Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes 

28 FEBRUARY 2012

MEETING OF COUNCIL 

28 FEBRUARY 2012 

INDEX OF MINUTES 

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

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

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

4. Petitions .............................................................................................................................. 5 

5. Deputations ...................................................................................................................... 10 

6. Applications for Leave of Absence ................................................................................ 10 

7. Confirmation of Minutes .................................................................................................. 11 

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ...................................................... 11 

9. Committee Reports .......................................................................................................... 11 

Development Committee ................................................................................................. 12 

DV12.1 Lot 654 (No. 30) Pindari Road, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling 14 

DV12.2 Lot 1 (No. 13B) Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Two Storey Dwelling 18 

DV12.3 Lot 1183 (No. 4) Crieff Street, Floreat - Single Storey Dwelling 22 

DV12.4 Lot 338 (No. 6) Tumut Road, corner Windarra Drive, City Beach - Additions 

and Alterations - Third Storey Lookout and Lift 26 

DV12.5 Lot 487 (No. 5) Orana Crescent, City Beach - Three Storey Dwelling With 

Undercroft - Amended Plans 30 

DV12.6 Lot 115 (No. 66) Newry Street, Floreat - Proposed Swimming Pool and 

Retaining/Screen Walls 34 

DV12.7 Strata Lot 1 (No. 6B) Keane Street, Wembley - Carport and Verandah 38 

DV12.8 

Lots 17 & 18 (No. 22) Taworri Way, City Beach - Proposed Additions and 

Alterations to Existing Dwelling 42 

DV12.9 Draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art 47 

DV12.10 Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach - Scheme Amendment No. 22 - 

Rezoning from 'Parks and Recreation' to 'Local Centre' 51 

DV12.11 Proposed Scheme Amendment - Rezone Lot 13709 (No. 2) Rochdale 

Road from 'Residential R12.5' to 'Residential R30' and Lot 87 (No. 2a) 

Rochdale Road, Mount Claremont from 'Residential R12.5' to 'Parks and 

Recreation' 55 

DV12.12 Beach User Forum 58 

DV12.13 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for December 2011 and January 

2012 62 

DV12.14 Building Licences Approved Under Delegated Authority 65 

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

i

COUNCIL MINUTES 

TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012 

Community and Resources Committee 67 

CR12.1 Cambridge "High" Street Concept Design 71 

CR12.2 Three Year Program For Drainage Improvement 77 

CR12.3 Five Year Program (2012/13 TO 2016/17) - New Footpaths 83 

CR12.4 Harrogate Street - Parking Embayments Proposal 89 

CR12.5 Empire Avenue/Durston Road - Traffic Management Progress Report 91 

CR12.6 Cromarty Road - Traffic Management 94 

CR12.7 Hornsey Road - Traffic Island and Speed Plateau at Oceanic Drive 97 

CR12.8 City Beach Civic Centre - Landscape Improvement 99 

CR12.9 Waste Management - Policy Review 103 

CR12.10 Quarry Amphitheatre - Proposed Stage Cover Feedback and Future 

CR12.11 

Stage 1 Capital Works Program 106 

Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 24 January 

2012 112 

CR12.12 Community Security Patrols 114 

CR12.13 Payment of Accounts - December 2011 and January 2012 118 

CR12.14 Investment Schedule - January 2012 120 

CR12.15 Mid Year Budget Review 2011/2012 125 

CR12.16 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - January 2012 132 

CR12.17 Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting - 15 December 2011 137 

CR12.18 Joan Watters Centre Lease Renewal to the YMCA of Perth 141 

CR12.19 

CR12.20 

Application for Permitted Use of City of Perth Surf Club for an 

Occasional 'Pop Up' Sunset Bar 144 

Integrated Planning - Community Engagement and the Strategic 

Community Plan 147 

10. Council Reports ........................................................................................... 153 

10.1 Wembley Sports Park: Lease of Land for State Netball Centre and 

Funding Agreement for Netball Works 153 

10.2 City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club - Agreement for Redevelopment and 

Lease of Premises 159 

10.3 Local Government Reform - Poll Provisions 168 

11. Urgent Business ............................................................................................................ 171 

12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................... 171 

13. Confidential Reports ...................................................................................................... 171 

14. Closure ............................................................................................................................ 172 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\February 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 6.01 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 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Stevan Rodic, Manager Development 

Neil Costello, Manager Governance 

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance) 

Apologies: 

Nil 

Leave of Absence: 

Nil 

Adjournments: 

Nil 

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



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

Written Questions 

Kandy James, 83 Branksome Gardens, City Beach 

Re: Works Undertaken at 81 Branksome Gardens, City Beach 

Question 1 

What approvals are required for fill to be placed on residential property 

Response 

Part 6.6 Site Works of the R-Codes deals with filling and excavation. Planning approval 

is required where fill is proposed above 0.5 metres within 1 metre of a common boundary 

behind a street setback line or within 3 metres of the street alignment. Part 6.8 Privacy 

Requirements can also come into play. 

Question 2 

Was application made for fill at 81 Branksome Gardens 

Response 

A planning application for filling and landscaping the area between the building setback 

line and existing house and carparking and landscaping in the front setback area of 81 

Branksome Gardens was submitted on 14 October 2011. 

Question 3 

Did the application necessitate the exercise of discretion 

Response 

Yes, the application was assessed against the performance criteria for visual privacy 

(6.8.1 of the R Codes). 

Question 4 

Did the application involve assessment under the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes 

Response 

Yes, as explained above. 

Question 5 

Was the application approved 

Response 

Planning Approval was granted on 15 November 2011. 




Question 6 

Was the application determined under authority delegated by the Council to officers of the 

Council 

Response 

Yes 

Question 7 

Will the Council provide a copy of the Council's resolution providing for the delegated 

authority 

Response 

Yes. A copy will be sent to Dr James. Town Planning Scheme Policy 2.6 Delegation of 

Authority, available on the Town's website, will also be provided. 

Question 8 

Was the application assessed under the provisions of the R-Codes 

Response 

Yes. 

Question 9 

Was the determination, if made under delegated authority, within the bounds provided for 

by the terms of the delegation 

Response 

Yes. 

Question 10 

Is the fill that is presently on the site consistent with the terms of any approval 

Response 

Officers have inspected the property on a number of occasions and it appears that the fill 

on site is actually less than that approved. There is still, however, landscaping, lawn and 

parking area to be constructed. A final, 'as constructed' survey is required. 

Question 11 

What are the remedies available to the Council where the fill does not comply with the 

terms of the approval 

Response 

The Town could issue a notice to the owner to bring the works into conformity with the 

planning approval. If this is not adhered to, the Council could initiate appropriate legal 

action. 




Question 12 

What actions are the Council presently undertaking, or intending to undertake in regards 

to the fill that has been placed at 81 Branksome Gardens, City Beach 

Response 

There is no cause for the Administration to take any action. 

The Director of Development invited Dr James to meet with him to discuss the above 

issues. 

Ian Robertson, 41 Peasholm Street, City Beach 

Re: Item CR12.3 - Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) - New Footpaths 

Question 1 

I refer to the Town's Policy No 5.2.5 ‘Footpaths – Upgrading Of” which states that its 

objective is to provide a footpath on one side of the road for local Access Roads. Bent St 

would be a linking Local Access Rd. The priorities of the 5 year program are, inter alia, 

‘to install new paths if requested by residents or identified as a need. Would this council 

accept that there is a well-documented need for a pathway 

Question 2 

The Community and Resources Committee has recommended a survey be conducted of 

residents of Bent Street and adjacent streets seeking their comment on the proposed 

footpath in Bent Street. I ask what would the Council learn from such a survey As it 

would be a voluntary survey with a consequent low return rate probably skewed to the 

negative, I ask how would it be interpreted Would you not just get ‘please don’t disturb 

‘my’ lawn’ which would seem an almost given. 

Question 3 

I ask would it not be more useful to survey the pedestrians that use Bent St. These are 

drawn from adjoining streets, including those on the other side of Brompton Rd in 

Wembley Downs (CoS) and beyond. After all, it is the general public that would use 

public pathways, not just local residents. Or would it not be more practical to just go 

ahead with the pathway in accordance with your stated policy 

Question 4 

We, as pedestrians, are somewhat bemused by the fact that this issue has been raised 

as a request about 5 years ago and more persistently over the last year. This safety 

issue seems to be caught in a revolving door of proposal and denial, and still awaits a 

satisfactory conclusion, related to the TOC’s Duty of Care. Could the Bent St pathway 

not go forward with all the other pathway plans for budget approval and cease being 

treated as a ‘special case’ 




Response 

This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting. 

Verbal Questions 

Kandy James, 83 Branksome Gardens, City Beach 

Re: Works undertaken at 81 Branksome Gardens City Beach 

Question 1 

If it is found that the Council has been in error, would the Council pay for independent 

planning advice 

Response 

The Mayor advised that it would be up to Council to make that decision. 

Question 2 

Is the Council aware that the sand was dumped prior to approval by possible 2 or 3 

weeks 

Response 

The Director Development advised that he is not aware of that but it can be investigated. 

Mrs Marsden, 80 Branksome Gardens, City Beach 

Question 

If the sand dumped at 81 Branksome Gardens is not removed, will any owner or future 

owner be able to use the new level as the natural ground level 

Response 

No. The Director of Development referred to his response to the written questions from 

Kandy James which advised that the approval has an advice note to say that in the event 

of any future development, the original contours of the site will be taken as the natural 

ground level. 

Diana Waldron, Saltash Avenue, City Beach 

Re: Item CR12.10 - Quarry Amphitheatre - Proposed Stage Cover 

Question 1 

Is the Council aware that the original structural engineer for the Quarry is living and 

working in Floreat Mrs Waldron circulated correspondence dated 14 February 2012 

from the architect relating to the current stage having a sprung floor. 

Question 2 

Will the Consultant to be appointed for the Quarry developments be an Architect as there 

are no specifications appearing in the recommendations 




Response 

The Director Community Development advised that the Consultant to be appointed is still 

to be determined. 

Question 3 

Will the Council consider placing all the Quarry developments under the Consultant's brief 

as currently the marquee is not included 

Response 

The Mayor advised that this is a matter for the Administration to consider when the brief 

is issued to the Consultant. 

Question 4 

What financial benefit will accrue to the Town from reconfiguring the seating at the Quarry 

back to its original 660 seats 

Response 

The Mayor advised that this has not been determined at this stage, however, it is likely 

that the return will be to the hirers. 

Question 5 

Will the users of the Quarry be charged more 

Response 

The Mayor advised that it is unlikely that community users will be charged more. 

Kerry Smith, 8 Asten Road, City Beach 

Re: DV12.10 - Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach 

Question 

Would Council please consider amending the motion to ensure that green space in this 

area is retained 

Response 

This matter will be considered at tonight's meeting. 

Wendy Appleyard, 14 Lentara Crescent, City Beach 

Re: Item CR12.12 - Community Safety Patrols 

Question 1 

Does the Town intend to undertake any community consultation to determine whether or 

not residents require safety patrols and if they are prepared to pay $75 to fund such 

patrols before it decides not to introduce them 




Response 


Question 2 

When preparing its next budget, would the Town consider reducing expenditure in other 

areas and direct those funds to providing community safety patrols within the Town 

should community consultation show that residents wanted patrols and were prepared to 

forgo other services in order to get them 

Response 


Question 3 

The report recommends that the Town acts as an advocate for the community by 

lobbying the State Government for more police officers. Specifically, which officers will 

be doing it and when and how will they do it 

Response 

This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting, however, the Director Community 

Development suggested that it would be the Council who would lobby the State 

Government. 

Question 4 

How can the graffiti removal service be referred to as successful when graffiti has not 

been removed at City Beach Pre Primary School even though it was reported in the 

Western Suburbs Weekly two months ago 

Response 

The Chief Executive Officer advised that unfortunately that incident had not been 

reported to the Town and we did not pick it up from the newspaper article. The Town has 

a good record of removing graffiti when it is reported. 

Kevin Gammage, 85 Branksome Gardens, City Beach 

Re: Works undertaken at 81 Branksome Avenue, City Beach 

Question 1 

Was approval sought for the fill undertaken in 2006 

Response 

The Director Development advised that it had been investigated and it was concluded 

that no approval was required. 

Question 2 

On what level will future applications for building on this lot be based 




Response 

The Director Development advised that the levels will be those that existed prior to 

the fill that is there now. 

Question 3 

Does it take into account the previous fill in 2006 

Response 

The Director Development advised that no concern was raised in regard to the fill at that 

time as there was no change in the natural levels. 

Question 4 

Does the approval satisfy the objectives of 6.6 of the R Codes 

Response 

The Director Development advised that this is an unusual situation which the R Codes do 

not really cover. 

The Director Development invited Mr Gammage to meet with him to discuss this matter. 

Question 5 

Is the amount of fill in 2006 not taken into consideration in terms of the application for this 

new fill Where do you draw the inference from that there is no change in topography. 

Response 

The Director Development advised that the matter had been investigated at that time and 

it was concluded that there was no change in topography of the site. 

Joy Jeffrey, 18 Bent Street, City Beach 

Re: Item CR12.3 - Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) - New Footpaths 

Question 

Can residents be surveyed with regard to the proposed footpath 

Response 


Robert Stokovski, ISpy Perth 

Re: Item CR12.19 - Application for Permitted Use of City of Perth Club for an 

Occasional 'Pop Up' Sunset Bar 

Question 

Does the Council believe that the successful production of the proposed event 'Sunset 

Boulevard' provides a successful test case which the report CR10.12 says was required 

as part of City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club 




Response 

The Mayor advised that the pop up bar proposal was operating on four occasions and 

would not be consistent with the proposed café restaurant uses proposed by the Town. 

The feasibility study anticipated by that report is to whether the Town can let premises to 

a hirer over an extended period. 

Kandy Jones 


Question 1 

Could we be provided with a copy of the independent advice referred to earlier 

Response 

The independent advice was verbal only. No formal advice was sought. 

Question 2 

Could we get paid for the planning advice we receive 

Response 

The Chief Executive Officer advised that it is unusual and unlikely that the Town would 

pay for advice sought by another party. 

Caroline Gammage, 85 Branksome Gardens, City Beach 


Question 

Who is liable should anyone have an accident on the site Also, there is no provision for 

parking on the site which is a requirement of the Town. 

Response 

The Director Development advised that in relation to the slope of land, liability rests with 

the owner. Car parking for two bays is to be provided within the front setback area. 

Kevin Gammage, 85 Bransome Gardens, City Beach 


Question 1 

Will the contours of the land in relation to the previous owner be recorded on file 

Response 

The Director Development advised that he would take this question on notice and 

investigate archived files. 

Question 2 

Who provided the new levels on which future building will be based 




Response 

The Manager Planning advised that the applicant provided a site survey which is 

common practice. 

Silvio Vincini 

Re: Matthews Netball Centre Car Park 

Question 

I have used the car park in the past as a motorcycle instructor and was told to move on. 

Is there any chance that a solution can be reached in order that I can be permitted to use 

the car park again 

Response 

The Chief Executive Officer advised that the reason Mr Vincini was asked to leave the car 

park was because activities were being carried out without Council approval. Council is 

currently considering re-configuring the car parks so at this point in time, it is unclear what 

the car parks can be used for. An application in writing would need to be made for 

Council to consider. 

4. PETITIONS 

Two petitions have been submitted:- 

A petition containing 310 signatures has been submitted by Caroline Crisp, 47 Kimberley 

Street, West Leederville opposing the application for a Seven Storey Mixed Use 

Development at Lots 4 and 50 (No. 110) Cambridge Street (Corner of Kimberley Street), 

West Leederville. 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

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

received. 

Carried 9/0 

A petition containing 41 signatures has been submitted by Kandy James regarding the 

Sand Dump at 81 Branksome Gardens, City Beach. 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

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

and referred to the appropriate Committee. 

Carried 9/0 

5. DEPUTATIONS 

Nil 

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 




7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Walker 

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 20 December 2011 

be confirmed. 

Carried 9/0 

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION 

Nil 

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 DV12.1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 

Community and Resources: Items CR12.1, 3, 12, 19 and 20 

Declarations of Interest: 

Item CR12.1 - Cr MacRae - Proximity Interest 

Item CR12.3 - Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley and 

Langer - Proximity Interest 




DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

The report of the Development Committee meeting held on 20 February 2012 was submitted 

as under:- 

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING 

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

6.02 pm. 

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Present : Time of Time of 

Entering Leaving 

Members: 

Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 7.30 pm 

Cr Tracey King 6.02 pm 7.30 pm 

Cr Otto Pelczar 6.02 pm 7.30 pm 

Cr Colin Walker (Deputy) 6.02 pm 7.30 pm 

Observers: 

Cr Louis Carr 

Officers: 

Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability 

Stevan Rodic, Manager Development 

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance) 

Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

7.30 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Apology - Cr Bradley 


Kerry Smith, Asten Place, City Beach 

Re: Item DV12.10 Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach 

Question 

Would it be possible to insert in the recommendation a condition that 'any future 

development should protect green space' 

Response 


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



Re: Item DV12.12 - Beach User Forum 

Question 

Would Committee consider hosting the Beach User Forum at least twice per year 

Response 


Jack Allerdine 

Re: Item DV12.10 Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach 

Question 

Why doesn't Council rezone the lots to additional use - car park rather than local 

centre 

Response 


4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Deputations 

Item DV12.2 

Item DV12.4 

Item DV12.7 

Item DV12.10 

Alan Howard, applicant 

Christine Catlin, neighbour 

Raymond Spence, applicant 

Kim Coleman, 14 Norbury Crescent, City Beach 

Petition 

A petition containing 310 signatures was submitted by Caroline Crisp, 47 Kimberley 

Street, West Leederville opposing the application for a seven storey mixed use 

development at Lots 4 and 50 (No. 110) Cambridge Street (Corner of Kimberley 

Street), West Leederville. 


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 13 

December 2011 as contained in the December 2011 Council Notice Paper be 

confirmed. 

