD PARK AQUATIC CENTRE DEVELOPMENT - REMEDIAL AND FUTURE 

WORKS 


To advise Council on a proposed course of action regarding development of Bold Park Aquatic 

Centre. 

BACKGROUND: 

A report was presented to Council (CR10.29) in October 2010 regarding the future of Bold Park 

Aquatic Centre. Council decided that: 

"(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

a major upgrade to the Bold Park Aquatic Centre not be supported; 

remedial works to the Bold Park Aquatic Centre, encompassing repair and upgrade of the 

existing outdoor 50 metre pool and surrounds; 

a 2010/2011 forward planning CSRFF application be completed with the Department of 

Sport and Recreation for remedial works outlined in (ii) above; 

a report be presented to Council outlining the details of the Bold Park Aquatic Centre 

Geothermal feasibility study and the outcome of the 2010/2011 forward planning CSRFF 

application." 

A copy of the October 2010 report (Item CR10.29) is provided as an attachment. 

Consultants, Geoff Ninnes Fong and Partners, were appointed to provide technical advice to 

the Town regarding (ii) and (iv) of the above decision. The Town was unsuccessful in obtaining 

a CSRFF grant as proposed in item (iii), however, a further CSRFF application can be 

submitted. 

DETAILS: 

Geoff Ninnes Fong and Partners have completed their work and briefed Elected Members at 

the April 2012 Elected Member Forum. An overview of their findings, supported by the Town is 

outlined below: 

1. Report Findings 

1.1. 50 Metre Outdoor Pool 

The 50 metre outdoor pool is approximately 40 years old and is at the end of its life. 

Many tiles are old and brittle, several have been replaced, grout has eroded and there 

are several rust spots on the pool floor, walls and joints. 

1.2. Plant Room and Plant 

The plant room layout is very tight, ventilation needs to be improved and backwash and 

balance tanks are operating at inadequate water flow levels. There is also evidence of 

corrosion on some of the plant. 




1.3. Geotechnical Report 

Despite heavy rain the week before the test, the sand subsoil was only moist, indicating 

the pool is not leaking. 

1.4. Pool Surrounds 

The pool concourse is cracked, corrosion is evident and areas are uneven which is 

causing ponding in the concourse gutters. Substantial cracking near the balance tank 

(under the ground) is also evident along the long side of the concourse. 

1.5. Energy Saving Options 

Several options were investigated, including: 

• Heat Pumps 

• Geothermal (using hot water from Water Corporation or own hot water); and 

• Solar (on- ground or on- roof top) 

1.6. Children's Pool 

The existing children's pool is very old, the water turn over is poor and separate plant 

needs to be incorporated. Due to changing consumer needs, consideration should be 

given to either a new multi purpose pool or a splash pool with above water level features 

for children. 

2. Recommended Upgrades and Indicative Costs 

2.1. 50 Metre Pool, Plant Room and Surrounds 

The 50 metre pool is at the end of its life and significant works are required within the 

next 12- 24 months to maintain the integrity of the pool, plant and plant room. These 

works include: 

• Build new gutter wall and install new filtered water line 

• Retile with standard tile 

• Remove existing concourse slab, compact sub grade, place piers to support new slab 

and provide support to pool 

• Balance tank to be rebuilt and extended 

• Existing balance tank to be refitted as new backwash tank 

• Lift plant room roof and increase ventilation 

• New UV system; and 

• Pre-coat filter system. 

Costs to complete these works are approximately $3 million, including contingencies, 

design costs, cost escalation and consultancies. 

2.2. Energy System 

The preferred option to heat water at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre from a cost efficiency 

and minimal risk factor is a combination of existing heat pumps and on-structure solar. 

The approximate cost is $600,000, with the break even period being 3 years. 

2.3. Children's Pool 

A separate business case needs to be undertaken to substantiate the construction of a 

new heated leisure pool. A splash pool should also be investigated. Costs are similar, in 

the vicinity of $800,000, however, additional income could be derived from a leisure pool 

through learn to swim programs and aqua fitness programs. 




2.4. Ancillary Matters 

It is also recognised that 'front of house' Bold Park Aquatic Centre facilities (entry, swim 

shop, kiosk, change rooms, crèche and car-park) are tired and dilapidated. Along with 

'back of house' office facilities, a decision in coming years will need to be made regarding 

refurbishment or replacement of these facilities. 

2.5. Cost 

The overall cost for remedial works to the Bold Park Aquatic Centre, encompassing repair 

and upgrade of the existing outdoor 50 metre pool and surrounds and introduction of 

solar and heat pump energy system is approximately $3.6 million (excludes $800K for 

splash pool). The facility would also be closed to the public for a period of seven to eight 

months. 

3. Investment Decisions/Options 

3.1. Option 1- Facility Upgrade 

An allocation of $150,000 would be required in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget to undertake 

detailed design work (including costings) for the upgrade to the Bold Park Aquatic Centre 

outdoor 50 metre pool, surrounds and plant room and energy efficiency systems 

($100,000) and a conceptual plan developed for future works ($50,000). 

The detailed design work for the outdoor 50 metre pool, pool surrounds, plant room and 

energy efficiency systems would be undertaken in the 2012/2013 financial year. This 

would facilitate a CSRFF Department of Sport and Recreation grant application with best 

possible funding outcome being $1.3 million. Remedial and construction works would 

then commence in the 2013/2014 financial year with the facility remaining closed for a 

seven to eight month period (to commence in Winter 2014). 

3.2. Option 2 - Closure 

Although in October 2010 Council did not support the closure of the Bold Park Aquatic 

Centre, the cost for remedial works to the outdoor 50 metre pool, plant room and heating 

system is significant (approximately $3.6 million), it maybe worthwhile revisiting this 

decision due to the significant capital cost and the likely capital costs associated with the 

children's' pool, front of house and back of house facilities. 

Although external grant funding could be forthcoming in assisting capital costs, it is 

unlikely that the operating revenues will be increased significantly particularly when 

Challenge Stadium, Claremont Aquatic, Lords- Subiaco and Beatty Park are located 

close by. Operating costs are not anticipated to significantly reduce (with the exception of 

energy consumption anticipated to be $44,000 per annum if, energy efficiencies facilities 

are introduced). 

The possibility of a multi-purpose leisure facility being built at the Hamersley Golf Course 

could also affect patronage at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre. 

If Council were to contemplate closing the Bold Park Aquatic Centre it would be advisable 

to seek the view from the Cambridge Community and major users of the facility. 

Any community consultation undertaken in relation to the closure of the pool should 

investigate the social value residents place on the opportunity to use the facilities at Bold 

Park Aquatic Centre, even if they are not regular users. According to the results of a 

recent postcode survey, it is estimated that only 35% of users of the Bold Park Aquatic 

Centre live in the Town. 




This social value may have an important impact on the broader perception of the Quality 

of Life within the Town. Anecdotally, many people consider a range of Quality of Life 

indicators including access to schools, retail/commercial services, public open space and 

community facilities, of which public swimming pools are usually high on their list. Quality 

of Life indicators have a large bearing on people's decision to live where they live. 

The social value of a swimming pool lies in the experiences it affords the users. That is, 

people do not only see it as a place to swim for pleasure, but also as a place where they 

can undertake fitness activities, learn to swim, socialise with friends/ family, participate in 

club coaching and squad training activities, and have some 'time out' from parenting 

young children. There are also specific opportunities for disabled patrons. It is the 

opportunity to access the experience, as well as the experience itself which is important. 