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Nil 

7. REPORTS 




DV12.1 

LOT 654 (NO. 30) PINDARI ROAD, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

The garage proposed to the right (south) side boundary is considered to satisfy the relevant 

performance criteria relating to buildings on the boundary for the following reasons:- 

 

 

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

and 

direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of the 

adjoining property are not restricted 

Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for a two storey dwelling requiring assessment under the 

performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect of buildings on 

the boundary. 

BACKGROUND: 

Application: 3DA - 2012 

Owner: 

Mr Rani Joseph & Mrs Zacharia Joseph 

Applicant: Zacharia & Rani Joseph 

Zoning: Residential R12.5 

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

Land area: 827 m² 

DETAILS: 

Development description 

 

 

 

New two storey dwelling with existing single storey dwelling to be demolished. 

Site slopes gently upward from the front of the property (west) to the rear (east) side 

by approximately 1 metre. 

Boundary wall to garage proposed on the right (south) side boundary. 

Applicant's justification 

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

development provisions relating to buildings on the boundary. A copy of the applicant's 

justification is available to view for Elected Members. 

Neighbour submission 

A submission was received by the landowner of No.28 Pindari Road objecting to the 

boundary wall. A copy of the submission is available to view for Elected Members upon 

request. 




Performance criteria assessment 

Buildings on boundary 

Side setback 

Performance criteria: 

Proposed 

1.0 metre from the garage to 

the right (south) side 

boundary 

Acceptable development provision 

Nil 

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 boundary wall to the garage is 6.090 metres in length and 2.6 metres in height 

and is located a compliant 8.5 metres from the street. It is not considered to have an undue 

impact on the amenity of the adjoining landowner to the south as the subject wall is 

proposed to be located adjacent to a pathway and blank wall to the garage of the 

neighbouring property at No. 28 Pindari Road. There will be no adverse impact from the 

boundary wall to the adjoining dwelling in terms of access of direct sun to major openings to 

habitable rooms and outdoor living areas as it is adjoining a 'dead' space of the adjoining 

property to the south. In addition approximately 65% of the proposed boundary wall abuts a 

high limestone dividing wall of approximately 2.7 metres in height located on the boundary 

on the side of the adjoining property. The high dividing wall would conceal a substantial 

portion of the proposed boundary wall to the garage, further reducing any potential undue 

impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the south. 

Overall, it is considered that the nil setback of the garage from the right (south) side 

boundary complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

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

and 

direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of the 

adjoining property is not restricted. 

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'. 

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: 

Nil. 

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 

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 submitted by Zacharia & Rani 

Joseph at Lot 654 (No. 30) Pindari Road, as shown on the plans dated 5 January and 27 

January 2012 subject to the following conditions: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond; 

a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of the 

Town; 

the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to be 

rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town. 

Committee Meeting 21 February 2012 

During discussion, Members noted that the dwelling to be demolished has a solid side and 

front wall in the front setback area. Whilst noting that the submitted plans do not indicate 

any fencing in this area at all, it make it clear it was agreed that a condition be added to the 

approval to ensure that any future fencing meets Council's fencing policy. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Walker 

That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- 

(iv) 

all existing solid fencing in the front setback area to be removed and any new fencing 

to comply with the Town's fencing policy. Planning approval will be required for any 

future fencing. 

Amendment carried 3/1 

For: 

Against: 

Crs King, MacRae and Walker 

Cr Pelczar 




COUNCIL DECISION: 

(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

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 submitted by 

Zacharia & Rani Joseph at Lot 654 (No. 30) Pindari Road, as shown on the plans dated 

5 January and 27 January 2012 subject to the following conditions: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 


a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction 

of the Town; 

the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south 

to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; 

(iv) all existing solid fencing in the front setback area to be removed and any new 

fencing to comply with the Town's fencing policy. Planning approval will be 

required for any future fencing. 

Carried 8/1 

For: 

Against: 

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

Walker 

Cr Pelczar 




DV12.2 

LOT 1 (NO. 13B) PANGBOURNE STREET, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY 

DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

An application for planning approval has been received for a two storey dwelling at No. 13B 

Pangbourne Street, Wembley. 

The application requires a Council determination assessment under the performance criteria 

relating to the primary street setback. 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reasons: 

the garage will have a significant impact on the streetscape; 

the balcony will have a significant impact on the streetscape; 

the garage and balcony will dominate the frontage of the lot as viewed from the street; 

and 

the proposal would create an undesirable precedent for future development in the 

locality. 

Accordingly the proposal is recommended for refusal. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for a two storey dwelling requiring assessment under the 

performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect of setback of 

buildings generally. 

BACKGROUND: 

Application: 31DA-2012 

Owner: 

Mr Alan Howard & Mrs Kay Howard 

Applicant: Manor Home Builders Pty Ltd 

Zoning: 

Residential R20 


Land area: 465m² 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

The subject land maintains a relatively flat topography across the east-west oriented 

survey strata lot and has a relatively narrow frontage of 10 metres. 

The proposed two storey dwelling has a double garage set back at 5.3 metres from the 

primary street as well as upper floor additions which project to 4.7 metres from the 

primary street. An alfresco is located to the rear of the ground floor. 

The garage is built on the southern boundary, however, all other walls of the dwelling 

maintain the required setbacks to the side boundaries. 






development provisions relating to setbacks of buildings generally. A copy of the applicant's 

justification is available to view for Elected Members. 


Setback of buildings generally 

Primary street 

setbacks 

Proposed 

5.3 metres (garage) 

4.7 metres (balcony) 


Minimum 6.0 metres 


Buildings set back from the 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 proposed garage is set back at 5.3 metres from the primary street frontage to 

Pangbourne Street. Given that the width of the garage is 6.2 metres and the frontage is only 

10.0 metres, the garage will dominate the visual aspect of the lot as viewed from the street. 

The proposed upper floor balcony is set back at 4.7 metres from the primary street and has 

a width of 4.5 metes. In conjunction with the garage, this will act to dominate the 

presentation of the building as viewed from the street and will not contribute to the desired 

streetscape. This 6.0 metre primary street setback has not been encroached into by 

adjoining dwellings in the locality. Although there are examples of carports within the 6.0 

metre setback in the immediate locality, these are predominantly open structures retaining 

sightlines to the street and buildings. This proposal would therefore create an inconsistency 

in the streetscape and set an undesirable precedent for future development in the area. 

It is noted that the owner wishes to retain the existing tree to the rear of the proposed 

dwelling to provide shade to the dwelling and open space areas which restricts the possibility 

of relocating the dwelling further back on the lot. 

Overall, it is considered that the reduced primary street setbacks do not comply with the 

performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

does not contribute to the desired streetscape; and 

would set an undesirable precedent for future development. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 

FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 21 February 2012) 

Subsequent to the Development Committee recommendation on the above item, the 

applicant has submitted amended plans that incorporate the following:- 

 

 

 

Moving the dwelling back 700 mm so that the garage setback now meets the front 

setback acceptable development requirements. 

Balcony intrusion into the setback line reduced from 1.3 metres to 0.5 metres. 

Reducing the crossover width from 6 metres to 4 metres. 

It is considered that the amended plans can now be supported. 

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 



1, Council REFUSES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Manor 

Home Builders Pty Ltd at Lot 1 (No.13B) Pangbourne Street, Wembley, as shown on 

the plans dated 23 January 2012 for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

the variations to the acceptable development criteria do not satisfy the 

performance criteria outlined in Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Policy 3.1 

Streetscape as the proposal does not contribute to the desired streetscape; 

(ii) approval of the reduced primary street setback would set an undesirable 

precedent for future development within the locality; and 

(iii) 

is contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality. 

Lost 0/9 





Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley 


1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Manor 

Home Builders Pty Ltd at Lot 1 (No. 13B) Pangbourne Street, Wembley, as shown on 

the amended plans dated 23 February 2012 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south 

to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; 

the crossover not exceeding 4 metres in width; 

the planting of a street tree to the satisfaction of the Town. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.3 

LOT 1183 (NO. 4) CRIEFF STREET, FLOREAT - SINGLE STOREY 

DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria relating to buildings 

setback from the boundary and setback of buildings generally for the following reasons:- 

 

 

 

 

contributes to the desired streetscape; 

assists with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; 

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

assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for a single storey dwelling requiring assessment under the 

performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect of buildings set 

back from the boundary and setback of buildings generally. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Mr Ryan A Shepherd & Mrs Lauren C Shepherd 

Applicant: Ryan & Lauren Shepherd 




DETAILS: 


Subject property slopes upwards gently from south to north by approximately 0.5 

metre. 

Existing solid front wall of approximately 2 metres in height is proposed to be replaced 

by 1.5 metre visually permeable front fence with no solid wall component. 

Proposed new garage is set back 7.320 metres from the street in-lieu of the required 

9.0 encroaching marginally forward of the location of the existing garage. 

Setback to rear (east) boundary of 1.8 - 3.6 metres in-lieu of the required 6 metres. 



development provisions relating to buildings setback from the boundary and setback of 

buildings generally. A copy of the applicant's justification is available to view for Elected 

Members. 





A submission was received by the landowner of No.27 Cromarty Road objecting to the rear 

setback variation. A copy of the submission is available to view for Elected Members upon 

request. 


Setback of Buildings Generally 

Proposed 

Street setback 7.320 metres from 

the garage to front 

(west) boundary 

Acceptable Development Provision 

9 metres 

Performance Criteria: 

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 proposed portion of wall to the garage encroaching into the allowable street setback 

area is single storey and is 2.5 metres in height and 6.7 metres in length. The proposed 

location of the garage is located slightly forward of the existing dwelling which ranges from 

approximately 7.5 - 8.0 metres. The new dwelling is set back 9.0 metres from the front 

boundary. 

Only two properties front directly onto Crieff Street. They are located on opposite sides of 

the street between the corner properties fronting Dumfries Road and Crieff Street and 

Cromarty Road and Crieff Street. As such there is no established street setback pattern. 

The other dwellings located along Crieff Street have reduced setbacks with the dwellings 

located on either side of the subject property on the eastern side of Crieff Street having 

setbacks consistent with the proposed garage. 

The proposed works to the front of the property include the replacement of the existing solid 

front wall of approximately 2 metres in height with a 1.5 metre visually permeable front fence 

with no solid element of wall. This will allow for a vista through to the subject dwelling as 

viewed from the street contributing to the openness of the front setback area. The proposed 

open style fencing is considered to be a vast improvement to the significant front solid wall 

thus contributing to the desired streetscape. 

Overall, it is considered that the reduced street setback satisfies the performance criteria for 

the following reason:- 

 

contributes to the desired streetscape. 

Buildings set back from the boundary 

Rear setback 

Proposed 

1.8 - 3.6 metres from wall on 

east elevation to the rear 

(east) boundary 


6.0 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; and 

assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 

The proposed walls to the activity room and laundry encroaching into the allowable 6 metre 

rear setback area are 4.750 metres and 4.080 metres in length respectively. The wall 

heights range from 2.8 - 3.6 metres under the skillion roof. The single storey nature 

ameliorates any impacts of building bulk on the rear adjoining properties with the rear 

dividing fence shielding a substantial portion of the subject wall on the eastern elevation. The 

walls of the proposed dwelling on the rear elevation are staggered with various windows and 

skillion roofs providing horizontal and vertical articulation further reducing any perceptions of 

building bulk. The closest wall to the adjoining neighbour objecting to the rear setback is 

2.966 metres with the rest of the wall staggered away at 8.5 metres. This reduces the 

impact of building bulk to this neighbour. 

The subject portions of wall located in the rear setback area are located on the western side 

of the adjoining dwellings at the rear of the property with no adverse impact on these 

properties in terms of their access to northern sunlight. There are no issues relating to 

privacy due to the location of major openings and as the development is single storey. As 

the proposal is for a single storey dwelling, the applicant is seeking a reduction in rear 

setback in order to achieve the same amount of floor space as a two storey dwelling. Whilst 

not listed as Performance Criteria, the single storey dwelling has less building bulk and 

privacy issues than a two storey may have. 

It is further noted that the proposed dwelling has sufficient open space surrounding it and 

has been designed with a northern aspect to the outdoor living areas so that the 

predominant outdoor space is to the side of the dwelling rather than to the rear. 

Overall, it is considered that the reduced rear setback meets the relevant performance 

criteria for the following reason:- 

 

 

 

assists with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; 

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

assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 


(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 



1, Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling submitted by Ryan 

and Lauren Shepherd at Lot 1183 (No. 4) Crieff Street, as shown on the plans dated 6 

February 2012 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 


the infill panels of the new fencing in the front setback area to have a surface 

with an open to solid ratio of no less than 1:1. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.4 LOT 338 (NO. 6) TUMUT ROAD, CORNER WINDARRA DRIVE, CITY BEACH - 

ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS - THIRD STOREY LOOKOUT AND LIFT 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at 

No. 6 Tumut Road, corner Windarra Drive, City Beach. The plans show a new third storey 

comprising of a lookout room, corridor and a lift to access this lookout room. 

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

building height 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 not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following 

reasons:- 

 

the proposed height is not consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality 

and does not protect the amenities of the adjoining properties, in particular access to 

views of significance from the adjoining properties. 

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal. 

PURPOSE: 

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

performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect of building height. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

J and M Johnson 

Applicant: J and M Johnson 




DETAILS: 


 

 

The existing dwelling situated on the subject site is a two storey dwelling with 

undercroft that faces Tumut Road. The dwelling has a pitched roof and large ground 

and upper floor balconies facing Tumut Road. 

The proposal is to add a flat roofed third storey which will face Tumut Road and sit 

above the existing first floor void and part of the first floor balcony in the centre of the 

front elevation. 




 

The third storey comprises a large room with windows on the north, south and west 

elevations, a corridor to the lift with windows each side (north and south elevations), 

and a lift. 


The owner has provided written justification for the proposed development which is available 

to view for Elected Members. The main reason for the proposed development is to ensure 

the property retains ocean views over any new development that will be constructed on the 

five subdivided blocks opposite the subject site. 


The applicant has provided a copy of plans that has signed statements of no objection to the 

proposal from the owners of No. 4 Tumut Road (south), No. 15 Windarra Drive (east) and 

No. 14 Windarra Drive, across the road to the north. The Town notified the owners of five 

additional properties in the vicinity. Three submissions objecting to the proposed 

development on the basis of potential loss of ocean views, possible precedent and negative 

impact on the streetscape were received from the owners of No. 8, No. 10 and No. 11 

Windarra Drive, City Beach. Copies of the submission are available to view for Elected 

Members. 


Building height 

Overall (roof) height 

for a flat roof 

Proposed 


9.2 metres – 12 metres Max 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 dwelling in its current form is consistent with the desired height of buildings in the 

locality. The majority of dwellings in the vicinity are of a similar or lesser height than the 

current dwelling at No. 6 Tumut Road. 

The addition of the third storey would add bulk to the dwelling on all elevations. This third 

storey is wholly above the maximum building height acceptable development provisions of 

Council’s Building Height Policy. The proposed additional height and bulk would be out of 

keeping with the existing streetscape and may set an undesirable precedent for rear 

neighbouring properties that would like to increase their height to reclaim ocean views that 

may be lost by this addition. 




The applicant (owner) has advised in his submission that if the overall height of the dwellings 

to be constructed on the subdivided lots across the road is not more than 9 metres, then he 

will not need to build the lookout. To date, the Town has received and approved under 

delegated authority plans for a two storey dwelling on the subdivided block across the road, 

on the corner of Windarra Drive and Tumut Road (No. 19 Windarra Drive). This dwelling has 

a maximum ridge height of approximately 8.0 metres. The Town has not yet received an 

application for the adjoining lot (No. 7 Tumut Road). Due to the site works involved with the 

subdivision, it is highly unlikely that variations to the building height acceptable development 

provisions would be approved on any of the subdivided lots across the road from the subject 

site. 

It should be noted that in response to concerns raised about a number of large, three storey, 

recent developments in City Beach, the Building Height Policy was amended in May 2009 to 

adopt the more stringent R Codes acceptable development provisions for overall height 

(reduction from 10.5 metres to 9.0 metres for ridges longer than 6 metres). The Building 

Height Policy was again amended in May 2011 to include size restrictions for dormers. 

The intent of the revising the Building Height Policy to a lower maximum overall height 

restriction and to a size restriction on dormers is to effectively limit development to two 

storeys and allow roof space for general storage only rather than a usable floor with a 

habitable room such as that proposed here. 

It is acknowledged that obtaining and keeping views is a significant issue affecting 

development in City Beach. Dispensing with the height requirements (performance criteria) 

to allow the applicant to get better views is not considered appropriate. The performance 

criteria are intended to facilitate alternative design solutions which result in comparable or 

better outcomes than what the acceptable development provisions provide. In this particular 

case, the proposed third storey is not likely to provide similar or better outcomes for the 

streetscape and the neighbouring properties than the acceptable development provisions. It 

is considered the proposed third storey does not satisfy the above performance criteria and 

is therefore not supported. 

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

shown on the plans does not satisfy the performance criteria on the following grounds:- 

 

the increased height and bulk of the dwelling will result in negative impacts on the 

streetscape and the amenity of the neighbouring properties, particularly access to 

views of significance. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION 


1, Council REFUSES the application for additions and alterations (third storey) 

submitted by J and M Johnson at Lot 338 (No. 6) Tumut Road, City Beach, for the 

following reason: 

(i) 

the proposal does not satisfy the acceptable development provisions of 

Council’s Building Height Policy or the Building Height performance criteria of 

Part 6.7.1 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia; and 

(ii) approval of the additional building height would establish an undesirable 

precedent for the area. 

Council Meeting 28 February 2012 

Members were advised that the owner of the subject property has requested that the item be 

withdrawn from tonight's meeting and be referred back to the Development Committee to 

enable them to clarify some details with Elected Members. 



That the item relating to Lot 338 (No.6) Tumut Road, City Beach be referred back to 

the Development Committee for further consideration. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.5 

LOT 487 (NO. 5) ORANA CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - THREE STOREY 

DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT - AMENDED PLANS 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received amended plans for the three storey dwelling with undercroft at No. 5 

Orana Crescent, City Beach that is substantially completed. The amended plans show an 

increase in the ceiling height, and thus roof height, of the rear portion of the third level. 

The amended plans require a Council determination as an assessment is required against 

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

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


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

reasons:- 

 

 

the proposed height will result in increased bulk which will have a detrimental impact on 

the amenity of the adjoining properties; 

the proposed height is not consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality 

and does not protect the amenities of the adjoining properties, in particular the pleasant 

enjoyment of the private spaces of the adjoining properties. 

Accordingly the proposal is recommended for refusal. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider amended plans for a three storey dwelling with undercroft requiring assessment 

under the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect of 

building height. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Y Xie 

Applicant: Delstrat Pty Ltd T/As Seacrest Homes 




At the Council meeting held on 28 July 2009, Council approved a three storey dwelling with 

undercroft. For the third floor, the approved plans showed a guest bedroom facing the front 

boundary and an attic with a raked ceiling and a dormer facing the rear boundary. Prior to 

construction the third floor plans were modified to show a large void facing the front 

boundary and the guest bedroom (with the same raked ceiling and dormer) facing the rear 

boundary instead of the attic. 




Construction of the dwelling has been substantially completed and the applicant has advised 

that the owner is not happy with the way the guest bedroom has turned out and wishes to 

raise the roof to result in a flat, 28 brick course high, ceiling for the guest bedroom rather 

than a raked ceiling. 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

The subject development comprises a three storey dwelling with undercroft. Due to 

the slope of the site, the development presents as a two storey with undercroft from 

the front (third floor not clearly visible on front elevation) and three storeys from the 

rear (cannot see undercroft on rear elevation). 

Amendments are proposed to the rear of the third floor to replace the raked ceiling with 

a flat ceiling throughout the guest bedroom. 

The amendments include a larger dormer facing the rear boundary and a higher 

overall height to accommodate the proposed increase in ceiling height. 


The Town requested the applicant to provide written justification for the proposed increase in 

building height that addressed the relevant performance criteria of the R Codes, however, 

this was not provided. 


The owners of five adjoining properties were notified of the amended plans. One submission 

objecting to the proposed amendments was received from the owners of No. 7 Orana 

Crescent (west of the subject site). A copy of the submission is available to view for Elected 

Members. 


Building height 

Proposed 


Wall height Max 8.4 m Max 6.5 m 

Overall (roof) height Max 10.1 m 

Max 9.0 m 

for a pitched roof 


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 dwelling was initially assessed under the Town’s previous Building Height Policy, which 

allowed as acceptable development a maximum overall height of 10.5 metres for a pitched 

roof and did not have any size restrictions for dormers. 




In response to concerns raised about a number of large, three storey, recent developments 

in City Beach, the Building Height Policy was amended in May 2009 just prior to approval of 

this dwelling to adopt the more stringent R Codes acceptable development provisions for 

overall height (reduction from 10.5 metres to 9.0 metres for ridges longer than 6 metres). 

The Building Height Policy was again amended in May 2011 to include size restrictions for 

dormers. 

The intent of the revising the Building Height policy to a lower maximum overall height 

restriction and to a size restriction on dormers is to effectively limit development to two 

storeys and allow roof space for general storage only rather than as a usable floor with a 

habitable room such as that proposed here. 

In comparison to the approved plans, the dormer must now be included in the wall height 

measurement due to its large size and therefore the wall height at the rear has increased to 

8.4 metres. 

As constructed, the approved third floor rear dormer is visible from adjoining properties, 

however, it is the second storey alfresco that dominates the amenity impact on the adjoining 

properties. The current proposal will increase the size of the dormer considerably as it will 

now project out further from the main roof, and will also add additional bulk as the highest 

ridge of the dwelling is proposed to be increased in length to accommodate the increased 

ceiling height. The overall bulk of the development will increase as the third storey would 

become more visible, particularly on the side and rear elevations. 

Considering the performance criteria, the third floor is central to the dwelling with large 

setbacks to side and rear boundaries, so access to sunlight and ventilation for the adjoining 

properties will not be significantly impacted by the proposed amendments. The owners of 

adjoining properties have not raised specific concerns about loss of ocean views. In relation 

to protecting amenity, it is difficult to argue that the proposed amendments will protect 

neighbour amenity. The dwelling as constructed is large and with its sizeable second storey 

alfresco area, the quiet enjoyment of the private spaces of the adjoining properties has been 

negatively impacted. Any further amendment to the dwelling that would increase its size and 

bulk would therefore further negatively impact the amenity of the adjoining properties. 

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

shown on the amended plans does not satisfy the performance criteria on the following 

grounds:- 

 

the increased height and bulk of the dwelling will result in negative impacts on the 

amenity of the neighbouring properties and create an undesirable precedent for future 

development in City Beach. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council REFUSES the amended plans for a three storey dwelling with undercroft 

submitted on 24 November 2011 by Delstrat Pty Ltd T/As Seacrest Homes at Lot 487 

(No. 5) Orana Crescent, City Beach, for the following reason:- 

(i) the proposal does not satisfy the acceptable development provisions of Council’s 

Building Height Policy or the Building Height performance criteria of Part 6.7.1 of 

the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia; and 

(ii) the proposal would set an undesirable precedent for future development in City 

Beach. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.6 

LOT 115 (NO. 66) NEWRY STREET, FLOREAT - PROPOSED SWIMMING 

POOL AND RETAINING/SCREEN WALLS 

SUMMARY: 

An application has been received for a swimming pool and associated screen/retaining walls 

at No. 66 Newry Street, Floreat. 

The application requires a Council determination under the performance criteria for setbacks 

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


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

reasons:- 

 

 

In relation to the rear setback, a large portion of the wall will be concealed by the 

existing vegetation and garden shed on the adjoining property and therefore building 

bulk is minimised. 

Assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties by screening the swimming 

pool and active habitable spaces from the adjoining property 

Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for a swimming pool with associated screen/retaining walls 

requiring assessment under the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R 

Codes) in respect to buildings set back from the boundary. 

BACKGROUND: 

BA/DA REFERENCE: 13BA-2012 

LANDOWNER: 

Richard Codling and Vicki Butler 

APPLICANT: 

Quality Dolphin Pools 

ZONING: Residential R12.5 

USE CLASS: 

Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted) 

LAND AREA: 940 m 2 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

Sites slopes down from front to rear approximately 3.5 metres. 

The applicant proposes to build a swimming pool at the rear of the recently 

constructed dwelling and at close to the same finished floor level. 

The fall of the land towards the rear of the site means that the rear portion of the 

swimming pool is approximately 1.5 metres above natural ground level. 

 




 

 

The applicant proposes to place a 1.8 metre high screen wall on top of the pool shell to 

provide privacy to the adjoining property. This results in a retaining/screen wall height 

to the edge of the pool that is approximately 3.2 metres higher than the level at the 

rear boundary. 

The edge of the pool with the screen wall is set back 2.48 metres from the rear 

boundary in lieu of 6.0 metres. 


The applicant has stated that the screen walls are required to maintain privacy between the 

swimming pool and adjoining properties. 


A submission was received from the neighbour to the rear (No. 39 Orrel Avenue) objecting to 

the bulk and unsightliness of the screen wall. A copy of the submission is available to view 

for Elected Members. 

Assessment against the performance criteria 

Buildings setback from the boundary 

Proposed 


Rear Setback 2.48 metres Minimum of 6.0 metres 



 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

The proposed screen wall above the pool wall is approximately 3.2 metres high and has a 

length of 5.5 metres. The adjoining rear boundary is 19.54 metres in length. The proposed 

screen wall is near that portion of the rear boundary where the adjoining landowner has a 

garden shed. 

The rear setback variation to the pool and screen wall is not considered to adversely impact 

on the adjoining property to the rear in terms of building bulk as it will be screened by the 

shed on the adjoining property. 

The screen wall will also assist in protecting privacy between the proposed swimming pool 

and the adjoining properties. 

It is, however, noted that landscaping can be provided between the pool wall and the rear 

boundary which would further reduce the impact of the wall as viewed from the adjoining 

property to the rear. 




Overall, it is considered that the reduced rear setback complies with the performance criteria 

for the following reasons:- 

 

 

In relation to the rear setback, a large portion of the wall will be concealed by the 

existing vegetation and garden shed on the adjoining property and therefore building 

bulk is minimised. 

Assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties by screening the swimming 

pool and active habitable spaces from the adjoining property 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for a swimming pool and associated 

retaining/screen walls submitted by Quality Dolphin Pool at Lot 115 (No. 66) Newry 

Street, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 13 January 2012 subject to the following 

condition:- 

(i) 

landscaping comprising of medium sized shrubs being provided to the 

satisfaction of the Town between the rear wall of the swimming pool and the rear 

boundary to assist in reducing the bulk of the adjoining property to the rear; and 




(ii) 

the face of the wall facing the rear boundary being rendered, painted or face 

brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.7 

STRATA LOT 1 (NO. 6B) KEANE STREET, WEMBLEY - CARPORT AND 

VERANDAH 

SUMMARY: 

A request has been made to reconsider Council's determination not to approve a double 

carport in its present form as it would necessitate the removal of a street tree. 

It is considered that a reduced setback for the crossover to the street tree would allow the 

carport to be approved where proposed. 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for vehicular access:- 

 

as the street tree would be retained therefore minimising any impact on the 

streetscape. 

A concrete crossover would be required as it has less impact on the root system of a tree 

than traditional paving. Approval is recommended subject to this condition. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for a double carport and crossover requiring assessment under 

the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect of vehicular 

access. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Mr Raymond Spence 

Applicant: Mr Raymond Spence 

Zoning: 

Residential R20 

Use class: Dwelling (grouped) ‘P’ – Permitted 


The applicant made a request for the removal of the street tree on 28 September 2005. It 

was considered by the Administration that the tree was in good condition and would not be 

approved for removal. The applicant again requested, in a letter dated 11 February 2011, 

for the removal of the street tree to be reconsidered. A letter was sent from the Town stating 

that removal of the street tree would be considered as part of a Planning/Building 

Application. A Planning Application was lodged on 6 April 2011. 

Council, at its meeting of 26 July 2011 (DV11.64) decided the following:- 

"That:- 

(i) 

the applicant be advised that Council is not prepared to approve the application in its 

present form, for the following reason:- 




(a) 

the proposed carport results in the removal of a mature healthy street tree where 

it is considered that alternative locations are available; 

(ii) 

the Council would be prepared to give favourable consideration to amended plans 

incorporating the following modifications:- 

(a) 

(b) 

the carport being relocated a further 1 metre to the south to enable retention of 

the street tree; 

the street tree being retained; 

(iii) in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, 

Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve the application for a 

verandah extension and double carport submitted by R Spence at Strata Lot 1 (No. 

6B) Keane Street, Wembley subject to the plans being amended in accordance with 

the changes referred to in (ii) above." 

On 13 December 2011, the applicant asked for reconsideration with regards to the removal 

of the street tree. It has been deemed that the street tree is in a reasonable condition with 

no safety or health concerns identified during this most recent inspection that would warrant 

the removal of this street tree at this time. 

DETAILS: 


The extension of the front porch with a retractable sun screen set back 8.0 metres 

from the front boundary; 

A side by side double carport set back 1.5 metres from the front boundary and a 1.0 

metre setback from the northern boundary; and 

The crossover is to be relocated to the northern side of the property, resulting in a new 

crossover and the proposed removal of the existing verge tree. 



development provisions relating to wall height, rear setback and site works. A copy of the 

applicant's justification is available to view for Elected Members. 


Vehicular Access 

Setback crossover 

to street tree 

Proposed 


0.5 metres 1.5 metres 


Vehicular Access provided so as to minimise the number of crossovers, avoid street trees, to be safe 

in use and not detract from the streetscape. 




The applicant proposes to remove the mature native peppermint tree (Agonis Flexuosa) on 

the street verge immediately outside the property. Alternative carport locations have been 

discussed with the applicant however he was not willing to compromise on the location of the 

proposed carport. The applicant seeks to remove the existing crossover located to the south 

of the property, therefore ensuring that only one crossover services the property. 

The Town is willing to consider the present location of the carport provided that the street 

tree is retained and the crossover is located a minimum 0.5 metres from the tree. While this 

will result in a variation to the required setback, due to the size and health of the street tree it 

is considered an acceptable compromise provided that a concrete crossover is provided. 

This will minimise the impact on the root system of the tree. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed location of the carport meets the performance 

criteria of the codes for the following reason:- 

 

The crossover can be amended to achieve a minimum 0.5 metre setback to the street 

tree therefore retaining the street tree and minimising the impact on the streetscape. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 


During discussion, the Administration was requested to provide further information on the 

condition of the tree and any potential damage to the footpath. 




FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 21 February 2012) 

The tree was assessed as being in reasonable condition with no safety or health concerns 

being identified during the most recent inspection in January this year that would warrant its 

removal. 

In terms of the potential impact of the root system on the footpath, Parks advise that the tree 

is at least 60 years old and is unlikely to damage the footpath in the foreseeable future. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for a carport and verandah submitted by Mr 

Raymond Spence at Lot 546 Strata Lot 1 (No. 6B) Keane Street, Wembley, as shown 

on the plans dated 6 April 2011 subject to the following conditions: 

(i) 

the street tree to be retained; 

(ii) the driveway to be tapered so that the crossover is a minimum distance of 0.5 

metres from the verge tree; 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed; 

the existing crossover located to the south of the property being closed, and the 

kerb and the verge reinstated; 

the crossover to be constructed of concrete to limit the likelihood of root 

damage to the street tree. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.8 

LOTS 17 & 18 (NO. 22) TAWORRI WAY, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED 

ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to the ground floor of the 

existing dwelling at No. 22 Taworri Way, City Beach. The plans show extensions to two 

rooms (bedroom and gymnasium), and a new covered and enclosed alfresco addition, 

covered spa area, swimming pool and cellar. 

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

rear setback and visual privacy 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. 

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

reasons:- 

 

the neighbouring properties are significantly lower than the subject site, so the proposed 

setback of the addition from the rear boundary is unlikely to have any significant impact 

on the adjoining properties in relation to building bulk and overlooking. 

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. 

PURPOSE: 

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

performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect of buildings 

setback from the boundary and visual privacy. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

R Flynn & E Tham 

Applicant: Boyd Design 




This application was originally submitted in December 2010 with plans showing extensive 

additions and alterations involving substantial site works. To address some of the concerns 

raised by the Town’s Administration and the owners of neighbouring properties, amended 

plans were submitted in October 2011 and then revised again in November 2011. It is the 

latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report. 




DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

The existing dwelling situated on the subject site is a three storey dwelling with a large 

backyard comprising a tennis court and swimming pool area. The subject site 

comprises of two lots with the dwelling mainly located on Lot 17 and the tennis court 

and pool outdoor living areas mainly located on Lot 18 to the west of Lot 17. 

Lot 17 is considerably higher in level than the adjoining properties to the rear and west. 

There is an existing outdoor living area at the same level as the dwelling. Steps then 

lead down to the existing pool and then there are more steps down to the tennis court. 

The proposal is to extend the dwelling into the existing outdoor living area, and extend 

the higher level out further to create a spa and smaller outdoor living area. A new pool 

is also proposed at the same (lower) level as the existing pool. 

The dwelling additions will result in a larger bedroom 2, gymnasium/store room and 

meals area, and a new enclosed alfresco and kitchen area. 


The applicant submitted information for Council to consider when assessing the plans which 

is available to view for Elected Members. 


The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the rear boundary 

adjacent to the proposed development, being Nos. 45 and 47 Marapana Road. One 

submission was received from the owners of No. 47 Marapana Road objecting to the rear 

setback for the bedroom and outdoor living area and the visual privacy setback for the 

proposed outdoor living areas. A copy of the submission is available to view for Elected 

Members. 


Buildings setback from the boundary 

Rear setback (north) 


Proposed 

Min 2.8 m for bed 2 extension 

Min 5.5 m to kitchen 

Min 4.1 m to raised outdoor 

living area adjacent to kitchen 


Min 6.0 metres 


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. 




As the subject site comprises two lots with the majority of the dwelling on one lot, the 

backyard is orientated to the western side of the property, rather than the rear (northern) 

boundary. The rear boundary acts more like a side boundary, however, it is technically the 

rear boundary as it is opposite the front. The existing dwelling does not comply with the rear 

setback acceptable development requirement. 

The subject site is considerably higher than the adjoining properties to the rear. Views from 

the outdoor living area directly adjacent to the dwelling comprise the roof of No. 47 

Marapana Road to the north-west and part of the top floor of No. 45 Marapana Road to the 

north. In addition,m there is an existing high hedge adjacent to the boundary that provides 

good privacy screening and assists in ameliorating any bulk impact between the subject site 

and No. 45 Marapana Road. The owners have advised that they have no intention of 

removing this hedge. Access to direct sun for the rear adjoining properties will not be 

impacted as these properties are to the north of the subject site. 

As previously stated, the owners of No. 47 Marapana Road have objected to the setback of 

the bedroom 2 extension and the outdoor living area adjacent to the kitchen. Due to the 

level difference, it is unlikely that this development will have any significant impact on this 

neighbouring property in relation to access to sun, ventilation, privacy or bulk. It should be 

noted that the variation relates more to the part of the rear boundary shared with No. 45 

rather than No. 47 Marapana Road. Directly adjacent to the boundary shared with No. 47 

Marapana Road is the proposed swimming pool and the outdoor living area adjacent to the 

spa which complies with the rear setback requirement. 

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

development from the rear/northern boundary is acceptable and complies with the 

performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

due to the level difference and the development being to the south, the proposed 

development is unlikely to have any significant impact on the adjoining properties in 

relation to access to sun and ventilation, bulk impact and privacy; 

the encroachments are relatively minor considering that the majority of the area 

adjacent to the rear boundary is garden. 