The social cost of closing the pool can be quantified by asking residents to identify what 

opportunities would be lost to them and to make a judgement on the $ value of those 

opportunities. 

3.3. Option 3 - Do Nothing 

It is not practical to forestall a decision on this matter. Advice received is that the outdoor 

50 metre pool will fail in the near future and a two year timeframe to remediate is the 

preferred plan. Risks in Occupational Health and Safety, water quality from the treatment 

plant need to be addressed. 




An amount of $150,000 to be included in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget for detailed design and 

tender specification works and concept planning for future development works. 

Future capital funds for construction to come from the Endowment Lands Account (with any 

potentially offset from Department of Sport and Recreation CSRFF grant program). 


Remedial works required at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre supports the Creating Communities 

of Choice vision of the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan. 


If Council decide to close the Bold Park Aquatic Centre, it would be advisable to seek comment 

from the Cambridge Community and major users of the facility, particularly the $ value they 

place on the opportunities afforded by this facility. 

SUMMARY: 

The Bold Park Aquatic Centre is at the end of its life with the outdoor 50 metre pool and 

children's/toddlers pool close to 40 years of age. A considerable amount of remedial works to 

the outdoor 50 metre pool, plant room and surrounds is required within the next 12-24 months 

at an approximate cost of $3 million. An opportunity to introduce a cost efficient heating system 

at an approximate cost of $600,000 should be examined. Further detailed design works are 

required in relation to these works. 




It is also recognised that 'front of house' Bold Park Aquatic Centre facilities (entry, swim shop, 

kiosk, change rooms, crèche and car-park) and the children's/toddler's pool are also tired and 

dilapidated. Along with 'back of house' office facilities, a decision in coming years will need to 

be made regarding refurbishment or replacement of these facilities. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Item CR10.29 (October 2010) 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the Geoff Ninnes Fong Engineering report on the Bold Park Aquatic Centre be 

supported for remedial works to the outdoor 50 metre pool, plant room, surrounds 

and water heating efficiencies; 

an amount of $100,000 be included in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget to undertake 

detailed design work (including costings) for the upgrade to the Bold Park Aquatic 

Centre outdoor 50 metre pool, plant room and surrounds; and 

an amount of $50,000 be included in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget to undertake a 

concept plan for front and back of house facilities and an outdoor heated small 

leisure pool facility. 

During discussion, Cr Grinceri suggested that a strategic review be undertaken to provide 

Council with more information to support the required financial investment. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Langer 

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

(iv) 

the Administration to provide a strategic review of the Bold Park Aquatic Centre 

prior to the adoption of the 2012/2013 Budget in July 2012. 


For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King and Walker 

Crs Bradley, Langer, MacRae and Pelczar 


That:- 

(i) 

the Geoff Ninnes Fong Engineering report on the Bold Park Aquatic Centre be 

supported for remedial works to the outdoor 50 metre pool, plant room, surrounds 

and water heating efficiencies; 




(ii) 

an amount of $100,000 be included in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget to undertake 

detailed design work (including costings) for the upgrade to the Bold Park Aquatic 

Centre outdoor 50 metre pool, plant room and surrounds; 

(iii) an amount of $50,000 be included in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget to undertake a 

concept plan for front and back of house facilities and an outdoor heated small 

leisure pool facility; 

(iv) 

the Administration to provide a strategic review of the Bold Park Aquatic Centre 

prior to the adoption of the 2012/2013 Budget in July 2012. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.61 

50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND COMMONWEALTH 

GAMES EVENT CELEBRATIONS 


To seek Council's support for a series of British Empire and Commonwealth Games 50 th 

anniversary celebration activities, including a community event. 

BACKGROUND: 

The year 2012 marks the 50 th anniversary of the British Empire and Commonwealth Games 

which took place 22 November to 1 December 1962 in Perth, Western Australia. For the 1962 

Games the athletics events were held at Perry Lakes Stadium, the swimming events were held 

at Beatty Park, North Perth (City of Vincent) and a range of other events at various venues 

around Perth. 

DETAILS: 

As this year signifies the 50 th anniversary of the British Empire and Commonwealth Games 

event which took place within the Town, the Town is keen to recognise and commemorate this 

significant date. 

The Town's Community Development and Library Services have met with key stakeholders 

including the Western Australia Olympic Council and Athletics WA. The Town has also liaised 

with the Department of Sport and Recreation, WA Sports Federation, City of Vincent, City of 

Perth and the West Australian Institute of Sport. 

The City of Vincent has indicated they are limiting their involvement to the publication of a 

commemorative book on the history of Beatty Park and development works to this facility. The 

City of Perth is able and willing to make part of the Commonwealth Heads of Government 

Meeting (CHOGM) display related to Games memorabilia available for incorporation into any 

event. 

An opportunity exists for the Town to undertake a number of activities to celebrate the 50 th 

anniversary. These activities could be joint ventures between relevant stakeholders and, at a 

recent meeting with stakeholders, it was proposed to undertake the following events: 

• Display of 1962 Commonwealth Games memorabilia including CHOGM display panels - 

to be displayed at the Library and Floreat Forum; 

• Living Treasures / Local Heroes - oral history of athletes, host families, volunteers, 

businesses or any groups/individuals who were involved in the 1962 British Empire and 

Commonwealth Games; 

• Local Schools project - schools to be invited to colour in flags which could be displayed 

at the community event; 

• A "Sports Fair" community event - to take place at the new Athletics Stadium and to 

include some athletic events, 'come and try' activities for non-athletes, old fashioned 

games, guest speakers (retired athletic stars), displays, appearance for sports stars, 

food stalls, Vespa Club display etc. The proposed date for this event is Saturday, 

24 November 2012; and 

• A VIP (dinner/cocktail party) at the Boulevard Centre - hosted by the WA Olympic and 

Commonwealth Games Council. This event, proposed by the WA Olympic and 




Commonwealth Games Council, would be a corporate event to which Politicians, 

Parliamentarians, VIP's etc would be invited. 

The Town has established a working group which includes representatives from the Town's 

Community Development and Library Services, Athletics WA, WA Olympic Council, the 

Department of Sport and Recreation, VenuesWest and the WA Institute of Sport. The working 

group met in April 2012 and will work together over the next six months to plan the 

abovementioned proposed events. Both the WA Olympic Council and Athletics WA have 

indicated their willingness to support and assist with these events. 




An approximate amount of $45,000 (includes salaries, set up, displays/exhibition, promotion 

and community event) will be included in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget (excluding the VIP 

Corporate event) with other State Government agencies also approached to assist with costs. 


The 50 th anniversary of the British Empire and Commonwealth Games event supports a number 

of the key priority areas in the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, including: 

• Planning for our Community; and 

• Delivering Our Services 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with 

the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

a series of 50 th anniversary of the British Empire and Commonwealth Games activities, 

including a community event on 24 November 2012 be supported; and 

an amount of $45,000 be included in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget to facilitate (i) above. 





During discussion, Members agreed that the appropriate State Government agencies should be 

contributing matching funds towards the event. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Walker 

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

(ii) 

an amount of up to $25,000 be included in the 2012/13 Draft Budget subject to matching 

funds being provided by the relevant State Government agencies. 





That:- 

(i) a series of 50 th anniversary of the British Empire and Commonwealth Games 

activities, including a community event on 24 November 2012 be supported; and 

(ii) 

an amount of up to $25,000 be included in the 2012/13 Draft Budget subject to 

matching funds being provided by the relevant State Government agencies. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.62 

CITY BEACH NIGHT SURFING CLASSIC 


To gain Council approval to re-establish the City Beach Night Surfing Classic as an annual 

event at City Beach. 