Visual privacy 

Visual privacy 

setback (rear/north) 

Proposed Acceptable development 

provision 

Min 5.6 m for kitchen window Min 6.0 m 

Min 4.1 m for raised outdoor living 

area adjacent to kitchen 

Min 6.9 m for raised outdoor living 

area adjacent to spa 

Min 7.5 m 

Min 7.5 m 


Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings is 

minimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor active 

habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness. 

Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid 

overlooking is preferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass. 




Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal 

impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity. 

Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, the 

distance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows. 

The plans show an extension of the higher level adjacent to the dwelling into the lower level 

of the existing pool area for part of the kitchen and alfresco, the outdoor living areas adjacent 

to the kitchen and spa, and the spa itself. Where this occurs, the new floor level is higher 

than the existing ground level and therefore there are privacy variations. 

The kitchen window variation is minor. The window is 0.7 metres high and sits atop the 

kitchen bench. The window is designed more for light rather than viewing out. 

The owners of the adjoining property at No. 47 Marapana Road have objected to the 

reduced visual privacy setbacks for the outdoor living areas adjacent to the kitchen and spa. 

The area adjacent to the kitchen acts more like a walkway. It is 1.3 metres wide and 

provides access from the existing outdoor living area around the proposed development to 

the new alfresco and larger outdoor living area adjacent to the spa. There is a small portion 

of the outdoor living area adjacent to the spa that is closer than the minimum acceptable 

development requirement of 7.5 metres to the boundary. Again, due to the dwelling at No. 

47 Marapana Road being considerably lower, direct overlooking from the proposed outdoor 

living areas into the private indoor and outdoor spaces of No. 47 Marapana Road will be 

unlikely. 

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

kitchen window and the outdoor living areas from the rear/northern boundary are acceptable 

and comply with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

Due to the level difference it is unlikely that there will be direct overlooking from the 

proposed development to the adjoining properties to the rear. 

Lot amalgamation 

The subject site comprises two lots, Lot 17 and Lot 18, however the lots have not been 

amalgamated despite the dwelling being situated on both lots. The proposed additions and 

alterations are predominantly located on Lot 17, however parts of the proposed cellar, spa, 

roof cover over spa and swimming pool are located on Lot 18. A building licence cannot be 

issued over two lots. A condition of approval is therefore proposed requiring the lots to be 

amalgamated prior to the issue of a building licence. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





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

Design at Lots 17 and 18 (No. 22) Taworri Way, City Beach, subject to the following 

condition: 

(i) 

Lot 17 and Lot 18 Taworri Way being amalgamated into one lot on the 

certificate of title prior to the issue of a building licence. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.9 

DRAFT POLICY 5.6: PERCENT FOR PUBLIC ART 

PURPOSE OF REPORT: 

To present to Council a draft Percent for Public Art Policy for adoption for advertising. 

SUMMARY: 

Recently Council has been requiring the provision of public art as a condition of development 

approval for a number of commercial, non-residential and mixed use developments. The 

preparation of a draft Percent for Public Art Policy provides the statutory provisions to guide 

and enforce such conditions. 

It is proposed under draft Town Planning Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art that no less than 

one percent (1%) of the construction value of development be attributed towards the 

provision of public art either on or near the site. The draft Policy is applicable to applications 

for commercial, non-residential and mixed use developments where the construction value is 

$1 million or more and it is proposed to cap public art costs and/or contributions at $500,000. 

The provision of public art may either be provided in-kind by the developer on-site or within 

the adjacent public realm or as a cash-in-lieu contribution to the Town for the provision of 

public art in the immediate locality. 

Council's adoption for advertising of the draft Percent for Public Art Policy is sought. 

BACKGROUND: 

The matter of seeking development and/or public art contributions has been raised by 

Council during consideration of a number of recent development applications. 

Following the consideration of an application for 32 consulting rooms at Lots 498, 499 and 

500 (No. 330-334) Railway Parade, West Leederville, Council decided (in part) at its meeting 

on 23 February 2010 (Item DV10.1) that: 

"the applicant being required to provide public art on or near the site to the satisfaction of the 

Chief Executive Officer; and 

an amendment to the TPS be prepared with the view to formalising developer contributions 

being levied by the Town. Such amendment to include provision for preparation of 

Development Contribution Plans, identifying plan areas and establishing an appropriate 

charging regime." 

The same condition to provide for public art on or near the subject site as mentioned above 

was also applied to the approvals for a four storey office building at 48-50 Oxford Close and 

for grouped consulting rooms at 20 McCourt Street, West Leederville. 

More recently at Council's meeting on 20 December 2011, the following condition was 

applied to approvals for a five level mixed use development at 334-336 Cambridge Street, 

Wembley (DV11.112) and for an office building (WALGA Headquarters) at 168-170 Railway 

Parade (DV11.113): 




"public art up to a value of one percent of the cost of the development be incorporated in the 

development, or, in lieu of the applicant being unable to provide this to the satisfaction of the 

Town, a contribution of one percent of the cost of the development be made to the Town, 

prior to the occupation of the building, for expenditure on public art in the near vicinity of the 

development." 

This report outlines a proposed Percent for Public Art Policy to formalise developer 

contributions towards the provision of public art throughout the Town. 

DETAILS: 

The proposed draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art Policy is attached to this report. The 

draft Percent for Public Art Policy proposes that no less than one percent (1%) of the 

construction value of a development be allocated towards public art costs. The draft Policy 

would be applicable to all applications for commercial, non-residential and mixed use 

developments with a construction value of $1 million or more and public art costs and/or 

contributions are proposed to be capped at $500,000. 

The public art contribution may be provided in-kind by the developer for either public art 

installed on-site or within the adjacent public realm, or as a cash-in-lieu contribution to the 

Town for public art. Where the cost of the public art to be provided is less than $30,000, it is 

proposed this be required as a cash-in-lieu contribution to the Town. This will allow for the 

collection of adequate funds for the Town to provide for suitable public art works within the 

vicinity of developments, avoiding a 'piecemeal' approach to public art instalments. 

The draft Policy also outlines:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

definitions for public art, construction value and professional artist; 

the general standards for public art works; 

forms of public art acceptable and exclusions to public art; 

the approval process for public art contributions; 

the collection and expenditure of cash-in-lieu for public art; 

Copyright and ownership of public art, as well as the moral rights of artists and 

acknowledgement of their artwork; 

Decommissioning of public artwork; and 

Public art report guidelines where the public art is to be provided in-kind by the 

developer. 

COMMENT: 

Introducing a percent for public art policy would facilitate the provision of public art 

throughout the Town, contributing towards a sense of place and enhancing the visual 

amenity of the public domain. Given, the community benefit gained through the provision of 

public art, it is recognised as a legitimate planning matter and the importance of public art is 

recognised in State Government planning strategies and policies, including Directions 2031 

and the Activity Centres Policy. 

A request for one percent (1%) of development construction costs to be attributed towards 

public art is generally consistent with other local authorities where public art planning policies 

have been adopted. 




The proposed Policy will also provide guidance to developers with their public art 

applications and outline what public art is considered acceptable and desirable by the Town. 


The Policy Manual adopted under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 will be amended by 

introducing a new Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art that will apply to all applications for 

commercial, non-residential and mixed use developments with a construction value of $1 

million or more. 


The cost of advertising the proposed Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art is covered in the 

Town's budget. 


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. 


In accordance with Clause 48 (3) of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the Council, having 

prepared a draft planning policy, is required:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

to advertise a summary of the draft Planning Policy once a week for two consecutive 

weeks in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area, giving details of where the draft 

Planning Policy may be inspected, and in what form and during what period (being not 

less than 21 days) submissions may be made, unless the draft Policy is to be 

advertised under clause 24 or 25 of the Scheme, in which case no further 

advertisement is required; 

where practicable, to notify those persons who, in the opinion of the Council, might be 

directly affected by the draft Planning Policy; and 

to forward a copy of the draft Planning Policy to the Western Australian Planning 

Commission for its consideration and advice in cases where the Council considers that 

the Policy may be inconsistent with other provisions of the Scheme or with state and 

regional planning policies. 

In advertising the proposed draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art, the following advertised 

method is recommended:- 

 

 

 

 

advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge noticeboard; 

a notice and copy of the draft Policy be placed on the Town's website; 

a letter sent to ratepayer groups; and 

a letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art 



Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr King 

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

(i) 

(ii) 

be adopted for the purpose of advertising as specified in accordance with 

Clause 48 (3) of the Town Planning Scheme; 

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. 

Cr Walker left the meeting at 7.10 pm and returned at 7.12 pm. 

Carried 8/1 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar and 

Walker 

Cr Bradley 




DV12.10 

LOTS 10 AND 12 THE BOULEVARD, CITY BEACH - SCHEME AMENDMENT 

NO. 22 - REZONING FROM 'PARKS AND RECREATION' TO 'LOCAL 

CENTRE' 

SUMMARY 

The Scheme Amendment seeks to rezone the two lots on either side of The Boulevard and 

Gayton Road shopping centres (Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard) from 'Parks and Recreation' 

to 'Local Centre'. The subject lots have had a long standing use as car parking associated 

with the shopping centres and the amendment recognises 'Local Centre' as a more 

appropriate zone for the use of these lots. 

In submissions received during the advertising of the proposed amendment, the main 

concern expressed was that the rezoning would make redevelopment of these lots easier. 

In a practical sense, the long standing use of the lots as car parking facilities for the adjacent 

local shopping centres will assist the on-going yearly lease arrangements held between the 

landowners of the local shopping centres and the Town of Cambridge are intended to 

remain. 

The proposed amendment merely reflects the existing use of the land as part of the overall 

local centre use. Any future improvements on this land would be bound by the provisions of 

the Local Centre zone. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider final adoption of Amendment No. 22 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1, following 

advertising. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Council, at its meeting held on 21 December 2010 decided:- 

That pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Council resolves to 

initiate an Amendment to the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 by:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

rezoning Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach from 'Parks and Recreation' 

to 'Local Centre'. 

Amending the Scheme map accordingly. 

A copy of the proposed amendment was provided to the Western Australian Planning 

Commission. 

DETAILS: 

Advertising: 

The Scheme Amendment was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the Town 

Planning Regulations 1967. Four signs were erected on the four corners or the two lots and 

letters to adjoining property owners were distributed with an advertising period from 21 




November 2011 to 6 January 2012. A total of 34 submissions were received during the 

advertising period. Of these, 18 submissions raised no objection and 16 raised objections or 

points for consideration. 

Of the submissions that did express concern regarding the rezoning, the main issues were:- 

 

 

 

The Parks and Recreation reserve should remain to stop the probability of the land 

being sold and redeveloped later on. 

The land should be kept with a buffer of trees and grass to the shopping centre and 

carparks. 

The rezoning will facilitate further shop development. 

Details of the submissions are contained in a schedule attached to this agenda. 

Comment 

The Scheme amendment seeks to correct an anomaly which exists with the current zoning 

of Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach. The subject lots are developed and 

landscaped for use as car parking facilities associated with The Boulevard and Gayton Road 

shopping centres. 

The proposed rezoning of the two lots to 'Local Centre' is not intended to result in any new or 

expanded development occurring on the land in the near future. It is recognised, however, 

that this local centre is a significant community centre for City Beach and the appropriate 

zoning for the two lots is 'Local Centre' to reflect this. Any future development of the centre 

would need to ensure adequate carparking and green space to make an attractive and 

functional local centre which provides for daily and weekly shopping and community needs 

and therefore the function of the subject lots as a local centre will not change. 


The proposed rezoning ensures that the use of land is consistent with the zoning of the land. 


The adopted Council budget for 2011/2012 makes provision for the preparation and 

advertising of Town Planning Scheme Amendments. 


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

priority area 'Planning for our Community' including the goal of attractive and diverse 

shopping and business areas. 


The Town Planning Scheme Amendment was advertised in accordance with the provisions 

of the Planning and Development Act 2005. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





During discussion, the Administration was requested to provide a map indicating where trees 

are located, prior to the next meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 28 February 2012. 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the submissions in relation to Amendment No. 22 to Town Planning Scheme No. 

1 be received; 

pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 the Council adopts 

Amendment No. 22 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 without modification as 

follows:- 

(a) 

rezone Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach from Town of Cambridge 

Scheme Reserve 'Parks and Recreation' to 'Local Centre'; and 

(ii) 

the Western Australian Planning Commission be requested to consider 

Amendment No. 22 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and seek the final approval 

of the Hon. Minister for Planning. 

During discussion, Cr MacRae proposed an amendment to confirm the future preparation of 

a local centre for the site. 

Amendment 



(iv) Council notes that as part of the review of the Town Planning Scheme, a 

Commercial Centres Strategy will be prepared. Within this Strategy, Centre 

Plans will be developed for all commercial areas in the Town. Such plans will 

include appropriate development requirements and be subject to community 

consultation. In relation to the subject centre, due consideration will be given to 

the retention of existing mature trees on the site and ensure an 

appropriate/attractive interface with surrounding residential streets. 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the submissions in relation to Amendment No. 22 to Town Planning Scheme No. 

1 be received; 

pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 the Council adopts 

Amendment No. 22 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 without modification as 

follows:- 




(a) 

rezone Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach from Town of Cambridge 

Scheme Reserve 'Parks and Recreation' to 'Local Centre'; and 

(iii) 

the Western Australian Planning Commission be requested to consider 

Amendment No. 22 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and seek the final approval 

of the Hon. Minister for Planning; 

(iv) Council notes that as part of the review of the Town Planning Scheme, a 

Commercial Centres Strategy will be prepared. Within this Strategy, Centre 

Plans will be developed for all commercial areas in the Town. Such plans will 

include appropriate development requirements and be subject to community 

consultation. In relation to the subject centre, due consideration will be given to 

the retention of existing mature trees on the site and ensure an 

appropriate/attractive interface with surrounding residential streets. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.11 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT - REZONE LOT 13709 (NO. 2) 

ROCHDALE ROAD FROM 'RESIDENTIAL R12.5' TO 'RESIDENTIAL R30' 

AND LOT 87 (NO. 2A) ROCHDALE ROAD, MOUNT CLAREMONT FROM 

'RESIDENTIAL R12.5' TO 'PARKS AND RECREATION' 

SUMMARY: 

Ownership of the subject lots was transferred from the Town to the State Government as 

part of the (wider) Bold Park deed in 1995. At that time, the land was zoned Residential 

R12.5 under the (then) City of Perth City Planning Scheme 1985 and this zoning was 

continued under Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1. 

The re-coding of Lot 13409 from 'Residential R12.5' to 'R30' and rezoning Lot 87 from 

'Residential R12.5' to 'Parks and Recreation' is justified on a number of grounds as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consistent with the agreement between the Town of Cambridge and the State 

Government to increase the density coding for Lot 13409 to R30. 

Consistent with the objectives outlined in Directions 2031 to increase residential 

densities across Perth. 

Consistent with residential density of land immediately to the east of the site. 

Provides the opportunity to provide smaller lots as a housing choice for Town of 

Cambridge Residents. 

The site's location and context is ideally suited to an increase in residential density. 

Consistent with the intention to protect Lot 87 as a natural bushland habitat by 

rezoning it to Parks and Recreation. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for a rezoning from 'Residential R12.5' to 'Residential R30' for Lot 

13409 (No. 2) Rochdale Road and 'Residential R12.5' to 'Parks and Recreation) for Lot 87 

(No. 2A) Rochdale Road, corner Stephenson Avenue and Montgomery Avenue, Mount 

Claremont. 

BACKGROUND: 

Lot 13409 and the adjoining Lot 87 immediately to the south are owned by the State and are 

collectively referred to as 'Area G'. In late 2010 the Town of Cambridge and the State 

Government agreed to progress the development of Area G. Pursuant to the agreement, Lot 

13409 has been transferred to LandCorp for residential development, whilst Lot 87 is to be 

protected as native bush and ultimately transferred to the Botanic Gardens and Parks 

Authority. 

The same agreement requires the Town to recode Lot 13409 from R12.5 to R30 under Town 

Planning Scheme No. 1. This is consistent with Council's previous agreement in principle in 

1999 to support an R30 coding over the lot. 




DETAILS: 

The subject lots are located on the eastern side of Stephenson Avenue with Rochdale Road 

to the south-west of the lots and Montgormery Avenue to the North of the lots. Residential 

development within the City of Nedlands abuts the lots to the east. 

Lot 13409 is 3.5019 hectares in area, Lot 87, immediately to the south, has an area of 

2.8557 hectares. 

Both lots are currently zoned 'Urban' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and 

'Residential R12.5' under Town Planning Scheme No. 1. 

The Scheme Amendment proposes to increase the density for Lot 13409 from R12.5 to R30. 

There are a number of reasons for doing so including:- 

 

 

 

 

Directions 2031, the State Government policy directive, seeks a 50% increase in the 

current average residential density of 10 dwellings per gross urban zoned hectare. 

Achieving a density target of 15 dwellings per gross urban zoned hectare at this site 

can only be achieved by recoding the land to a higher residential development. 

Lot 13409 abuts land zoned R30 immediately to the east within the City of Nedlands. 

Therefore the proposed coding would be consistent with the density of immediately 

surrounding land. 

The site abuts Stephenson Avenue and Rochdale, affording excellent access and 

public transport opportunities for future residents. 

The proposal provides for the Town to provide smaller lot areas in its western half 

where most lots are on average around 700 square metres, therefore providing the 

opportunity for City Beach/Floreat residents to 'downsize' but stay in the locality. 

The sites are recognised as having potential environmental challenges by the clearing of 

vegetation and associated loss of potential habitat for fauna of conservation significance. A 

preliminary investigation of the site has been undertaken and recommends that a number of 

studies and investigations be undertaken prior to finalising a development proposal for the 

site. 

At this stage the proposal only seeks to increase the residential density across a lot which is 

already zoned for residential purposes. Lot 87 has been earmarked to be improved and 

protected as natural bushland pursuant to recent government agreements. It is therefore 

proposed to rezone this land from residential purposes to 'Parks and Recreation' to reflect 

the intentions for this parcel of land. 


There proposed rezoning ensures that the use of land is consistent with the future use of the 

land. 










Should the Council initiate the Scheme Amendment, consultation will be required under the 

Town Planning Regulations. LandCorp intend to work with the local community and key 

stakeholders with a view to preparing a concept plan for the development. It is envisaged 

that the concept plan will accompany the proposed Amendment for the purpose of public 

advertising. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar, 

That pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Council resolves 

to initiate an Amendment to the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 by:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

recoding Lot 13409 (No. 2) Rochdale Road, Mount Claremont from 'Residential 

R12.5' to 'Residential R30' and rezoning Lot 87 (No. 2a) Rochdale Road, Mount 

Claremont from 'Residential R12.5' to 'Parks and Recreation'; and 

amending the Scheme map accordingly. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.12 

BEACH USER FORUM 


To establish and host an annual Beach User Forum. 

BACKGROUND: 

At its meeting on 18 June 1996, the Council agreed to establish a Beach Users Working 

Group after concerns were raised about ongoing conflict between user groups. 

The user group was disbanded in 2008 due to decreasing attendance by user group 

members, and an apparent general lack of interest from group members and elected 

members. 

Following the commencement of the revised Beach Life Guard contract and the revised 

lifeguard operational times, some conflict has occurred between some beach users groups. 

To assist the Council in determining effective solutions to such and other issues that may 

arise from time to time, it recommended that a simpler form of community consultation with 

interested groups be undertaken by hosting an annual beach user forum at the end of each 

summer. 

DETAILS: 

The Town has received numerous complaints about the abuse of the 'No surf appliances 

after 6am' restriction at City Beach. This has been the subject of perennial and fairly regular 

verbal complaints from early morning swimmers. 

At its meeting on 12 November 2001, the Council considered and adopted the 

recommendations contained in a Beach Safety Audit that was undertaken by Surf Life 

Saving WA. In particular, that audit report identified and recommended a range of public 

safety and information signs for the Town's beaches. 

However, it would now appear that the existing signs relating to the seasonal usage of the 

ocean adjacent to the Town's two groynes are not adequately meeting the needs of all users 

or that some sections of the community are abusing the restriction to the detriment and/or 

annoyance of other users. 

Other complaints from the community include competing recreational activities on the beach, 

access to car parking, vandalism, anti-social behaviour and conditions on the coastal paths. 

It is proposed that the Beach User Forum has a holistic approach to the entire beach 

environment with a particular emphasis on ascertaining the community's opinions on new or 

alternative approaches to tackling these and other community concerns in ways that 

recognise the differing interests of beach goers and seeking a balance for ‘the common 

good'. 

The forum could also be used to provide information of the community on proposals for 

future improvements or developments, and future maintenance or facility upgrading works. 




It is suggested that the purpose and objectives of the Beach User forum be:- 

1. to meet annually at the end of each summer with the Council hosting the meetings; 

2. to discuss and ascertain user and community views and opinions on the appropriate 

ways in which the facilities, the beaches and the aquatic environment can be shared 

and used for the benefit of all users; 

3. to make recommendations and submit comments to the Council. 

Community groups that would be invited to send representatives to the annual Beach User 

Forum include:- 

Surf Life Saving Western Australia, 

City Beach Surf Lifesaving Club, 

Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club, 

City Beach Surf Riders Club, 

Swimmer Representatives, 

WA Kite Surfing Association, 

Windsurfing Western Australia. 

It is suggested that the Town would be represented by two Coast ward councillors, a 

relevant manager, Team Leader Ranger Services, Senior Community Development Officer 

and Principal Coordinator Infrastructure Parks; as well as other staff where appropriate. 


The Forum would assist the Council by identifying and proposing solutions to various issues 

or operational practices related to the beach environment and its use; as well as by providing 

community and user comments and observations on future projects in the beach 

environment. . 


There would be minor costs in hosting annual forums, which can be incorporated within 

existing budgets. 


Hosting an annual Beach User Forum falls within the Town's priority area of Planning for our 

Community. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. 

Community engagement and consultation will take place within the forum, as part of the 

process in identifying issues and user options on matters related to beach usage or the 

beach environment. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 





That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

an annual Beach User Forum be hosted by the Council at the end of each summer to 

assist the Town in the formulation of operational practices and policy to manage beach 

and aquatic use at Floreat and City Beaches; 

six weeks prior to the forum, relevant organisations, groups and individuals be invited 

by means of direct contact and public notices be placed in community newspapers and 

on the Town's website; 

(iii) two Coast Ward Councillors be nominated to represent Elected Members and the 

Town on the Group, one of whom shall chair the forum; 

(iv) 

the Administration support the Beach User Forum with full administrative support, and 

attendance and information being presented by relevant and appropriate staff 

members. 


During discussion, in response to a deputation on this matter, Members agreed that rather 

than restrict the forums to once per year, the members of the forum can decide on how 

many times they wish to meet. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That clause (i) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

(i) 

a Beach User Forum be hosted by the Council at the end of each summer to assist the 

Town in the formulation of operational practices and policy to manage beach and 

aquatic use at Floreat and City Beaches, and at any other time as decided by the 

Group. 





That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

a Beach User Forum be hosted by the Council at the end of each summer to 

assist the Town in the formulation of operational practices and policy to manage 

beach and aquatic use at Floreat and City Beaches, and at any other time as 

decided by the Group; 

six weeks prior to the forum, relevant organisations, groups and individuals be 

invited by means of direct contact and public notices be placed in community 

newspapers and on the Town's website; 




(iii) two Coast Ward Councillors be nominated to represent Elected Members and 

the Town on the Group, one of whom shall chair the forum; 

(iv) the Administration support the Beach User Forum with full administrative 

support, and attendance and information being presented by relevant and 

appropriate staff members. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.13 

DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR DECEMBER 2011 AND 

JANUARY 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 months of December 2011 and January 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:- 

December 2011 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Kinta Street, City Beach - Three storey dwelling 

23 Talgarth Way, City Beach - Two storey dwelling 

2 Bendigo Way, City Beach - Retaining wall and deck 

10 Dilkara Way, City Beach - Deck 

38 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach - Two storey dwelling 

3 Norbury Crescent, City Beach - Swimming pool 

16 Tilton Terrace, City Beach - Alfresco 

17 Elouera Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

32 Tranmore Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

46 Talgarth Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

8 Barnsley Road, Mount Claremont - Two storey dwelling 

8 Dumfries Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

116 Birkdale Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

255 Salvado Road, Floreat - Single storey dwelling 

237 Selby Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

28 Lifford Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

107 Lissadell Street, Floreat - Patio 

33 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

93 Alderbury Street, Floreat - Gazebo 

77 Reserve Street, Wembley - Single storey dwelling (amended) 

29 Reserve Street, Wembley - Carport and fencing 

161 Gregory Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling 

57a Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Single storey dwelling 

93 Essex Street, Wembley - Patio 

85 Harborne Street, Wembley - Retrospective approval - Additions and alterations to 

existing dwelling 

88 Marlow Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

23 Keane Street, Wembley - Garage extension 

33a Bath Street, Wembley - Fastrack - Front fence 

75 Reserve Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

93 Harborne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

25 Ruislip Street, West Leederville - Patio 




 

 

53 Kimberley Street, West Leederville - Fastrack - Alfresco roof replacement 

1 Ruislip Street, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

January 2012 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3/10 Perina Way, City Beach - Enclose carport 

19 Windarra Drive, City Beach - Two storey dwelling 

7 Penryn Avenue, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

50 Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Outbuilding (shed) 

52 Pandora Drive, City Beach - Carport and driveway 

57 Branksome Gardens, City beach - Two storey dwelling 

110 Drabble Road, City Beach - Patio 

3/10 Perina Way, City Beach - Retrospective approval - spa 

2 Elimatta Way, City Beach - Single storey dwelling 

10 Everton Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

8 Dumfries Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

84 The Boulevard, Floreat - Patio (church) 

22 Seymour Avenue, Floreat - Patio 

2 Crosby Street, Floreat - Carport 

277 Salvado Road, Floreat - Carport 

11 North Banff Road, Floreat - Gazebo 

281B Salvado Road, Floreat - Patio 

67 Peebles Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

98 Glengariff Drive, Floreat - Gazebo and daybed 

183 The Boulevard, Floreat - Carport 

242 Salvado Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

79 Nanson Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

149 Gregory Street, Wembley - Fence, gate and landscaping 

189 Ruislip Street, Wembley - Single storey dwelling 

318 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Shade sails over carpark 

18 Reserve Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

8 Daglish Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

186 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Specialist Medical Centre (Re-approval) 

3/108 Salvado Road, Wembley - Patio 

49 Marlow Street, Wembley - Carport 

78 Salvado Road, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

4/29 Connaught Street, West Leederville - Patio 

141-143 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Commercial sign 

421 Vincent Street West, West Leederville - Retrospective approval - carport 

The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a 

recommendation for approval:- 

 

 

 

 

Lot 310 Halifax Lane Wembley - 2 lot amalgamation 

5 Veryard Terrace, Wembley - 2 lot subdivision 

156 Railway Parade, West Leederville - 2 lot amalgamation 

168 Railway Parade, West Leederville - 8 lot amalgamation 

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 December 2011/January 2012. 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined 

No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during 

December 2011/January 2012. 




That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated 

authority for the period 1 December 2011 to 31 January 2012 be received. 

Carried 9/0 




DV12.14 

BUILDING LICENCES APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 

To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building licences approved under 

delegated authority in December 2011 and January 2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

Listed below are the total numbers of licences issued in the month of December 2011 and 

January 2012. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of licences issued on 

the same month of the previous year and year to date totals. 

December 

2011 

December 

2010 

Financial 

Year to 

Date 

2011/2012 

Correspondin 

g Financial 

Year to Date 

2010/2011 

Building Licences 37 59 300 374 

Provisional Building Licences 0 0 0 0 

Demolition Licences 8 8 40 51 

Building Approval Certificates 1 3 3 12 

Total 46 70 343 437 

Value of Construction $22,782,67 

5 

$14,437,99 

3 

$93,571,18 

1 

$84,101,119 

January 

2012 

January 

2011 

Financial 

Year to 

Date 

2011/2012 

Corresponding 

Financial Year 

to Date 

2010/2011 

Building Licences 81 54 381 428 

Provisional Building Licences 0 0 0 0 

Demolition Licences 3 3 43 54 

Building Approval Certificates 1 1 4 13 

Total 85 58 428 495 

Value of Construction $15,743,626 $9,351,982 $50,823,798 $93,453,101 

Note: The total value of construction for December 2011 period was influenced by the 

approval for the Four Storey Medical Centre situated at 330 Railway Parade, West 

Leederville. 







That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Licences approved under delegated 

authority for the month of December 2011 and January 2012, as attached to and 

forming part of the notice paper, be received. 

Carried 9/0 




COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

The report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on 21 February 2012 

was submitted as under:- 

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING 

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources 

Committee open at 6.02 pm. 

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Present : Time of Time of 

Entering Leaving 

Members: 

Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 8.00 pm 

Mayor Simon Withers 6.02 pm 8.00 pm 

Cr Louis Carr 6.02 pm 8.00 pm 

Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.02 pm 8.00 pm 

Cr Colin Walker 6.02 pm 8.00 pm 

Observers: 

Cr Corinne MacRae 

Officers: 

Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic 

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure Engineering 

Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works 

Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks 

Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance 

Neil Costello, Manager Governance 

Matthew Day, GeneralManager Wembley Golf Course 

Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development 

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) 

Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

8.00 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 67




Diana Waldron, 3 Saltash Avenue, City Beach 

Re: Item CR 12.10 - Quarry Amphitheatre 

Question 

Would the Town consider setting up a task force of stakeholders and interested parties to 

oversee the maintenance and development of the Quarry Amphitheatre 

Response 

This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting during consideration of Item CR12.10. 

Jody Harrison, 27 Roscommon Road, Floreat 

Re: Item CR12.10 - Quarry Amphitheatre 

Question 

Why have the decisions about the Quarry Amphitheatre expenditure emphasised winter 

revenue rather than restoration and further extending improving the site as originally 

planned 

Response 

This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting during consideration of Item CR12.10. 

Fiona Hogg, President West Leederville Residents Association 

Re: CR12.01 Cambridge St High Street – Concept Design Report 

Question 

Understand that recommendation for concept design to be received and community 

consultation to be undertaken – WLRA would like to ensure Community consultation is 

undertaken widely within the West Leederville community. We would like to offer our 

assistance to the Council in assisting in the consultation process and have notified all our 

members regarding this Concept Design report and have encouraged members to 

participate in consultation process and provide comment and feedback to Council. 

Response 

The Town will take her suggestions on board. 

Re: CR12.10 Quarry Amphitheatre 

Question 1 

Understand there will not be a permanent roof structure however report indicates a large 

clear marquee to be purchased to purchased to be erected for private functions during off 

peak season. Has the committee considered private functions just hiring one if required 

rather than buying a temporary structure that is likely to have to be replaced annually and 

would need to be taken down for any ‘off season’ productions. 




Response 

Current practice is that wedding bookings hire a marquee from a third party. It is the 

intention that the Town purchase a marquee and recoup the costs from hirers, particularly 

functions. Approximately 20 functions are held each year. The marquee in mind also has 

a life span of approximately 7 - 10 years. 

Question 2 

Understand replacement of stage to be undertaken 2012/13 – shouldn’t this be done 

when the membrane is being applied to cavern roof as existing stage would need to be 

removed and replaced at that time. Membrane is scheduled to be undertaken in 2011/12. 

Response 

Correct and programmed this way, over 2 financial years. Due to the construction of a 

storage facility, the time frame suggested for stage removal and installation of the 

membrane is May 2012( this financial year) and the installation of new stage in August 

2012( new financial year). 

Question 3 

With replacement of stage has Council considered replacing with a sprung floor suitable 

for dance productions rather than requiring all performances to install their own Could 

have higher hire costs to cover any additional construction costs which would could be 

afforded by production companies if no need to bring in, set up and take down own stage 

which understand is costly. Installation of a permanent sprung stage would also permit 

amateur community productions without onerous cost. 

Response 

Will be discussed during the item tonight, cost is an issue. However following meeting 

with the West Australian Ballet there maybe an opportunity to store and use the current 

sprung floor that is used as part of the West Australian Ballet productions at the Quarry 

Amphitheatre. 

Question 4 

Understand additional lighting, audio and Tarkett floor finish 2011/2012 – shouldn’t vinyl 

finish if appropriate be done when stage is replaced (2012/13 Budget). 

Response 

It would be the intention for these works to completed prior to the 2012/2013 peak 

season, some items maybe purchased this financial year and the others in 2012/2013 

financial year. 

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Item CR12.10 

Item CR12.12 

Fiona Stanton, President Ballet Workshop addressed the Committee in 

relation to the provision of a sprung floor at the Quarry Amphitheatre. 

George Bray, Catesby Street, City Beach addressed the Committee in 

opposition to the introduction of community security patrols in City 

Beach and suggested that cost savings could occur in other areas of 

operation to allow Rangers to undertake security type patrol work. 





That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee 

held on 12 December 2011 as contained in the December 2011 Council Notice Paper be 

confirmed. 

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Item CR12.3 - Proximity Interest - Mayor Withers and Cr Langer 

7. REPORTS 




CR12.1 

CAMBRIDGE "HIGH" STREET CONCEPT DESIGN 


To seek Council endorsement of concept design undertaken for Cambridge Street between 

Southport Street and Northwood Street consistent with the intent to create a 'High Street' 

streetscape and to subsequently undertake community consultation of the concept. 

BACKGROUND: 

The approved 2011/2012 budget identified funding for street enhancement of Cambridge Street 

between Northwood Street and Kimberley Street. These funds have been reallocated as an 

approval to undertake a concept design for Cambridge Street from Northwood Street to 

Southport Street. Consultants were engaged to undertake a concept design with the following 

objectives: 

 

 

 

 

 

Support the objectives of the adopted West Leederville Planning and Urban Design 

Study; 

Create an attractive streetscape within a reasonable cost; 

Improve pedestrian safety; 

Enhance provisions for street trees; 

Improve the image of West Leederville as a main entry to the Town. 

DETAILS: 

Key Features of the Design - Road Layouts 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Design extends along Cambridge Street from Northwood Street to Southport Street; 

Predominantly single lane of through traffic in each direction with embayed parking; 

Creation of turning pockets at key locations to facilitate through traffic flow on Cambridge 

Street; 

Improvements to entry/exit at West Leederville Shopping Centre; 

Creation of some right turn entry pocket for Northwood Street from Cambridge Street; 

Provision of dedicated bus lanes in certain areas, consistent with Public Transport Authority 

comments on the West Leederville planning study. 

Key Features of the Design - Streetscape 

 

 

Identification of three distinct zones - Zone A - mixed use urban (Northwood to Holyrood), 

Zone B - community and residential (Holyrood to Abbotsford) and Zone C - mixed use 

residential (Abbotsford to Southport); 

Paving finishes in footpaths identify each zone; 




 

 

 

 

Zone A focus is for locals and visitors to the area with less focus on vegetation and more on 

public infrastructure, wider pavements and provision for al fresco seating; 

Zone B recognises the heritage value of the area (notably the community centre) with a 

contemporary design which acknowledges the history. It will be the focal point for the 

streetscape; 

Zone C looks to the future of mixed use residential and has a strong focus on street trees 

and plantings; 

Simple, yet elegant street furniture such as seats, rubbish bins and bus stops. 

Key Features of the Design - Lighting 

 

 

 

 

Lighting design to match streetscape, through selection of lighting poles of suitable height 

located in centre median of Cambridge Street; 

LED lighting proposed to provide consistent white light and reduce energy consumption; 

Lighting design cannot be properly met with standard Western Power lights and poles, thus 

the Town will own and maintain this area of street lighting; 

Lighting will not adversely impact future developments. 

Attached are key images of the proposed intersection treatments and landscaping architecture 

outcomes. 

Intersection Changes 

The design has deliberately considered the need for Cambridge Street to maintain suitable 

through road traffic movements under the new regime of full time single lane each way status. 