BACKGROUND: 

The City Beach Surf Riders Club (CBSRC) was established in 1962. The club currently has 

approximately 60 members and operates out of the South City Beach storage shed facility. In 

previous years the Town had an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City Beach 

Surf Riders Club to enable the Club to use City Beach as the venue for an annual Night Surfing 

Competition. 

The City Beach Night Surfing Classic was seen as an iconic event among the Western 

Australian surfing fraternity. It was the first night surfing event held in Australia and has 

attracted competitors including World Surfing Champion Tom Carroll and current World 

Number One surfer Taj Burrow. 

No fee was charged for the use of City Beach, however, the Club was required to pay cleaning 

charges of $220 per event. In addition, the Town provided an annual contribution of $2,000 for 

each past event. 

For a range of reasons the annual Night Surfing Competition has not been held for a number of 

years, however, the Club has now approached the Town with a proposal to re-establish the 

event. 

DETAILS: 

It is proposed to re-establish the CBSRC Night Surfing Classic and develop it into a multifaceted 

community event over the next three to five years. 

The next event is proposed for January/ February 2013 over two nights (Friday and Saturday 

from 7pm to 11pm) off the north side of City Beach groyne. This event will be exclusive to 

CBSRC members and although it will cater for competitors between 10 and 50+ years of age, 

the focus will be on junior participation. Approximately 40 participants and up to 60 spectators 

are expected to attend. 

Event Coordinator: 

The City Beach Night Surfing Classic will be coordinated by Mr Tom Wilson. Mr Wilson has 

been running surfing events around Australia for the past 15 years and is currently the 

Operations Manager for the Drug Aware Pro (Western Australia's premier surfing event held 

annually in Margaret River). Mr Wilson has also written many Risk Management plans for Surf 

WA (Western Australia's peak surfing body). 




Equipment Requirements: 

Equipment requirements for the 2013 event are basic including one small beach marquee/ tent 

for event organisers, one PA system and a trailer mounted lighting tower (includes generator). 

This equipment would be set up on the beach and will be structurally certified. 

Parking and Traffic Management: 

Given the small scale of the event, sufficient parking is available in the public car parks. All car 

parks would remain open to the public and it is not expected that the event will hinder the 

natural flow of traffic in the area. 

Safety and Risk Management: 

The Club has a number of qualified safety officers and lifeguards within its membership. For 

the duration of the event, a first aid post will be established and manned and a jet ski will be 

used for water safety. Given the relatively high risk associated with night surfing, the Town 

would require a risk management plan to be approved prior to the event. 

Alcohol and Smoking Policy: 

No Alcohol will be consumed, promoted, sold or provided at the event. The event will have a 

zero tolerance policy on alcohol and smoking which will be enforced by the CBSRC committee. 

Future Event Development: 

Using the 2013 event as a launching pad to generate interest from within the local surfing 

community, the 2014 event would see the competition opened up to the Cottesloe, 

Scarborough and Contacio Boardriders Clubs in an inter-club contest. The 2015 Night Surfing 

Classic could then be expanded into a multi-faceted community event showcasing the new 

beach front development at City Beach and incorporating a beach volleyball competition and 

live music performances (subject to Council approval and funding). 


Community Development Policy 2.1.15: Community Grants Program 


It is estimated that the total cost of the event will be $4,000. It is proposed that funding for the 

event be provided on a 50/50 basis with Council and CBSRC each contributing $2,000. 


The City Beach Night Surfing Classic event supports the Creating Communities of Choice 

Vision of the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan. 







ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 


That:- 

(i) 

the re-establishment of the City Beach Night Surfing Classic as an annual event at City 

Beach be approved subject to the following: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

a Memorandum of Understanding being established between the Town and the City 

Beach Surf Riders Club for the Night Surfing Classic; 

the preparation of a risk management plan to the satisfaction of the Town prior to 

the events; and 

support for the events being obtained from City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club, 

Clancy's Fish Bar and South City Beach Kiosk; 

(ii) 

(iii) 

an amount of $2,000 be included in the draft 2012/2013 budget subject to (i) above; and 

a further report be presented to Council in relation to the proposed development of the 

Night Surfing Classic into a multi-faceted community event prior to the 2015 event. 


Amendment 

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Walker 

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

(i) (c) consultation with the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club, Clancy's Fish Bar and 

South City Beach Kiosk. 





That:- 

(i) 

the re-establishment of the City Beach Night Surfing Classic as an annual event at 

City Beach be approved subject to the following: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

a Memorandum of Understanding being established between the Town and 

the City Beach Surf Riders Club for the Night Surfing Classic; 

the preparation of a risk management plan to the satisfaction of the Town 

prior to the events; and 

consultation with the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club, Clancy's Fish Bar 

and South City Beach Kiosk; 

(ii) 

an amount of $2,000 be included in the draft 2012/2013 budget subject to (i) above; 

and 




(iii) 

a further report be presented to Council in relation to the proposed development of 

the Night Surfing Classic into a multi-faceted community event prior to the 2015 

event. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.63 

OCEAN GARDENS CONSTITUTION - MINOR AMENDMENT 


To seek the Council’s approval to a proposed minor amendment to the Constitution of Ocean 

Gardens (Inc). 

BACKGROUND: 

The majority of Elected Members will recall that at its meeting held on 21 December 2010, the 

Council approved a number of amendments to the constitution of Ocean Gardens (Inc) to 

reflect changes to the composition of the Board and the appointment and tenure of Board 

Members (Directors). 

This approach was made to the Council in accordance with the provisions of Clause 46 of the 

Constitution of Ocean Gardens (Inc), which states:- 

"46. Subject to the prior written approval of the resolution by the Town, the Constitution of 

the Association may be altered added to or repealed at any General Meeting of the Association 

by a Special Resolution passed by the Members present at that meeting." 

DETAILS: 

During this last major amendment process, a reference within a sub-clause was not updated in 

the final version. At clause 11(3)(f), the existing reference 11(3)(c) should read 11(3)(b). This 

minor amendment does not substantially alter the meaning or intent of clause 11. Accordingly, 

it is recommended that the change be approved. 

The change can be viewed in context below:- 

THE BOARD 

(amended by Council decision of 21 December 2010 – Item 11.1) 

11. (1) The Board shall comprise six (6) Directors. 

(2) Four (4) Directors shall form a quorum. 

(3) (a) The Directors shall be nominated by the Board and appointed by the Town in 

accordance with this clause. 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

The Board shall determine the eligibility requirements for the selection of 

those persons to be nominated by the Board as Directors and notify the Town 

of those requirements from time to time. 

The Town must, within 60 days of the date of receipt of the nomination from 

the Board, in its absolute discretion appoint or reject any person nominated by 

the Board by notice to the Board in writing. 

If the Town does not within 60 days appoint or reject any person nominated 

under this clause, the Town will be deemed to have appointed that person as 

a Director. 




(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

The Board may, by notice in writing to the Town, withdraw the nomination of 

any person nominated under this clause and nominate another person in their 

place at any time prior to the appointment of the person by the Town. 

If at any time the number of Directors is less than four, the Town may appoint 

as Directors (without prior nomination by the Board) persons that comply with 

the requirements under clause 11(3)(c) 11(3)(b) to fill all or any vacancies on 

the Board. 

The Board may remove any Director appointed under this clause and 

nominate another person in their place. 








ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 


Prior to consideration of this item, Mayor Withers and Cr Langer disclosed an interest affecting 

impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to the minor amendment to the Ocean 

Gardens Constitution, I declare that I am currently serving Director of the Ocean Gardens (Inc) 

Board and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I 

declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. 


Prior to consideration of this item, Mayor Withers and Cr Langer disclosed an interest affecting 

impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to the minor amendment to the Ocean 

Gardens Constitution, I declare that I am currently serving Director of the Ocean Gardens (Inc) 

Board and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I 

declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." Cr Pelczar also 

disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to the minor 

amendment to the Ocean Gardens Constitution, I declare that I am a resident of Ocean 

Gardens Retirement Village and as a consequence there may be a perception that my 

impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote 

accordingly." 







That approval be given for the Constitution of Ocean Gardens (Inc) to be amended as 

follows:- 

(i) 

Clause 11(3)(f): amend the numerals 11(3)(c) to read 11(3)(b). 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.64 

COUNCIL POLICY REVIEW - GOVERNANCE 


To review the Council's Governance (encompassing Elected Members and Administration) 

policies and recommend any updates or changes that may be required. 

BACKGROUND: 

In accordance with Council Policy 1.2.1, Council Policies are reviewed and updated as 

necessary biennially within six months after ordinary Council elections. This review on a 

regular basis ensures policies reflect current operating practices and procedures. 

The policies presented here are Council and not administrative policies. The purpose of the 

policies is to provide a guide to the Administration, assisting it to function in an efficient and 

effective manner and respond to enquiries from residents as soon as possible. The policies are 

a guide to Council’s position in regard to the various subject matters to enable the 

Administration to act without unnecessary and repetitious reference to Council. The policy 

manual is not a reference manual of solutions to all problems that Council may be requested to 

investigate. 

Where changes have been effected, text to be deleted has been struck through and any 

additional text proposed has been underlined as detailed in the report attachment. 

DETAILS: 

1.1 Elected Members 

1.1.1 Provision of Refreshments after Meetings of the Council 

Minor amendment to include Committee meetings. 

1.1.3 Conference Attendance - Representation and Expenses 

No change. 

1.1.5 Media Policy 

No change 

1.1.6 Elected Members Meeting Fees and Expenses 

No change 

1.1.7 Public Representations at Committee Meetings 

No change. 

1.1.8 Civic Receptions/Functions 

No change 

1.1.9 Elected Member Professional Development 

No change 




1.2 Administration 

1.2.1 Policy Manual - Updating Procedures 

No change. 

1.2.2 Legal Opinions - Distribution Procedures 

No change. 

1.2.3 Recognition of Community Service 

No change. 

1.2.4 Availability of Committee and Council Agendas and Minutes 

Following the introduction of iPads for Elected Members and the distribution of agendas 

electronically, this policy has been amended to delete the provision of hard copy 

agendas and attachments to recognised ratepayer associations. Access to 

Council/Committee documentation is now available on the Council's website. 

1.2.5 Placement of Advertising Material or Petitions 

No change. 

1.2.6 Council Logo 

No change. 

1.2.7 Payments to Employees in Addition to Contract or Award on Cessation of 

Employment 

No change. 

1.2.8 Naming of Reserves and Buildings 

Amended to provide an additional reference to the recently introduced Australian 

Standard relating to rural and urban addressing. 

1.2.9 Assistance to Ratepayers/Residents Associations 

No change. 

1.2.10 Legal Representation - Costs Indemnification 

No change. 

1.2.11 Community Consultation 

No change. This policy may be reviewed as part of the Council's proposed Community 

Engagement Strategy. 

1.2.12 Complaint Management (Administration) 

No change at this time. This policy is being reviewed as part of a separate study 

relating to complaints handling and the introduction of a customer service charter. 

1.2.13 Application of the Common Seal 

No change. 




1.2.14 Disaster Appeal Donations 

No change. 


Policies will be amended as determined by the Council. 




The review of Council policies pertaining to Governance supports a number of Key Priority 

Areas of the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan. 




SUMMARY: 

Council's policies have proven to be valuable throughout previous years and only minor 

changes have been recommended to ensure they remain relevant and up to date with the 

Town's operations. Once adopted, the policies will be made available on the Town's website. 

Each policy will remain in place until the next review in April 2014, unless circumstances 

warrant a review prior to that time. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Administration and Elected Member Policies (as amended). 




That the policies relating to Governance (Elected Members and Administration) be 

retained unchanged, amended or deleted as detailed in the above report and any 

changes be incorporated into the Council Policy Manual. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.65 AMENDMENT TO STANDING ORDERS LOCAL LAW 2007 


To adopt an amendment to the Town of Cambridge Standing Orders Local Law to delete the 

requirement for Members to rise when addressing the Council. 

BACKGROUND: 

At its meeting held on 24 April 2012, the Council considered a Notice of Motion submitted by Cr 

Bradley. The Notice of Motion related to clause 8.9 of the Standing Orders that operate for 

Council meetings, whereby Elected Members, unless ill or otherwise unable, must rise when 

addressing the Council. Cr Bradley's motion proposed deleting this requirement. 

DETAILS: 

A number of reasons in favour of remaining seated when addressing the Council were 

suggested during discussion on this matter, including the current use of iPads in lieu of printed 

copy making it difficult to refer to papers and notes when speaking and the closer proximity of 

microphones to Councillors when remaining in a seated position. Implementation of this 

proposal could be accommodated readily through the deletion of the relevant clause (8.9) of the 

Standing Orders. 

Clause 8.9 presently states: 

"8.9 Members to Rise 

(1) When invited by the Presiding Member to speak, Members are to rise and address 

the Council through the Presiding Member, provided that where any member of 

the Council is unable to stand by reason of sickness or disability they may sit while 

speaking. 

(2) The Presiding Member may, at any time, suspend the requirements of (1) above 

for any meeting or part of a meeting." 

In accordance with the requirements of Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995 the 

proposed amendment must now be considered in the sequence detailed below. Failure to 

complete any of the steps detailed in the Act in the order in which they are described would put 

the proposal at risk of refusal by the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. 

"3.12. Procedure for making local laws 

(1) In making a local law a local government is to follow the procedure described in 

this section, in the sequence in which it is described. 

(2) At a council meeting the person presiding is to give notice to the meeting of the 

purpose and effect of the proposed local law in the prescribed manner. 

(3) The local government is to:- 

(a) give State wide public notice stating that:- 




(i) the local government proposes to make a local law the purpose and 

effect of which is summarized in the notice; 

(ii) a copy of the proposed local law may be inspected or obtained at any 

place specified in the notice; and 

(iii) submissions about the proposed local law may be made to the local 

government before a day to be specified in the notice, being a day that is 

not less than 6 weeks after the notice is given; 

(b) as soon as the notice is given, give a copy of the proposed local law and a 

copy of the notice to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act 

under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister; and 

(c) provide a copy of the proposed local law, in accordance with the notice, to 

any person requesting it. 

(3a) A notice under subsection (3) is also to be published and exhibited as if it were a 

local public notice. 

(4) After the last day for submissions, the local government is to consider any 

submissions made and may make the local law* as proposed or make a local law* 

that is not significantly different from what was proposed. 

* Absolute majority required. 

(5) After making the local law, the local government is to publish it in the Gazette and 

give a copy of it to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under 

which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister. 