Accordingly, the design proposes the following changes to key intersections:- 

Intersection Treatment Comment 

Northwood Street Right turn into Northwood Minor trimming required of a building 

from Cambridge west via 

dedicated turn pocket 

awning which infringes safe left turn 

movements for large vehicle from 

Northwood north side 

Through movements on 

Northwood prevented by 

medians on Cambridge 

Glen Street 

Shopping Centre 

Upper Level Car Park 

No right turns from 

Northwood onto Cambridge 

No change 

Left only exit signposted. 

Whilst left turn exit is marked, the 

proposed median design would allow 

vehicles to make a right turn exit, 

given the need to allow entry from 

Cambridge Street (West) 




Intersection Treatment Comment 

Lesser Street 


Street Level Car Park 


Lower Level Car Park 

Kimberley Street 

Holyrood Street / Kerr 

Street 

Proposed Left In - Left Out 

only 

Left only exit maintained. 

Entry changed to left in only 

Protected right turn pocket 

from Cambridge into car 

park 

Left turn only exit 

Retain no through Northerly 

movements on Kimberley 

across Cambridge 

Left In - Left Out only for 

each street 

The proposed concept has raised 

median in Cambridge Street 

(facilitating the right turn pocket into 

the car park), which converts Lesser 

Street into a Left In - Left Out only. 

Change necessary to facilitate 

protected turn pocket for shopping 

centre lower ground car park entry 

Left only exit reinforces existing line 

markings 

Note that the use of raised medians 

will prevent all right turn exit 

movements from shopping centre. It 

is viewed that the benefits of these 

improvements outweighs any 

perceived loss of amenity 

Median modifications to provide 

better turn movements and pram 

ramps 

Whilst this is proposed in the design 

report, Council can implement this at 

any time after initial construction. 

Abbotsford Street No change Improved pram ramps 

Nicholson Street No change Improved pram ramps 

Southport Street No change Improved kerb alignment 

Shopping Centre & Lesser Street 

It is important to note that if a protected right turn entry pocket into the Shopping Centre is to be 

a featured outcome of this design it will, by implication, necessitate the changes noted above to 

the other shopping centre intersections and Lesser Street. 

It is also worth noting that closing Lesser Street to entry from Cambridge Street (east) may 

result in an increase in vehicles using Woolwich Street and Kneebone Lane to access West 

Leederville Primary School parking area in Lesser St (which appear to be predominantly all day 

parkers) and then use Lesser Street to re enter Cambridge Street (eastbound). 

There is an alternative which would see painted median instead of raised median for the right 

turn pocket over Lesser Street which would allow Lesser Street to retain full movements. It 

does, however, present a minor risk of congestion where vehicles accessing the shopping 

centre will 'prop' on this painted median, thus blocking Lesser Street. 

Either option can be implemented during design development. 

Property Access 

Existing access arrangements to residential and commercial properties are largely maintained 

with exception of car parks around the town hall and shopping centres. At the detail design 

stage, any proposed changes to specific properties would be discussed with the relevant 

property owner / occupier. 




Holyrood / Kerr Street 

The Consultant has noted the offset between these streets where they meet Cambridge Street 

and has raised concerns regarding potential for accidents for vehicles making through 

movements across Cambridge Street due to this offset in lanes. Whilst there have been no 

recorded accidents in the Main Roads database over the last 5 years, the volume of traffic 

undertaking the through movement does increase this risk. 

At this stage, no further treatment is proposed as it is not deemed necessary at this time, 

however, the design is capable of being amended to block Holyrood and Kerr Streets to 

through movements. 

Public Transport 

The consulting team has made provision for a dedicated bus lane (eastbound from near the 

West Leederville Town Hall to Southport Street), two indented timed bus stops and two on 

street bus stops in line with the Public Transport Authority's (PTA) feedback on the West 

Leederville Study. It also indicated the opportunity for other vehicles to use this bus lane for a 

left turn into Southport Street 100 metres from the intersection. Further consultation with the 

PTA is warranted to ascertain the true benefits of the bus lane and its proposed operating 

hours, noting that many other bus lanes in Perth are only operational during peak hours. If a 

bus lane was decided upon, it is believed the most desirable outcome would be for it to be an 

AM peak period only lane. 

Kerbside Parking 

Currently 38 vehicles can park kerbside (outside of clearway hours). The proposed design 

reduces this to ~28 vehicles, however, depending on the resolution of the bus lane, this would 

be improved, particularly on the north side between Holyrood Street and the Town Hall. 

Budget 

The anticipated budget for these works is as follows: 

Northwood 

Street to 

Holyrood Street 

Holyrood 

Street to 

Southport 

Street 

Total 

Concept Design (expended) $35,000 $35,000 $70,000 

Detail Design & other fees $110,000 $125,000 $235,000 

Construction Preliminaries $55,000 $55,000 $110,000 

Civil Works (roadworks, drainage 

and services) 

$334,000 $480,000 $814,000 

Telstra - relocation of services $26,000 $200,000 $226,000 

Landscaping (trees, feature paving, 

street furniture, irrigation) 

$635,000 $730,000 $1,365,000 

Lighting (poles, wiring, LED lights) $145,000 $165,000 $310,000 




Contingency $125,000 $160,000 $285,000 

Proposed Total Cost $1,465,000 $1,950,000 $3,415,000 

The budget is broken in two parts to facilitate staging if required. 


It is noted that the previous adoption by Council of the West Leederville Planning Study, in 

respect to Cambridge 'High' Street becoming a single lane each way conflicts with existing 

Council policy regarding District Distributor roads. In all other regards, the outcomes of this 

design would need to conform to existing Council policies regarding street infrastructure, street 

trees and the like. 

Street signs and line markings would need to be approved by Main Roads in line with statutory 

requirements. 


This concept plan and subsequent community consultation has been funded within the existing 

2011/2012 budget from the $100,000 allocation for Cambridge Street Enhancement project. It 

is anticipated that $25,000 would be surplus after the plan and consultation was completed. 

The 2011/2012 budget also includes: 

 

 

$200,000 to resurface Cambridge Street between Southport Street and Kimberley Street 

(this figure includes a Main Roads Grant of $110,200 which must be expended by 

December 2012 as a condition of grant approval) 

$100,000 for local traffic management improvements in West Leederville 

If a decision is made to undertake the Cambridge 'High' Street works in the near future, it is 

suggested that these works, where practicable, be:- 

a) deferred and included in the scope of the "High" Street project, however, 

b) resurfacing of Cambridge Street be completed as budgeted, consistent with the concept 

design. 


The opportunity for development of Cambridge Street supports the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic 

Plan vision of Planning for Our Community through the provision of attractive and diverse 

shopping and business areas and preserving the character of our suburbs. 


In accordance with the Town's existing Community Consultation Matrix, this report would 

trigger a subsequent phase to community consultation to better understand the community's 

views on the concept. This consultation could include media advertisements, direct mailing to 

residents and property owners, key stakeholders (such as ratepayer groups and PTA) and 

public display or forums. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Concept sketches 


Prior to consideration of this item, Cr MacRae in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local 

Government Act 1995 declared an interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.26 pm. 


(OMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded Cr Grinceri 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the concept design for Cambridge Street 'High Street' be received; 

community consultation be undertaken on the concept and a subsequent report 

provided to Council; and 

(iii) road resurfacing works for Cambridge Street between Southport and Kimberley 

Streets proceed with recognition of some of the "High Street" design elements. 

Carried 8/0 

Cr MacRae returned to the meeting at 7.26 pm 




CR12.2 

THREE YEAR PROGRAM FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT 


 

 

To review a proposed Three Year Program for Drainage Improvements to address 

flooding that occurred during intense storms on 22 March 2010, 20 May 2011, 24 June 

2011 and 12 December 2011. 

To review priorities for drainage improvements in the 2012/13 Budget. 

BACKGROUND: 

Intense storms with a theoretical recurrence of once in 50 years have recently occurred four 

times during the last 2 years on 22 March 2010, 20 May 2011, 24 June 2011 and 12 December 

2011. Each of these storms has resulted in reports of flooding which resulted in 140 reports for 

22 March 2010, 70 reports for 20 May 2011 and 24 June 2011 and 15 reports for 12 December 

2011. 

These events were first reported to Council in May 2010 (Item IC10.25) and Council decided 

that: 

"(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the report reviewing the drainage network capability during extreme storm events be 

noted; 

the proposed Drainage Improvement program be approved; 

the first year of the Drainage Improvement program be considered for funding with 

$100,000 in the Draft 2010/11 Budget". 

Following the storms in May and June 2011, the priorities for the drainage improvement 

program were reviewed in August 2011 (Item CR11.99) and Council decided that: 

"(i) 

(ii) 

the report reviewing the drainage network capability during intense storm events be 

noted; 

the proposed Drainage Improvement Program be approved for construction using funding 

approved in the 2011/12 Budget." 

In October 2011, report CR11.24 provided specific information relating to the resolution of 

drainage problems at the Cambridge and Selby Street intersection. Council's decision was:- 

"(i) the GHD report "Wembley Drainage Assessment" for stormwater drainage at No. 417- 

422 Cambridge Street be noted; 

(ii) 

a detailed design be prepared for an underground sump within the vacant property east 

of Selby Street and south of Cambridge Street." 

The following report reviews what has been achieved with funding in the 2011/12 Budget and 

what funding is required in future budgets to reduce the risk of flooding at known problem 

locations. 




DETAILS: 

Drainage Improvement Strategy 

The widespread flooding in the Town on four occasions during the last two years has indicated 

that some parts of the Town's drainage network cannot cope with storms that have an intensity 

of more than 30mm of rain in one hour. In other words, if the rainfall exceeds 30mm in one 

hour, then some stormwater from the road overflows into private properties. 

In order to review a strategy, a table which summarises the causes of the flooding and the 

solutions has been prepared which presents information on:- 

• Cause 

• Solution 

• Typical Budget Requirements 

CAUSE 

1. Drainage grate 

blocked with 

leaves washed 

down by the 

storm. 

2. Pipe blocked 

with debris, 

underground 

utility or roots. 

3. House is lower 

than road and 

rear lane. 

4. Excessive 

runoff from 

private 

property due 

to large roof 

and paving. 

5. Runoff flows 

into low 

section of road 

from other 

roads and 

overloads its 

drainage 

system. 

SOLUTION 

Install additional side entry inlet on large soak-well prior to 

each drainage grate. This will result in the following 

benefits:- 

The soakwells will capture leaves and other debris from 

the gutter flow before they block the drainage grates into 

the piped system. 

The overall drainage capacity of the network will be 

increased by the soakwells. 

Most rainfall will soak into the local aquifer and the pipe 

network will then function only as an overflow system for 

intense storms. 

Leaf litter and gross pollutants will be kept out of lakes, 

rivers and oceans. 

Locate blockages with CCTV Drainage Inspection Program. 

Remove root, debris or underground utility. 

Protect the property from runoff by raising kerbs, raising 

crossovers, raising footpaths, diverting runoff with a bund 

across a road intersection, or increase pipe sizes through 

property easements. 

Private properties are required to retain their stormwater by 

the conditions of Building Approval, Development Approval 

and Building Code of Australia. Some properties still 

discharge a significant amount of runoff in storms that 

overloads the Town's drainage network. Soakwells and raingardens 

may be retrofitted to properties that flooding due to 

their own stormwater. 

Bund or raised entry statement across road intersection to 

divert runoff away from concentrating in one low point that is 

prone to flooding. 

TYPICAL 

BUDGET 

COST 

$6,000 

per 

soakwell 

$1,000 

per 

blockage 

$10,000 

average 

$6,000 

per 

soakwell 

$5,000 

average 




6. Small pipes 

are restricting 

flow to sump 

or lake. 

Investigate where larger pipes may be appropriate such as a 

localised restriction. Typical locations for consideration are 

low points where a drainage pipe has been installed through 

private property to drain the low point. If the pipe is undercapacity, 

then these properties will be flooded. Each location 

requires a full survey and drainage network analysis to 

determine what size pipe is appropriate. 

In general, increasing the capacity of the entire piped 

drainage network is the less preferred option because:- 

$50,000 

for a 

100m 

length 

 

 

 

The Town is expected to contain its stormwater and 

recharge the groundwater aquifer as requested by 

Department of Water and sustainability principles. 

The capacity of the main drains, sumps and stormwater 

networks in other local authorities is limited. Making our 

pipes bigger will not make water flow any faster into the 

main drains if they are at capacity already. 

The benefit/cost ratio is low because each metre of pipe 

costs $300 - 500 per metre to replace. It is usually 

better to install soakwells, swales and small sumps 

unless the pipes are old and requires replacement 

anyway. 

The report attachment provides details summarising the following two programs:- 

1. Drainage Improvements Completed in current 2011/12 Budget. 

A total of 44 sites have been assessed and detailed. 

2. Drainage Program for 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 Budgets (Proposed). 

Proposed 2012/13 - 12 projects Budget required $845,000 



PROGRAM TOTAL $1,344,000 

When preparing these programs the reports have a "PRIORITY FOR ACTION" assessment 

based on the following criteria:- 

PRIORITY 

1. Homes and businesses flooded inside - damage to fittings, carpets, furniture and 

stock. 

2. Garages and car parks flooded. 

3. Gardens flooded, rubbish deposited and fences fallen over. 

4. Roads that have deep water, verges flooded, rubbish on verges and cars get stuck. 

5. Unsealed lanes eroding. 




High Priority Works Recommended for funding in 2011/12 Budget 

The total funding available for drainage works in the 2011/12 Budget is $499,400 and this is 

now either spent or committed to the works listed in the table Year 0. The following works are 

scheduled in Year 1 of the program. However, it is possible that these projects may be funded 

in the current budget by deferring other road-work and footpath projects funded, in the 2011/12 

Budget to the 2012/13 Budget. 

1. Nos 417 - 422 Cambridge Street 

The proposed underground sump with funding of $300,000 is listed in Year 1 of the program. 

This location was the subject of public question time at the Community and Resources 

Committee Meeting on 13 June 2011 and Council made a commitment to treat this location as 

a priority. A progress report on design solutions was presented in October 2011 (CR11.24). A 

further separate report is to be presented to Council about this project for consideration for 

funding in the current Budget. This could allow the works to be carried out before winter 2012. 

2. Keane Street - No 43 

This is a low point in Keane Street and every rainstorm is a worry for the residents due to the 

risk of flooding. An additional side entry pit has been installed to provide back-up to the 

existing grated pits. To provide protection against flooding, it is proposed that section of 

footpath and two crossovers are raised at an estimated cost of $10,000. This project was 

included in the Five Year Footpath Program for consideration of funding in the 2012/13 Budget. 

Due to the frequent flooding of the property it is requested that this project is funded in the 

current budget. 

3. Corner Ruislip and Marlow Streets (No 33) 

This location is adjacent to a low point in Ruislip Street that floods during heavy rain. It is 

proposed that a section of footpath, two crossovers and 2 Telstra pits raised at an estimated 

cost of $20,000 be completed. This project was included in the Five Year Footpath Program for 

consideration of funding in the 2012/13 Budget. Due to the frequent flooding of the property it 

is requested that this project is funded in the current budget. 


There are various guidelines published in Australia that are appropriate to local government 

authorities. The Building Code of Australia 2010 is applicable to private property. The IPEWA 

Guidelines for Subdivisional Development 2009 is appropriate for roads. 


The funding of drainage infrastructure works approved in the 2011/12 Budget is:- 

Drainage Maintenance – regular cleaning, jetting and educting of drainage pits - 

$150,000. 

Drainage Inspection – inspection of 10km of network by CCTV each year - $30,000. 

Drainage Pit Rehabilitation – repair or replacement of old and damaged drainage pit as 

normal asset management - $58,900. (includes $8,900 carry forward from 2010). 

Drainage Pipe Rehabilitation – repair or replacement of old and damaged pipes as 

normal asset management - $104,400. (includes $24,400 carry forward from 2010). 

Drainage Improvement - additional soakwells, drainage pits and bunds to improve the 

capacity of the network $156,400 (includes $45,400 carry forward from 2010). 




The total funding available for drainage works in the 2011/12 Budget is $499,400 and this is 

now either spent or committed to the works listed in the table above "Year 0 - 2011/12 Budget. 

Additional funding for the three High Priority Projects is available in the current budget by 

deferring some footpath and road-work projects to the 2012/13 Budget, and using the funds for 

the drainage projects. 

The normal funding for Drainage Improvement work component is $110,000. It is proposed 

that a total funding of $1,344,000 is required over 3 years to address the immediate flooding 

issues (an average of $448,000 per year). It is proposed that all the priority 1 projects are 

carried out in Year 1 of the program with funding of $845,000. This includes the proposed 

$300,000 underground sump at 415 Cambridge Street. This extraordinary funding could be 

managed with a reduction in funding in the Road Works Program for the next 3 years. 


The recommendation in this report includes elements that will complement the Town's strategic 

direction, namely:- 

 

 

 

Ensure the Town has sound asset management strategies. 

Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure 

their sustainability for future generations. 

Environmentally sustainable practices for Town operations - Reducing our water 

consumption and improving the quality of ground water. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as 

"Inform". 

The Town has received verbal and written reports from residents following these storms and at 

site visits. An interim letter was sent to the residents to advise what actions were taking place. 

For each location, the affected residents will be notified of the proposed works prior to 

commencement of work through a letterbox drop. 

SUMMARY: 

The four recent storms in 2010 and 2011 have revealed that the stormwater pipe network 

cannot cope with storms that exceed a 10 year recurrence interval. A three year program of 

drainage improvements to address the locations that reported flooding is proposed. The first 

year of works for priority 1 works is proposed for $845,000 funding in the 2012/13 Budget. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Drainage Improvements Completed in Current 2011/12 Budget. 