(6) After the local law has been published in the Gazette the local government is to 

give local public notice:- 

(a) stating the title of the local law; 

(b) summarizing the purpose and effect of the local law (specifying the day on 

which it comes into operation); and 

(c) advising that copies of the local law may be inspected or obtained from the 

local government’s office. 

(7) The Minister may give directions to local governments requiring them to provide to 

the Parliament copies of local laws they have made and any explanatory or other 

material relating to them. 

(8) In this section:- 

making in relation to a local law, includes making a local law to amend the text of, 

or repeal, a local law." 

As detailed in (7) above, the final step in the process is that the amendment to the local law, 

together with explanatory memoranda prepared by the Council, is then submitted to the 

Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation for scrutiny. 

In order to comply with the provisions of (2) above, the purpose of the proposed amendment to 

the Standing Orders Local Law is to delete existing clause 8.9 "Members to Rise". The effect 

of the proposed amendment will be that Members will remain seated when addressing the 

Council during meetings. 




POLICY/STATUTORY (LEGISLATIVE) IMPLICATIONS: 

Clause 8.9 of the Council's Standing Orders Local Law will be deleted should the proposal be 

finally adopted. 

In accordance with the provisions of Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995, proposed 

local law amendments are to be advertised for a period of six weeks prior to further 

consideration by the Council. 






However, in accordance with legislative requirements, the Amendment must be advertised both 

state wide and locally, seeking public submissions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 


That in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995:- 

(i) 

the Council of the Town of Cambridge proposes to amend its Standing Orders Local Law 

2007 as follows:- 

"That the Council's Standing Orders Local Law 2007 be amended by deleting clauses 

8.9(1) and (2)." 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

the Local Law amendment in (i) above be given State wide and local public notice and 

copies be made available to the public for a period of six weeks, inviting submissions 

about the amendment; 

a copy of the proposed amendment be forwarded to the Minister for Local Government; 

following the six week advertising period, a further report be submitted detailing any 

submissions made, prior to adopting or amending the proposal by an absolute majority, 

publishing the amendment in the Government Gazette, providing a copy to the Minister 

for Local Government, giving further public notice and providing relevant documentation 

supporting the amendment to the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. 





During discussion, the majority of Members were not prepared to support the motion. 

The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 2/3 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers and Cr Walker 

Crs Carr, Grinceri and Langer 




That the following motion:- 

"That in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 

1995:- 

(i) 

the Council of the Town of Cambridge proposes to amend its Standing Orders 

Local Law 2007 as follows:- 

"That the Council's Standing Orders Local Law 2007 be amended by deleting 

clauses 8.9(1) and (2)." 

(v) 

(vi) 

the Local Law amendment in (i) above be given State wide and local public notice 

and copies be made available to the public for a period of six weeks, inviting 

submissions about the amendment; 

a copy of the proposed amendment be forwarded to the Minister for Local 

Government; 

(vii) following the six week advertising period, a further report be submitted detailing 

any submissions made, prior to adopting or amending the proposal by an absolute 

majority, publishing the amendment in the Government Gazette, providing a copy 

to the Minister for Local Government, giving further public notice and providing 

relevant documentation supporting the amendment to the Joint Standing 

Committee on Delegated Legislation." 

not be supported. 

During discussion, Cr Bradley foreshadowed that should the motion presently before Council 

be lost, he intended to move the original motion as submitted to the Committee. Cr Walker 

suggested that the item be deferred for two months to trial Members being allowed to remain 

seated when addressing Council. 

The motion was then put and carried 5/4 

For: 

Against: 

Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer and MacRae 

Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, Pelczar and Cr Walker 




CR12.66 

METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW PANEL - DRAFT FINDINGS 


To consider the draft findings of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel (the Panel) has released its draft findings 

and invited comments on 23 draft findings it has recently published (report previously 

circulated). The draft findings are in response to the submissions made to the Panel last year, 

its own research, meetings with local government representatives, two public forums and the 

advice of two advisory groups. 

The Panel's objective is to submit recommendations on appropriate boundaries and 

governance models for local governments in the Perth metropolitan area to the Minister by 30 

June 2012. 

The latest request for submissions on the draft findings closes on Friday 25 May, 2012. 

WALGA are preparing a response to the findings report and have asked for initial feedback by 

15 May 2012 which will be followed by a meeting of metropolitan mayors and presidents on 

22 May 2012 to finalise their response. 

The draft findings detailed in the report follow:- 

" 

1. Enhanced strategic thinking and leadership across the State and local government 

sector and the wider community will be required to manage the extraordinary growth of 

metropolitan Perth over the next 50 years. 

2. The current local government arrangements will not provide the best outcomes for the 

community into the future. The status quo cannot and should not remain. 

3. There is a need for significant change in Perth’s local government, including changes in 

local government structures, boundaries and governance. 

4. The Panel envisages the outcome of the Review to be a stronger, more effective, more 

capable local government sector, with an enhanced role and greater authority. 

5. Uncertainty about the future needs to be addressed by prompt and decisive government 

decision making. 

6. A shared vision for the future of Perth should be developed by the State government, 

together with local government, stakeholder and community groups. 

7. A sense of place and local identity can be maintained through appropriate governance 

regardless of the size of a local government. 




8. The primary benefits to be achieved by the proposed reforms of Perth’s local 

government arrangements include: 

a. increased strategic capacity across the local government sector; 

b. a more equitable spread of resources across metropolitan Perth and more 

equitable delivery of services to all residents.; 

c. reduced duplication and better use of infrastructure; 

d. a streamlined regulatory environment with greater transparency, simplicity, 

consistency, and certainty with attendant costs savings for all sectors of the 

community; 

e. potential to achieve greater economies of scale; 

f. increased influence with State and Commonwealth governments reflected in 

improved funding for community projects; 

g. the achievement of metropolitan-wide social, economic and environmental 

goals. 

9. The structure and governance arrangements for local government in Perth cannot be 

considered in isolation from the role and function of local government, and from the 

relationship between State government and local governments. 

10. Some functions need to be managed from a metropolitan-wide perspective, including 

waste disposal and treatment, transport and planning. A shift in responsibility to the 

State government may be warranted. 

11. Consideration should be given to establishing a Local Government Commission, 

comprising an Independent chair and persons with significant State and local 

government experience, to manage the relationship between State and local 

government, and to oversee implementation of the reform process. 

12. A redefined local government would have its role enhanced including re-empowerment 

in local planning. 

13. The most appropriate options for local government in metropolitan Perth are: 

a. 10 to 12 councils centred on strategic activity centres 

b. five councils based on the central area and sub-regions. 

c. one single metropolitan council 

14. In any future model, the size of the City of Perth should be increased and its role 

enhanced. 

15. It is important to make significant change and create a new structure with robust 

boundaries to minimise the need for further debate and change in the short to medium 

term. 

16. Once a new structure is settled, there should be periodic boundary reviews undertaken 

by an independent body, to ensure the local government structure is optimal for meeting 

the changing needs of a growing metropolitan region. 

17. The creation of larger local governments alone will not address all the shortcomings of 

the present system. 




18. Local government’s ability to connect to the community is an important asset. In any 

new local government structure for metropolitan Perth, community engagement must be 

strengthened, to improve accountability and reduce the power of special interest 

groups. 

19. Local government must invest in mechanisms that encourage the whole community to 

participate. Consideration must be given to the development of formal community 

engagement networks, which may include the adoption of new institutional 

arrangements and structures to ensure adequate community engagement and access 

to council. 

20. If the new local government structure for metropolitan Perth comprises more than one 

local government, a Forum or Council of Perth Mayors should be created, chaired by 

the Lord Mayor. 

21. The role of elected members should be reshaped to enhance their capacity for strategic 

leadership and reduce their involvement in operational matters. 

22. The potential for council controlled organisations / local government enterprises should 

be further considered. 

23. Amendments to governance arrangements for local government in metropolitan Perth 

should include the following: 

a. Introduction of compulsory voting at local government elections 

b. Recognition of the leadership role of elected members 

c. Election of Mayors by community 

d. Increased remuneration of elected members 

e. Training for elected members 

f. Clarification of the role of CEO and elected members" 

DETAILS: 

The Town provided a submission to the Panel's issues paper in December 2011. The Town's 

submission was based on the following: 

1. A building block approach to the implementation of the long term structure of local 

government in Perth with Councils growing from a minimum of 30,000 population to 50,000 

in the longer term. 

2. Central Business District Authority to manage and fund the major initiatives in the central 

business district (CBD). 

3. No major shift in responsibilities between state and local government except waste 

disposal. 

4. Community of interest, not shopping centres, should determine the form of local 

government. 

5. Governance and decision making is not necessarily any more capable in larger councils. 

6. Boundary expansion proposal for the Town of Cambridge boundary to achieve a population 

of 40,000 immediately. 

The Panel's findings and indeed their report does not support the Town's submission proposal 

and does not make any reference to this position. The significant finding of the Panel is on the 

reduction in the number of local governments as detailed in finding 13. 




It appears that the Panel have formed a view that all the perceived and/or real problems 

experienced with local government will be overcome by creating larger entities. At this time 

there is no real evidence provided in the findings report that demonstrates this will be achieved. 

At this time it is considered that the Panel have determined their findings and any feedback 

provided now will have little influence over the final recommendations they submit to the 

Minister for Local Government. Therefore the Town's focus should be on influencing the 

Government in its decision making once it receives the Panel's final report. 

There is some speculation that the Minister will release the Panel's final report for a public 

comment period and then submit it to Cabinet for consideration. It is unsure at this stage how 

the Government will deal with the recommendations and whether or not they will announce 

their intentions prior to the March 2013 state election. 


The Panel has proposed significant restructuring of local governments in its findings. Currently 

Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides poll provisions that could provide the 

community with an opportunity to vote on any proposed amalgamation. If the Government 

wanted to implement wide scale mergers it would be necessary to amend or introduce new 

legislation to put that into effect. The Town supports the right of the community to participate in 

the decision of any merger and therefore only voluntary amalgamations and retention of the poll 

provisions is supported. 


There are no financial implications related to the findings of the Panel, however, if the findings 

are acted upon by the Government the financial implications will be considerable. 


Any proposal to deliver significant structural reform on metropolitan local governments will have 

a significant impact on the Town's strategic plan and the capacity to deliver the major initiatives 

in the strategic plan based on the Town's vision of "Creating Communities of Choice". 


The impact of the structural changes to local governments proposed in the Panel's findings will 

have a significant impact on the community, therefore consideration needs to be given on how 

the community can have input into the Government's decision relating to any proposed 

structural changes. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Indicative WALGA Response Metropolitan Local Government Review Draft Findings. 







That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the findings of the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel be noted; 

it be noted that the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer will represent the Town of 

Cambridge at WALGA's joint Metropolitan Mayors' and Presidents' meeting on 

Tuesday, 22 May 2012; and 

the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to respond to the draft 

findings report. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.67 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - APRIL 2012 


To confirm the payment of accounts in accordance with the Local Government Act (Financial 

Management) Regulations 1996. 

DETAILS: 

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a 

list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques raised 

and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and 

Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing of all 

payments issued for the past month. 


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”. 


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget. 


The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan key 

outcome area of capacity to deliver and its goal of open and transparent governance. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level – 

Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in 

understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Account Payment Listing 




That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) 

Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts,. as detailed below and attached, be 

confirmed: 




(i) 

CHEQUE PAYMENTS 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Municipal Fund 01-April-2012 13-April-2012 043363 - 043475 $671,377.08 



Golf Course 01-April-2012 30-April-2012 000288 - 000294 $1,552.99 

Total Cheque Payments $1,078,849.12 

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S) 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Investments 01-April-2012 30-April-2012 INV00400 - INV00404 $5,001,094.01 

Direct Bank Charges 01-April-2012 30-April-2012 Sup 147 - Sup 148 $84,775.70 

Accounts Payable 01-April-2012 03-April-2012 E 6665 - E 6717 $1,708,080.75 

Accounts Payable 03-April-2012 13-April-2012 E 6718 - E 6746 $472,192.47 

Accounts Payable 16-April-2012 17-July-2012 E 6747 - E 6825 $117,383.67 

Accounts Payable 19-April-2012 26-April-2012 E 6826 - E 6853 $795,676.22 

Accounts Payable 27-April-2012 30-April-2012 E 6854 - E6903 $319,579.73 

Golf Course 01-April-2012 10-April-2012 E 0113 - E 0113 $23,304.36 




Payroll 01-April-2012 30-April-2012 Pay 415 to Pay 422 $1,039,104.39 

Total EFT Payments $9,602,221.04 

Carried 9/0 

TOTAL PAYMENTS $10,681,070.16 




CR12.68 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - APRIL 2012 


To advise the Council of the amount of surplus funds invested, the distribution of those funds 

and the financial performance of each investment (ie interest earned) year to date. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment 

products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity 

guidelines as set out in the policy. 

DETAILS: 

Investment Portfolio Performance 

At its May 2012 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia surprised economists with a bigger 

than expected rate interest rate cut of 0.5%, lowering the cash rate to 3.75%. 

The decision to cut interest rates by such a big margin was partly influenced by the high 

Australian Dollar and to bring relief to sectors affected by competition from cheap imports. 

The global economic growth slowed in the second half of last year, however, some Asian 

countries show signs of improvement. Growth in China has moderated as expected and the 

United States economy is continuing to improve. Although some economists have upgraded 

their global economic outlook, economic conditions in Europe remain difficult and uncertain. 

On the local front, the two tiered economy continues, with the mining industry performing 

strongly and other industry sectors remaining weak. However, the cut in interest rates will 

hopefully lift activity in those sectors and improve competition. Inflation is expected to remain 

within the Reserve Bank's target of 2 to 3%. 

In terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term of 

three months have dropped in the wake of the interest rate cut and are around 5.4% with the 

major banks. Interest rates for securities for periods six months have similarly dropped and are 

around 5.5%. This will have an impact on future interest earnings next financial year as new 

term deposits are negotiated. 

The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day 

period) was 4.74% for April 2012. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of 

future interest rates) was 4.05% at 30 April 2012. As the Council’s investment portfolio is 

predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 4.25% for April 2012 is the more 

appropriate performance measure. 

Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash 

rate with a weighted average interest rate of 5.83%. The weighted average investment period 

of 146 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates (with the 

major Australian banks) for this period which have decreased to an average of 5.4%. 




Investment Portfolio Performance for April 2012 

The graph below shows the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 

12 month period April 2011 to April 2012. 

Interest Rates 

10.00 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 

0.00 

Investment Performance 

For April 2011 to April 2012 

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate 

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the 

Town's investment portfolio, since April 2008. 

Interest Rates 

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance 

For April 2009 to April 2012 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jul-10 Oct-10 Jan-11 Apr-11 Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12 Apr-12 

Weighted Avg Interest 

90 UBS Bank Bill Index 




The total investment at the end of April 2012 is $21.5 million which consists of Municipal Funds 

of $9.7 million, Reserve Funds of $3 million and Endowment Lands Funds of $8.8 million. The 

graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from April 2011 to April 2012. 