2. Drainage Improvement Program for 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 Budgets. 






Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed Three Year Program (2012/13 to 2014/15) for Drainage Improvement, 

be endorsed for planning and budget considerations; 

the first year of the Three Year Program for Drainage Improvement be considered 

for funding in the Draft 2012/13 Budget; 

(iii) the two high priority projects in Keane Street and Ruislip Street are carried out in 

the 2011/12 Budget. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.3 

FIVE YEAR PROGRAM (2012/13 TO 2016/17) - NEW FOOTPATHS 


To review a Draft Five Year Program for new footpaths as a prerequisite to preparing the Draft 

2012/13 Budget. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council last reviewed the “Five Year Program for Footpaths” in December 2011 (Item 

CR11.153) and decided that:- 

"(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) for footpaths, as attached, be 

endorsed for planning and budget considerations; 

the first year of the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in the Draft 

2012/13 Budget; 

(iii) a program of new path construction to complete any missing links in the pedestrian 

routes for schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus stops be 

commenced as soon as possible". 

The following report reviews the location of new paths that complete missing links required by 

resolution (iii) for the pedestrian routes for schools, commercial centres, recreational centres 

and bus stops. 

DETAILS: 

The objective of Policy No.5.2.5 "Footpaths - Upgrading Of" is: 

To provide a footpath on both sides of a road carrying more than 2,000 vehicles per day 

(Distributor Roads) and one side of the road where there is less than 2,000 vehicles per day 

(Local Access Roads). 

The priorities for the 5 Year Footpath Program are currently:- 

1. Replace the network of old slab footpaths with concrete (cast insitu) paths. This will be 

completed in 5 years at the current rate of funding. 

2. Increase the width of paths to a minimum of 1.5 metres, and up to 2.0 metres if space is 

available on the verge. 

3. Install new paths if requested by residents or identified as a need. As reported previously 

in report CR11.153: 

"The proposed new paths are all sourced from requests from the community. These 

sections of path are estimated to require a total funding of $400,000 and have been 

spread over Year 1 and 2 so that funding of the footpath program is similar to the current 

budget. Years 3, 4 and 5 do not have any new paths listed because it is intended that 

main slab footpath replacement program is completed as the first priority. A program of 

new path construction will then follow based on extensive community consultation to 




complete any missing links in the pedestrian routes for schools, commercial centres, 

recreational centres and bus stops." 

To address the December 2011 Council decision (iii) and the objective of the Policy 5.2.4, a 

map, provided as an attachment to this report, has been prepared to show:- 

1. The location of all existing shared paths and footpaths. 

2. Roads without footpaths are not highlighted and are located mainly within Floreat and City 

Beach precincts. 

3. The missing links are highlighted in red on the map and are listed below. The list does not 

include shared paths that are proposed for funding in the Bike Plan program, such as 

Empire Avenue and Underwood Avenue. The list includes the new paths proposed for 

Year 1 and Year 2 in the previous report Item CR11.153 in December 2011. 

. 

4. A funding year in the Five Year New Footpath Program, based on perceived need for the 

new paths. The paths have been scheduled over 5 years with approximately $200,000 

expenditure each year. There are two paths with known public opposition which have been 

listed in Year 5 of the program, Ruislip Street and Kalari Drive. 

YEAR 1 2012/2013 

ROAD SECTION COMMENT COST $ 

*The Boulevard Selby St - Lissadell Shops, Tennis Courts, Preprimary 

$75,000 

St 

(Length 620m) 

Bent Street Yallambee - Year 1 of December program $55,200 

Chipping 

Crieff Street Year 1 of December program $12,600 

Dodd Street Daglish - Harborne Year 1 of December program $12,000 

Herdsman Parade Selby Street and Year 1 of December program $34,800 

Marlow Street 

TOTAL $189,600.00 

YEAR 2 2013/2014 


Barnsley Road Rochdale - Year 2 December Program. $28,800 

McClemans 

Cars parked next to verge 

Dampier Avenue Dodonia - Lowanna Beach (Length 221m) $27,000 

Frinton Avenue Branksome - Tennis Courts and park $26,000 

Boscombe 

(Length 210m) 

Teslin Road Rochdale - Year 2 December Program $26,400 

McClemans 

Cars parked next to verge 

Tilton Terrace Olinda - Baramba Year 2 December Program $90,000 

School Access 

TOTAL $198,200.00 




YEAR 3 

2014/2015 (New Missing Links) 


*Oceanic Drive Bold Park Dr - North of Oceanic Drive $80,000 

Scenic Dr 

(Length 650m) 

Cargen Crescent Kirkdale - Dumfries School and bus (Length $15,000 

110m) 

Halesworth Road 

Year 2. Include in Wembley $48,000 

Sports Park 

Lowanna Way Dampier - West Beach (Length 230m) $28,000 

Coast Hwy 

Turriff Road Moray - Pearson Shops (Length 190m) $23,000 

TOTAL $194,000.00 

YEAR 4 



*Grantham Street The Boulevard - Shops, bus and park (Length $130,000 

Crosby Street 1070m) 

Roscommon Road Glengariff - Ulster School, park, sports (Length $102,000 

850m) 

TOTAL $232,000.00 

YEAR 5 



*Ruislip Street Selby St - Marlow Residents not supportive. $41,000 

Deferred by Council 

November 2010 (Length 

340m) 

Berkeley Crescent Kirkdale -Grantham Residents not supportive $71,000 

(Length 590m) 

Fortview Road Rochdale - Residents not supportive $30,000 

McClemans 

(Length 240m ) 

Kalari Drive Kalinda - School Residents not supportive. $32,000 

Deferred by Council 

November 2003 (Length 

260m) 

TOTAL $174,000.00 

GRAND TOTAL $987,800 

* Distributor Roads 

There are two path links which have previously been considered at budget and subsequently 

removed from the adopted construction program following petitions from adjacent residents:- 

a) Kalari Drive - TS03.113 November 2003; and 

b) Ruislip Street - CR10.41 November 2010. 

The map indicates that there are many other local access roads without a footpath. Since 

these paths are not missing links to schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus 

stops, they may be considered for funding in 5 years time when the existing slab paths have 

been replaced with insitu concrete. 





The recommendation is in accordance with Council Policy No. 5.2.5 “Footpaths – Upgrading 

Of”. 


There are no Financial Implications related to this report other than consideration of setting 

appropriate levels of funding for the Draft 2012/13 Budget. 

The current 2011/12 Budget provides a total of:- 

 

 

 

$554,400 for upgrading 5.0 kilometres of slab footpaths; 

$93,000 for construction of 0.75 kilometres of new paths; and 

$500,000 for the new shared path program. 

Total funding is $1,147,000 for the current budget year. 

It is proposed that a similar total level of funding is adopted, so that the program of replacement 

of all slab footpaths can be completed over the next 5 years. The funding for new paths has 

been increased to $200,000 previously ($93,000) so that the missing links can be completed 

over the next 5 years:- 

 

 

 

$480,000 for upgrading of 4.6 km paths each year; 

$200,000 for construction of 1.6km new paths each year; and 

$500,000 for shared path program. 

Total proposed funding is $1,180,000 per year. 


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

 

 

 

Ensure the Town has good asset management strategies; 

Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure 

their sustainability for future generations; 

Maintain quality transport infrastructure, roads, footpaths, car-parks etc; and 

Use risk management strategies based on ISO 31000. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not 

Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in 

nature, with no external impacts envisaged until development of the Draft Budget for 2012/13. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Location of all Existing and Proposed New Paths. 

2. Location of all Proposed New Paths linking to Places of Interest. 





Prior to consideration of this item, Mayor Withers and Cr Langer, in accordance with Section 

5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the 

meeting at 6.20 pm. 

Cr Grinceri was elected Acting Presiding Member during Cr Langer's absence from the 

meeting. 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) for new footpaths, as detailed in 

the report, be endorsed for planning and budget considerations; 

the first year of the Five Year Program for new footpaths be considered for funding in the 

Draft 2012/13 Budget. 

During discussion, Cr Walker suggested that, in light of previous petitions submitted to Council 

in regard to a footpath in Bent Street, the residents of Bent Street and adjacent streets should 

be surveyed seeking their comment on the proposed path. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri 


(iii) 

a survey be conducted of residents of Bent Street and adjacent streets seeking their 

comment on the proposed footpath in Bent Street. 



Prior to consideration of this item, Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley and Langer, in accordance with 

Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and 

left the meeting at 7.32 pm. 

Cr MacRae was elected Acting Presiding Member during Mayor Wither's absence from the 

meeting. 

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That, in accordance with Section 5.68 of the Local Government Act 1995, Mayor Withers, 

Crs Bradley and Langer be allowed to be present at the meeting and to participate in 

discussions and the decision making procedure relating to the matter as it was 

considered that their interest is so trivial as to be unlikely to influence members. 

Carried 6/0 

Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley and Langer returned to the meeting at 7.34 pm. 






Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) for new footpaths, as detailed 

in the report, be endorsed for planning and budget considerations; 

the first year of the Five Year Program for new footpaths be considered for funding 

in the Draft 2012/13 Budget; 

(iii) a survey be conducted of residents of Bent Street and adjacent streets seeking 

their comment on the proposed footpath in Bent Street. 

During discussion, Cr Walker suggested that clause (iii) of the motion be amended to read as 

follows:- 

(iii) a survey be conducted of residents of Bent Street and adjacent streets, and where 

children who attend Holy Spirit School reside in the house, seeking their comment on the 

proposed footpath in Bent Street. 

In accordance with Clause 9.11 of the Standing Orders, the mover of the motion, with the 

consent of the seconder, amended the motion accordingly. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Langer 

That clause (iii) of the motion be deleted. 


For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, King, Langer, MacRae and Pelczar 

Crs Carr, Grinceri and Walker 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) for new footpaths, as detailed 

in the report, be endorsed for planning and budget considerations; 

the first year of the Five Year Program for new footpaths be considered for funding 

in the Draft 2012/13 Budget. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.4 

HARROGATE STREET - PARKING EMBAYMENTS PROPOSAL 


To advise Council of the proposal to improve the parking facilities in the verge area in 

Harrogate Street adjacent to lot numbers 23 and 28. 

BACKGROUND: 

Harrogate Street in the section between Oxford Close and Cambridge Street has designated 

verge paid parking controlled by ticket machines on both sides of the road. The northern verge 

was paved and line marked in 2009 together with the resurfacing of Oxford Close. The 

southern verge was brick paved by the adjacent property owners about twenty years ago and 

has functioned as a verge parking area with limited control for both safety and amenity. 

Requests have been received from the adjacent property owners and lessees to upgrade this 

area to the same standard as that on the opposite side of the road, to better delineate the 

parking embayments and prevent vehicles from obstructing the adjoining footpath. 

They have raised concerns about mounting the kerb to park and the possibility to overdo the 

force needed to mount the kerb and strike pedestrians. 

DETAILS: 

It is proposed to construct a bitumen surfaced parking area on the verge section of Harrogate 

Street which is currently brick paved. 

The construction will include the removal of the existing kerbing to create a smooth transition 

for vehicles driving on and off the road. In addition, a raised kerb will be installed adjacent to 

the footpath to act as a barrier to prevent vehicles mounting the footpath and impeding the 

passage of pedestrians. 

These details are indicated on Plan No. E297-11-01 included as an attachment to this report. 

Parking embayments will be clearly line marked to appropriate Australian Standards. This will 

result in a total seven general car parking bays and one disabled parking bay. Currently, up to 

ten cars have been noted to park in this area in an uncontrolled manner. This, however, has 

often compromised the ability of drivers to enter or leave their vehicles. The proposed 

configuration will overcome these difficulties. 

It is recommended that approval, be granted for the amount of $25,000 to be included in the 

2012/2013 draft budget submission to Council for construction of the verge parking facilities in 

Harrogate Street. 

Subject to Council approval these works could be carried out in conjunction with the proposed 

resurfacing of Harrogate Street. 


The proposed verge parking construction improvements conform with Policy No. 5.2.22(7), 

Parking Restrictions - Standards, which indicates:- The parking space and signage shall 

conform to the following:- 




- The Road Traffic Code 2000 

- Local Government Act 1995 

- Council Local Laws 

- Australian Standards 

- Austroads Standards 

- Main Roads Act 1930 


The estimated cost of construction of the parking embayments in Harrogate Street is $25,000. 

It is proposed that this amount be placed for consideration in the 2012/13 draft budget 

submission for approval by Council. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 under priority area "Delivering Our Services" indicates 

strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc.) 


This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy as "Inform" 

with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist 

them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions." 

The proposed works were considered following both written and verbal requests from owners 

and lessees of the adjacent properties. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan No. E297-11-01 - Harrogate Street Parking Bays. 

2. Photographs of current parking situation in Harrogate Street. 




That:- 

(i) the construction of parking bays in Harrogate Street as indicated on Plan No. E297- 

11-01 be endorsed; 

(ii) 

the amount of $25,000, being the estimated cost of construction, be included in the 

2012/13 draft budget submission for approval by Council. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.5 

EMPIRE AVENUE/DURSTON ROAD - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRESS 

REPORT 


To advise Council on progress, in conjunction with the City of Stirling, on the design of 

alternatives to a roundabout at the intersection of Empire Avenue and Durston Road. 

BACKGROUND: 

The construction of traffic management measures at the intersection of Empire Avenue and 

Durston Road was first considered by Council on 26 February 2008 (Item IC08.1) when it 

decided in part that :- 

"(ii) 

the development of the intersection of Empire Avenue/Durston Road be reviewed, in 

conjunction with the City of Stirling and the adjacent residents, and a proposal be 

submitted for Council consideration." 

Following a further report (Item IC08.35) considered on 27 May 2008, Council decided that:- 

"(i)(a) a roundabout and adjacent service road be designed and discussed with the City of 

Stirling and adjacent residents, at the intersection of Empire Avenue and Durston 

Road". 

Further reports on this matter were considered by Council on 27 July 2010, 27 September 2011 

and 28 July 2011. 

At the 26 July 2011 meeting (Item CR11.88) Council agreed that alternatives to constructing a 

roundabout at the intersection of Empire Avenue and Durston Road be considered and a 

further report be submitted to Council. 

Since most of the previous design reviews were carried out to satisfy the requirements of City 

of Stirling residents, it was considered that ideally they should liaise with their own Council to 

arrive at a modified design, which would satisfy them and address the traffic safety issues at 

the intersection. 

DETAILS: 

The City of Stirling has advised that they are prepared to progress with the design of alternative 

proposals for the intersection of Empire Avenue and Durston Road and following discussion 

between officers of the Town of Cambridge and the City of Stirling it was agreed that:- 

 

 

The City of Stirling is to engage Porter Consultants to prepare concept plans for various 

road treatment options. The cost of preparing concept plans will be shared equally by 

both Councils. 

The agreed options will include:- 

(1) Channelisation of all three intersection approaches; 

(2) Change of Priority for Durston Road south into Empire Avenue west; 




(3) Change of Priority for Durston Road south into Empire Avenue east; and 

(4) Oval slow point on Durston, approximately 70m south of Empire Avenue. 

 

 

Upon completion of the concept plans, and subject to final agreement of the concept 

plans by both Councils, Cambridge will provide City of Stirling with the contact details of 

its residents on Durston Road and the southern side of Empire Avenue. City of Stirling 

will then undertake consultation with affected residents on Durston Road and both sides 

of Empire Avenue between Buxton Road and Valley Road. 

Further consideration of the project will be undertaken by the City of Stirling and the Town 

of Cambridge based on the treatment preferred by the majority of respondents to the 

consultation. 

A further report will be presented to Council on completion of the public consultation process. 


Both Durston Road and Empire Avenue are designated District Distributor (B) roads in the 

Town's Hierarchy. 

Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - Road Design Standards applies where "design and construction to be 

compatible with best modern practice and design". 


There has been no provision made in the 2011/2012 budget for traffic management works at 

the intersection of Empire Avenue and Durston Road. 

The cost of any proposal adopted after the public consultation can be submitted for 

consideration by Council in the 2012/2013 draft budget submission. 

All costs will be shared equally between the Town of Cambridge and the City of Stirling. 


The Town's strategic Plan 2009/2020 under priority area "Delivering our Services" indicates 

strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc.). 


The matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "inform" with the 

objective, "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in 

understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 





That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposal for the City of Stirling to progress the design of alternate traffic management 

treatments at the intersection of Empire Avenue and Durston Road including public 

consultation be endorsed; 

a further report on completion of the public consultation on the design outcomes and 

costings be presented to Council. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Carr 

That clause (i) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

(i) 

the proposal for the City of Stirling to progress the design of alternate traffic management 

treatments (1) to (4), as detailed in the report, at the intersection of Empire Avenue and 

Durston Road be endorsed. 





That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposal for the City of Stirling to progress the design of alternate traffic 

management treatments (1) to (4), as detailed in the report, at the intersection of 

Empire Avenue and Durston Road be endorsed; 

a further report on completion of the public consultation on the design outcomes 

and costings be presented to Council. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.6 

CROMARTY ROAD - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 


To advise Council of proposals to install traffic speed management devices in Cromarty Road 

and remove a previously constructed raised median strip east of Crieff Street. 

BACKGROUND: 

Cromarty Road is a boundary road between the Town of Cambridge and the City of Stirling 

running east-west from Pearson Street to Empire Avenue. 

The southern side has always been occupied by residential properties while the northern side 

was, until three years ago, the site of the Edith Cowan University Churchlands Campus (ECU). 

While the ECU was operative, a number of traffic management measures were constructed to 

control traffic speed, street parking and vehicular turning movements. These were 

implemented in the main to improve the safety and amenity of the adjoining residents within the 

Town's area. 

The ECU Campus has now relocated and the area has been redeveloped as a housing estate. 

The volume and nature of traffic using Cromarty Road has changed considerably and with the 

completion of a number of residences fronting the road, requests have been received from 

residents on the northern side for traffic calming measures to be implemented near the entry 

from Empire Avenue, to reduce the speed of vehicles as they approach the crossovers to the 

new houses. This same request has been made to the City of Stirling. 

A request has also been received from residents on the southern side of Cromarty Road and 

east of Crieff Street for the raised median strip in front of their properties to be removed. The 

strip was originally constructed to control the traffic flow coming from the ECU Campus. 

The purpose for this construction no longer exists and the residents' access to their properties 

will be greatly improved by its removal as it will allow all vehicular movements to be reinstated 

and not be limited to left in, left out. 