30 

28 

26 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Millions 

Investment Portfolio 

Apr 11 May 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Jan 12 Feb 12 Mar 12 Apr 12 

Reserves Endowment Municipal 




The investment performance as at the end of April 2012 is as follows: 

Term 

(Days) Rating 

Current 

Interest 

Rate 

April 2012 

Income 

Total Amount 

Invested 

% of 

Funds 

Invested 

Floating Rate Notes . 

Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 4.80% $3,674 $940,908 4.38% 

Sub-total $3,674 $940,908 4.38% 

Term Deposits and Bank Bills 

ING - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 5.97% $2,708 $558,904 2.60% 

ING - Term Deposit 183 "A1" 5.98% $4,915 $1,013,926 4.72% 



ING - Term Deposit 210 "A1" 6.05% $3,945 $1,703,945 7.93% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit matured "A1+" 0.00% $744 0 0.00% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 5.70% $1,748 $534,628 2.49% 




BANKWEST - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 5.85% $398 $83,452 0.39% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit matured "A1+" 0.00% $1,315 0 0.00% 




BANKWEST - Term Deposit 117 "A1+" 5.80% $4,767 $1,010,805 4.70% 

NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 5.68% $10,593 $2,325,129 10.82% 

NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.83% $3,951 $842,104 3.92% 

NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.81% $2,573 $550,907 2.56% 

NAB - Term Deposit matured "A1+" 0.00% $3,118 0 0.00% 

NAB - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 5.80% $4,767 $1,014,460 4.72% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit matured "A1+" 0.00% $7,189 0 0.00% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.85% $4,808 $1,023,560 4.76% 



StGeorge - Term Deposit matured "A1+" 0.00% $1,200 0 0.00% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 5.89% $3,549 $746,721 3.47% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 90 "A1" 5.97% $6,379 $1,314,884 6.12% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit matured "A1" 0.00% $5,661 0 0.00% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit matured "A1" 0.00% $2,654 0 0.00% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 120 "A1" 5.77% $972 $769,185 3.58% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 183 "A1" 5.85% $2,564 $2,002,564 9.32% 

Sub-total $105,307 $20,554,992 95.62% 

62.99% 

Total Investments $108,982 $21,495,901 100.00% 

Weighted Average 146 5.83% 





The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the 

guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment. 


Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is 

therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed 

monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this. 

The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each individual 

investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below: 

Budget 

2010/2011 

Actual as at 

Apr 2011 % 

Budget 

2011/2012 

Actual as at 

Apr 2012 % 

General * $554,500 $607,760 111.6% $677,000 $636,352 94.0% 

Reserves $304,200 $199,991 65.7% $100,000 $114,984 115.0% 

Endowment Lands $576,400 $470,897 81.7% $659,900 $555,467 84.2% 

Total Investments $1,425,100 $1,278,648 89.7% $1,436,900 $1,306,803 90.9% 

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $57,485 and Ocean Mia late settlement penalty interest of 

$2,823. 


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area of Capacity to 

Delivery and its goal of financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for 

maintaining the Town's wealth and revenue capacity. 


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area of Capacity to 

Delivery and its goal of financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for 

maintaining the Town's wealth and revenue capacity. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Oakvale Consolidated Investment Report - April 2012 




That the Investment Schedule as at 30 April 2012 forming part of the Notice Paper be 

received. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.69 

MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - APRIL 

2012 


To review the financial position for the period ended 30 April 2012 and to comment on both 

permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on 

financial results. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures 

against the year to date budget. 

$'000 

$45,000 

$40,000 

$35,000 

$30,000 

$25,000 

$20,000 

$15,000 

$10,000 

$5,000 

$0 

Operations 

Amended 

Budget 

YTD Budget 

YTD Actual 

Revenue $39,081 $35,205 $35,158 

Expenditure $36,362 $29,735 $29,100 

Operating Profit/(Loss) $2,719 $5,470 $6,058 

$16,000 

$14,000 

$12,000 

$10,000 

$8,000 

$6,000 

$4,000 

$2,000 

$0 

Capital Expenditure 

Amended Budget $15,075 

YTD Budget $7,540 

YTD Actual $7,267 

$'000 

Capital Expenditure 

$'000 

$600 

$400 

$200 

$0 

-$200 

-$400 

Reserves & ELA Transfers 

Net Current Assets ($'000) 

Current 

Liabilities, 

$7,820 

-$600 

Transfers from/(to) 

Reserves 

Transfers from/(to) 

Endowment Lands 

Amended Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual 

$320 $534 $426 

$50 -$528 -$460 

Current Assets, 

$32,352 

Investments ($'000) 

Endowment 

Lands, $8,814 

General Funds, 

$9,633 

Reserves, 

$3,049 




The following observations are made and should be read in conjunction with the Statement of 

Financial Activity (Rate Setting Statement) in attachment 1: 

Operating Revenue 

Operating revenue year to date is $35.1 million compared to budget of $35.2 million, giving an 

unfavourable variance of $100k. Significant variances are as follows: 

• Fees and charges below budget by $230k mainly due to reduced patronage of the 

Wembley Golf Course, which is under budget by $121k. 

• Non operating grants, subsidies and contributions $873k over budget largely due to a $1 

million capital contribution invoiced to State Government for the Wembley Sports Park. 

• Interest earnings are $166k above budget due to municipal interest $89k, Endowment 

Lands Account interest $59k and reserve interest $18k above budget. 

Operating Expenses 

Operating expenses year to date is $29.1 million compared to budget of $29.7 million, giving a 

favourable variance of $0.6 million. Significant variations are as follows: 

• Materials and Contracts with actual expenditure of $9.3 million against year to date 

budget of $10 million, giving a favourable variance of $0.7million. 

Expenditure programs contributing to this variance as following, 

• Road infrastructure non capital works ($144k), 

• Town planning scheme review ($68k), 

• Sustainability programs($78k), 

• Ocean beaches buildings non capital works ($31k), 

• Road reserves non capital works ($18k), 

• Parks grounds non capital works ($105k) 

• Utilities expenditure incurred to date of $1.23 million as compared to year to date budget 

of $1.35 million giving a favourable timing variance of $119k. This will reduce as 

expenditure such as water consumption expenditure for November to May will be 

invoiced to the Town in late May and early June. 

• Interest expense is below budget with a favourable variance of ($46k). Lower interest 

rates on loan funds of $11 million for the golf course are a contributing factor. Recent 

interest rates cuts by the Reserve Bank will see this expenditure item continue to be 

below budget for the remainder of this year. 




Net Operating Result 

The net operating surplus from operations is $6.1 million compared to year to date budget of 

$5.5 million, a favourable variance of $0.6 million. 

Net Operating Result 

20 

16 

Millions 

12 

8 

4 

0 

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 

Month Budget Ended 

Actual 

Capital Works Programs 

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 30 

April 2012 is $7.3 million against year to date budget of $7.5 million, a variance of $0.2 million. 

A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows: 

• Buildings - $896k against year to date budget of $929k with a favourable variance of 

$33k. No major variations exist with the building capital works program. 

• Parks and Reserves expenditure is $958k against year to date budget of $852k, an 

unfavourable variance of $106k. The major variances are: 

(i) 

(ii) 

a variance for the Perry Lakes Aquifer project with $51k spent, however this is grant 

funded and has no impact on general purpose revenue. 

Wembley Golf Course - Entry Statement $61k spent, however this is funded from 

proceeds of sale of golf course plant and has no impact on general purpose 

revenue. 

• Roads and lanes - $2.19 million against year to date budget of $2.15 million an 

unfavourable variance of $45k with no significant variances. 

• Drainage - $325k against year to date budget of $419k a favourable variance of $95k with 

an additional $190k of funds approved for drainage improvement at the April Council 

meeting. 




Cash Surplus 

The surplus as at 30 April 2012 is $9 million which is above the year to date budget of $7.4 

million, a $1.6 million difference. The surplus is predominantly due to a time lag with: 

• various operating programs with services funded by general purpose funds and 

scheduled to be carried out by contractors (refer to materials and contracts variance 

discussed under executive summary above). 

• Capital works program funded from general funds such as parks and resources ($500k), 

roadworks ($860k) and footpaths under annual amended budget ($1.1 million). This 

surplus has been accounted for with current commitments of $2.5 million. 

This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and the 

carrying out of budgeted capital works. 

Overall Cash Surplus from the Rate Setting Statement 

Cash Surplus 

20 

16 

Millions 

12 

8 

4 

0 

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 

Budget 

Actual 

Material Variances 

A list of permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k are listed in the 

attached schedule. 

Budget Amendments 

No budget amendments were received. 





The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. The 

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34, 

expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifying 

significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement. 


The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impact 

on Council funds. 


The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal of financial 

sustainability, by ensuring our expenditure is matched by our revenue. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix 

Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to 

assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Monthly Financial Statements - April 2012 

2. Budget Variation Report 




That the report on the Financial Statements as at 30 April 2012 be received and the 

variances to the budget be noted. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.70 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 12 APRIL 2012 


To report on items considered at the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) Ordinary Meeting 

held on 12 April 2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town of Cambridge is one of seven members of the Tamala Park Regional Council 

(TPRC). The complete membership and equity ownership varies between members as 

follows:- 

Member Equity Member Representation 

City of Stirling 4/12 4 

City of Joondalup 2/12 3 

City of Wanneroo 2/12 3 

Town of Cambridge 1/12 1 

Town of Vincent 1/12 1 

Town of Victoria Park 1/12 1 

City of Perth 1/12 1 

The purpose of the TPRC is to undertake, in accordance with the Establishment Agreement 

objectives, the rezoning, subdivision, development, marketing and sale of the Tamala Park 

land. 

The objectives of the Council are:- 

o to develop and improve the value of the land; 

o to maximise within prudent risk parameters, the financial return to the 

participants; 

o to balance economic, social and environmental issues; and 

o to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban design and 

development practice. 

Around 2,600 dwellings (2,300 lots) will be developed, establishing a population of 6,500. The 

dwellings are likely to comprise of: 

Single Residential 1,755 

Town Houses 555 

Flats/Apartments 310 

The indicative sales plan provides for staged release of around 360 lots over the next twelve 

months. 




At its Ordinary Meeting in August 2011, the TPRC considered a revised project cashflow. The 

following summarises the revised project budget:- 

Project Duration: 13 Years (2012-2025) 

No of Lots: 2,310 

Gross Income: 

$669.5 million 

Development Costs: 


Net Profit: 


Town of Cambridge Share*: $26 million 

* This is not the net present value. 

The first three years of the project cashflow produces the following cash outflows/inflows, which 

allow Owner’s capital and profit distributions to commence:- 

2012 2013 2014 

Cumulative net inflow/(outflow) -$12.6 million $9.5 million $15 million 

Capital Distribution* $6 million $7.3 million 

Profit Distribution 

$7.7 million 

Town of Cambridge share $500,000 $1.25 million 

* Note, the owners have injected initial equity into the project from the proceeds from an agreement with the State 

Government, which returned developable land to the State for ‘Bush Forever’. 

DETAILS: 

Business Report 

The meeting of the TPRC noted the progress on lot creation with the progress of phase one as 

follows: 

• Bulk Earthworks 100% complete. 

• Lot Preparation 70% complete. 

• Stage 1 Civil Works – Sewer construction 95% complete. 

• Stage 1 Civil Works – Retaining Walls 90% complete 

• Stage 1 Civil Works – Stormwater drainage 95% complete 

• Stage 1 Civil Works – Water reticulation 95% complete 

• Stage 1 Civil Works – Gas reticulation 95% complete 

• Stage 1 Civil Works – NBN Pit and Pipe 10% complete 

• Stage 1 Civil Works – Underground Power 15% complete 

• Stage 1 Civil Works – Road Construction 10% complete 

• Stage 2 Civil Works – Sewer Construction 20% complete 

Titles were expected to be issued by May 2012 (which was subsequently achieved). 

Stage One Sales Report 

Of the 24 lots released, 22 lots have been sold. 

In the current market, it is expected to sell 200 to 240 lots per annum. 




Medium Density Cottage Lots 

Stage 3 contains 43 medium density lots (cottage lots), which are scheduled to be constructed 

and titled by November 2012. The TPRC resolved to put these lots to the market in parcels of 2 

to 8 lots with a Put Option Deed that allows the TPRC to compel builders to purchase the lots 

30 days before settlement, if the lots have not already been sold to a client. 

Non-Potable Water Supply 

The TPRC have decided to include a non-potable water supply in the initial stages of the 

subdivision. This is proving challenging to the extent that there remains no agreement with a 

service provider, no water source has been secured and the approval still need to be obtained. 

Irrespective, the TPRC have resolved to continue to install the reticulation of the third pipe, to 

future proof the development. This is at a minimal cost and within the approved project budget. 

Lot 807 - Security for Subdivision Clearance 

Lot 807 is in the eastern end of the development and was purchased from Main Roads to 

provide design options for the future stages. 

The TPRC security for early sub division clearance (such that titles can be issued), as required 

by the City of Wanneroo. 

Other Items of Business 

The meeting also considered 

• statements of financial activity for the months of February and March; 

• list of monthly accounts; 

• project financial report to March 2012 (Showing an underspend due to delays in 

construction and sales, which will ‘catch up’ with significant payments due in April/May). 

• delegation of authority 

• TPRC Finance Facility providing short term credit through Westpac; 

• sales office brief 

• Power of attorney; and 

• development managers KPIs, which were revised to include a number of additional 

KPIs centred around strategic management of the site, managing construction, budgets 

and marketing. 


Section 3.61(1) of the Local Government Act deals with the establishment of Regional Local 

Government by two or more Local Governments, for any purpose for which a Local 

Government can do things under the Local Government or any other Act. 


As outlined, the Town will start to see proceeds returned from the development from 2013, with 

at least $1.25 million per annum from 2014, increasing to potentially $3.6 million per annum in 

2020, based on increases in sales prices over that duration. 





Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital assets to ensure their sustainability for 

future generations. 


Consultation is being undertaken progressively by the Tamala Park Regional Council, and in 

accordance with statutory requirements. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 




That the report relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meeting of the Tamala Park 

Regional Council held on 12 April 2012 be received. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 

22 MAY 2012 

10. COUNCIL REPORTS 

Nil 

11. URGENT BUSINESS 

Nil 

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 

Nil 

13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 

Nil 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\May 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 135

COUNCIL 

22 MAY 2012 

14. CLOSURE 

There being no further business, the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance and 

declared the meeting closed at 7.44 pm. 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\May 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 136

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?