DETAILS: 

Following consultation and liaison with the City of Stirling, it has been proposed to construct two 

rubberised speed cushions spaced approximately 20 metres apart positioned within the left turn 

lane from Empire Avenue into Cromarty Road. The first cushion would be positioned at the 

start of the left turn lane so that it is clearly visible when approaching from the southbound 

lanes of Empire Avenue. The second cushion would be required to ensure motorists do not 

simply accelerate after traversing the first cushion. The resulting speed reduction of vehicles 

will provide residents with greater time to safely reverse from their driveways. Also, given that 

the speed cushions will be installed within the left turn lane and away from the residential 

properties, any noise impact on the residents will be minimised. 

It was agreed that the proposed measures would be designed by the City of Stirling and 

submitted to Main Roads WA for signage and line marking approval. Construction would be 

carried out by the City of Stirling with the Town contributing 50% of the estimated cost of 

$8,000. 




A plan of this proposal is included as an attachment to this report. 

On the issue of the removal of the raised median east of Crieff Street, and adjacent to house 

numbers 23, 25 and 27 Cromarty Road, it was agreed that this work would be carried out by 

the Town and costs shared with the City of Stirling. It is estimated that the cost of removal will 

be approximately $1,000 with each Council contributing $500. 


Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - Road Design Standards, indicates that "design and construction be 

compatible with best modern practices and designs". 

Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995, adjoining municipalities are to 

combine on the care and maintenance of common boundary roads. 

Main Roads WA approval is required for signage and line marking. 


The Town's contribution for the estimated cost of construction is $4,500. This can be 

accommodated within the provisions made in the 2011/2012 budget. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Inform" with the 

objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in 

understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions". The proposed works have been 

considered following written and verbal requests from directly affected residents. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan No. TDE 077 (City of Stirling) - Proposed Installation of Rubberised Speed 

Cushions. 

2. Photograph of median island layout. 




That:- 

(i) 

the installation by the City of Stirling of speed reducing cushions at the 

intersection of Empire Avenue and Cromarty Road as indicated on Plan No. TDE 

077 (City of Stirling) be endorsed; 

(ii) the removal of the raised median strip in Cromarty Road adjacent to house 

numbers 23, 25 and 27 be approved; 




(iii) Costs associated with the installation of speed reducing cushions and removal of 

raised median strip in Cromarty Road, estimated at $9,000, be shared equally 

between the Town and the City of Stirling. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.7 

HORNSEY ROAD - TRAFFIC ISLAND AND SPEED PLATEAU AT OCEANIC 

DRIVE 


To obtain approval for the construction of a traffic splitter island together with a raised speed 

reducing plateau at the intersection of Hornsey Road and Oceanic Drive. 

BACKGROUND: 

Hornsey Road is a residential street in the vicinity of the Floreat Forum Shopping Centre. 

Following the realignment of Floreat Avenue to a "left in - left out" configuration at its 

intersection with Oceanic Drive, an increasing number of motorists are using Hornsey Road 

and Newry Street to access the car park at the southern end of the shopping centre. The 

recorded traffic volumes have increased from 642 vehicles per day in June 2002 to 1040 

vehicles per day in March 2010. 

The Town has received several requests from residents for traffic calming measures to be 

implemented in the section of Hornsey Road from Oceanic Drive to Newry Street to prevent 

motorists corner cutting when entering right from Oceanic Drive into Hornsey Street and 

accelerating dangerously in the short distance to Newry Street. 

DETAILS: 

It is proposed to construct a traffic splitter island at the Hornsey Road - Oceanic Drive 

intersection to direct traffic entering from Oceanic Drive to the correct side of Hornsey Road 

without corner cutting and conflicting dangerously with vehicles exiting from Hornsey Road into 

Oceanic Drive. 

In addition, a slightly raised speed reducing plateau will be constructed at the intersection to 

indicate a slower speed environment and actively require motorists to moderate their entry 

speed. 

These details are indicated on Plan No. E174-12-01 included as an attachment to this report. 

The estimated cost of construction is $20,000 for which provision has been made in the 

2011/2012 Works Budget. 

It is recommended that approval be granted for the traffic splitter island and speed reducing 

plateau construction works to proceed. 


The proposed traffic splitter island construction together with the speed reducing plateau 

conform with Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - Road Design Standards which indicate that, "design and 

construction be compatible with best modern practice and design". This proposal has been 

submitted to Main Roads WA for line marking and signage approval. 





The 2011/12 Budget includes an amount of $20,000 to construct a traffic island at the 

intersection of Hornsey Road and Oceanic Drive. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 under priority area "Delivering Our Services" indicates 

strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc). 


This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy as "Inform" 

with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist 

them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions". 

All affected residents will be advised of the proposed works and offered the opportunity to 

discuss any issues or concerns with officers of the Town. 

There are no modifications to street parking or property access required as a consequence of 

the proposed works. 

The proposed works were considered following both written and verbal requests from residents. 

A site meeting was conducted with a number of Hornsey Road residents where options for 

traffic management and safety improvements were discussed and agreed for submission to 

Council for approval. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan No. E174-12-01 Hornsey Road - Splitter Island 




That approval be granted for the construction of a traffic splitter island and speed 

reducing plateau at the intersection of Hornsey Road and Oceanic Drive as indicated on 

Plan No. E174-12-01. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.8 

CITY BEACH CIVIC CENTRE - LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT 


To consider proposed landscape improvements, in the gardens surrounding the City Beach 

Civic Centre building in Templetonia Crescent, City Beach. 

BACKGROUND: 

The City Beach Civic Centre building is leased to the West Coast Bridge Club with annual 

building maintenance contributions of $12,706 from the Club and $25,473 from the Town in 

accordance with the agreed lease. This lease expires 30 June 2031. 

The lease agreement includes the building, the carpark, the small gardens surrounding the 

building and a larger garden to the north of the building as shown in blue outline on the aerial 

photograph included in the report as attachment 1. 

A previous report to Council (GC10.24) has made reference to the long term planning 

possibilities for this site and the site due west, where the City Beach Pre-Primary and Infant 

Health buildings are located. Whilst no planning decisions have been formalised, it is 

envisaged the site could be redeveloped at a higher density than the surrounds and include a 

renewed civic component. It is envisaged that the current local planning strategies 

development (housing, recreation) would provide further direction. 

The Town maintains the gardens outside the lease boundary and this report is in relation to 

these gardens. 

The gardens are approximately 1 hectare in size and include areas of lawn within and on the 

verge outside the Civic Centre and extensive garden beds with trees and shrubs within the 

three tiered Toodyay stone retaining walls. These walls are a significant feature of the gardens. 

There are also 16 security lights within the garden beds and lawn areas. 

The gardens and lawn are irrigated and connected to the central control irrigation system. The 

gardens are classed as water wise and the lawn receives 50% less water than a sportsground 

and the garden beds 75% less. 

The gardens outside the lease boundary, including the road reserves, surrounding the Civic 

Centre are maintained with an annual budget allocation this financial year of $11,300. The 

majority of these funds are spent on mowing, irrigation maintenance, trees and shrubs 

maintenance and weed control within the garden beds. 

DETAILS: 

A recent assessment of the landscaping identified that the garden beds are infested with shrub 

and tree weeds such as the Asparagus ferns and Peppercorn trees. These trees, due to their 

aggressive ability to sucker, have commenced damaging the Toodyay stone wall. 

One of the problems in maintaining the gardens within the retaining walls is that they have been 

designed with only access from the ends of each retaining wall tier. Due to the heavy 

vegetation cover, this access is not possible so they are virtually impossible to maintain in their 

current state. 




The Peppercorn trees and some other damaging trees were removed from these gardens in the 

last two years at a cost of $21,000, ($9,000 in 2010/2011 and $12,000 this financial year 

2011/2012). The Asparagus ferns and other unsuitable shrubs have not yet been removed and 

some of the existing trees, such as the Rottnest Island Tea Trees, also need to be re assessed 

for removal or pruned to clean them up. There are no funds currently allocated in 2011/12 to 

undertake this work. 

Removing the tree weeds has now exposed a significant section of the Toodyay stone retaining 

wall as well as the damage the trees have caused to it, as seen in the photographs included in 

the report as attachment 2. Although this damage to the wall does not pose any safety issues it 

looks aesthetically poor, particularly the section along Templetonia Crescent and if not repaired, 

it could compromise the structural integrity of the wall sometime in the future. The retaining 

walls need to remain and be kept intact because they serve the purpose of retaining the land to 

make use of the site. 

The 16 security lights located within the garden's beds and lawn have also been assessed. 

They are over 30 years old, are of an old technology and should be upgraded. An assessment 

of their requirement should be undertaken particularly now that the Bridge Club has installed 

floodlights on the outside of the building. This assessment could conclude that the lights should 

be retained and upgraded/replaced, or reduce their numbers and upgrade/replace those that 

are required, or remove them all and not replace them. 

There are various options that could be explored in improving the landscape for the site 

including:- 

 

 

 

 

Produce a new landscape plan for the gardens within the three tiered Toodyay stone 

walls; 

Assess the effective and safe operation and/or requirement of the 16 security lights; 

Reassess the need for the internal and external lawn areas; 

Improve the utilisation of the internal lawn area. 

As Council has not commenced any long term planning possibilities for this site, these options 

are not considered worthy of immediate consideration. It is however recommended 

consideration be given to the following items which are aimed at improving the appearance of 

the gardens, without drastically changing the landscape and cause the least amount of 

disruption, would include the following works: 

 

 

Undertake further weed/tree removal to improve aesthetics and remove roots causing wall 

damage where possible (estimated cost $15,000); 

Repair wall where required. There is a local stone mason in the Town which the Town 

has used to repair the Toodyay stone wall at City Beach Park (estimated cost $15,000); 

Plant trees and shrubs in gaps and mulch (estimated cost $10,000); 

 

 

Undertake an intensive weed control program (about 2 years) to prevent further wall 

damage and to eradicate existing persistent weeds such as the Asparagus ferns and the 

Peppercorn tree sprouts (estimated cost $10,000 per year); 

Assess the effective and safe operation and/or requirement for the 16 security lights in 

terms of retaining them, or reduce their numbers and replace those that are required. 

The cost for these works (with the exception of the lights) is estimated at $50,000 in the first 

year (2012/2013) and $10,000 in the second (2013/2014), but will depend on actual quotations 

received for Toodyay stone wall repairs. 




It is recommended that the proposed alternate landscape works, aimed at improving the 

appearance of the gardens, without drastically changing the landscape and to undertake repairs 

to the Toodyay stone walls be costed and listed in the 2012/2013 draft Budget. 

However, until these funds are endorsed by Council next financial year (2012/13), weed control 

works are required to be undertaken between now and in order to control the Peppercorn tree 

suckers and other weeds that are continually growing. To facilitate these works, it is 

recommended that and amount of $6,600 from existing Budget Item "Kilkenny Park Maintain 

Bore and Pump", (which has been completed) be reallocated to the existing Budget Item "City 

Beach Civic Centre Upgrade Garden". 

It is also recommended an assessment be undertaken on the effective and safe operation 

and/or requirement of the security lights in terms of retaining them and upgrade/replace them 

with new lights or reduce their numbers and upgrade/replace those that are required, or remove 

them all and not replace them. Costs in relation to any works identified on the security lights 

will be listed in the 2012/2013 draft Budget. 


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


Once costs are finalised, the proposed landscape works outlined in this report will be listed in 

the 2012/2013 draft Budget. 


This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

 

Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; 

Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure their 

sustainability for future generations. 


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, 

consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no 

external impacts envisaged. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Aerial photograph of lease boundary. 

2. Photographs of retaining wall damage and existing garden and lawn areas. 







That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed landscape improvement works aimed at improving the appearance of 

the gardens and repairs to the Toodyay stone walls be costed and listed in the 

2012/2013 draft Budget for Council consideration; 

an assessment be undertaken on the effective and safe operation and/or 

requirement of the security lights and the cost of any works identified be listed in 

the 2012/2013 draft Budget for Council consideration; 

(iii) to facilitate weed control works this financial year, an amount of $6,600 be 

reallocated from Budget Item "Kilkenny Park Maintain Bore and Pump", be to 

Budget Item "City Beach Civic Centre Upgrade Garden". 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.9 

WASTE MANAGEMENT - POLICY REVIEW 


To review Council's Policies on Waste Management and recommend updates and/or changes 

that may be required:- 

5.3.1 Waste Removal Service - Residential Properties 

5.3.2 Waste Removal Service - Commercial Businesses 

5.3.3 Waste Removal Service - Verge Collection 

BACKGROUND: 

In accordance with Council Policy 1.2.1, Council policies are to be reviewed and updated as 

necessary every two years and within six months of local government elections. This review, 

on a regular basis ensures policies reflect current operating practices. 

Policies relating to waste collection within the Town have been reviewed and are to be adopted 

to ensure the efficient and effective management of waste. Minimisation of waste produced is 

essential to reducing costs and providing an effective recycle collection strategy. 

Policies presented 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 residents' enquiries as soon as possible. The policy manual is not prepared as 

a reference manual of solutions to all problems that Council may be requested to investigate. 

Where changes have been affected, text to be deleted has been struck through and any 

additional text proposed has been underlined as detailed in the report attachment. 

These policies were last reviewed in report CR11.103 August 2011 when the new Green Waste 

Service was introduced and some service issues resulting from the budget process were 

included. 

The attachments also include separate documents showing the proposed amended version of 

each policy. 

DETAILS: 

Separate waste management policies are in place for:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

No. 5.3.1 Residential Properties; 

No. 5.3.2 Commercial/Business Premises; and 

No. 5.3.3 Special Clean Up From Verges. 

The policies which have required the most significant updates and changes relate principally to 

Waste Removal Services - Residential Properties and Waste Removal Services - 

Commercial/Business Premises. 




These changes are required to reflect the initiatives taken within the last two years including but 

not limited to:- 

- the provision of the preferred option for a 120L Mobile Garbage Bin (MGB) for general 

waste in lieu of a 240L MGB; 

- the provision of the option (free of cost) of an additional 240L recycling MGB or a 360L 

recycling MGB for residential properties only; 

- the differential charging strategy dependant on the optional selection of bin sizes; 

- clarification that "all plastics" are acceptable for recycling; 

- inclusion of an option to request the provision of a 240L bin specifically for "green waste" 

and clarification of acceptable green waste material; and 

- management of the bin database to accommodate various new customer requests. 

When these policies are adopted, a further report can be prepared to reflect proposed Waste 

Fees for the 2012/13 Budget. 

These policies allow administration of the waste collection service provided by the Town which 

is summarised as follows:- 

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY 

 

 

 

 

 

General Waste - Provide a red lidded bin. Preferable is a 120L, but a 240L is available. 

Weekly collection - All bins provided will be at a set fee for various bin sizes. 

Recyclables - Provide a yellow lidded bin. A 240L or 360L bin is available. 

Fortnightly collection - Properties can have 2 x 240L bins at nil cost and further bins are 

available at a set fee for various bin sizes. 

Green Waste - Provide a lime green lidded bin on request only. A 240L bin is provided. 

Fortnightly collection - All bins requested are provided at a set fee based on the size of 

the existing general waste bin. 

Multi Residential bin allocations are based on criteria to be assessed on site. 

Properties are permitted to exchange the 120L or 240L General Waste bin once per 

financial year at nil cost. Subsequent changes will require payment of a set fee. 

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY 

 

 

 

 

General Waste - Provide a red lidded bin. Preferable is a 120L, but a 240L is available. 

Weekly collection - All bins provided will be at a set fee for various bin sizes. 

Recyclables - Provide a yellow lidded bin. One 240L or 360L bin is available. 

Fortnightly collection - Properties who request additional bins will be provided with bins at 

a set fee. 

Green Waste - Provide a lime green lidded bin on request only. A 240L bin is provided. 

Fortnightly collection - All bins requested are provided at a set fee. 

Multi unit properties will have bins allocated based on criteria to be assessed on site. 




VERGES 

Council conducts a removal service twice per year. Generally collections are in March/April 

and September/October each year. 

Materials are sorted into either Green Waste or General Junk. 

Hazardous and E-Wastes are to be collected in a separate process. 


Policy Nos. 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 are relevant. 


Based on the policy review, allowance will be made in the draft 2012/2013 budget for the 

provision of increased recycle/waste capacity to Town notable properties, provision of "green 

waste" service and provision of general waste service. 


These policies provide guidance to administration and community on Council's decisions on 

waste management which reflect the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020. 


No consultation is required as this review is administrative. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Policy Nos. 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 with track changes. 

2. Policy Nos. 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 final. 




That:- 

(i) 

Council Policies numbered 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 as amended be endorsed and changes 

be incorporated into the Town's Policy Manual. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.10 QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE - PROPOSED STAGE COVER FEEDBACK AND 

FUTURE STAGE 1 CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM 


To provide feedback from the Quarry Amphitheatre major stakeholders in relation to the stage 

cover and other planned capital works and outline a proposed capital and maintenance 

program for the venue. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Draft Quarry Amphitheatre (QA) Feasibility Study Report was presented to Council at its 

meeting on 22 November 2011. The report that was completed by Hames Sharley was useful 

as it identified the scale of maintenance and staged minor capital development works required 

to bring the venue up to contemporary standards and better meet the needs of hirers and 

patrons. Their advice supported other asset maintenance reports and an amount of $400,000 

was included in the 2011/2012 Budget for capital improvement works (funded from the 

Endowment Lands Account) and $36,000 for maintenance works. 

DETAILS: 

Council at its meeting held on 22 November 2011 received the Hames Sharley Quarry 

Amphitheatre feasibility report. Concern was raised in relation to the proposed stage cover and 

further consultation with the major stakeholders was requested. 

A meeting was held on 8 December 2011 with a number of major stakeholders specifically: 

1. Western Australian Ballet 

2. Lloyd Events 

3. Ballet Workshop Incorporated; and 

4. The Rotary Club of Cambridge 

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed stage cover (Dome) and other 

planned capital works as there was conflicting information regarding the Dome amongst the 

stakeholders. The conclusion at the end of the meeting was that stakeholders unanimously 

agreed that they did not want a permanent stage cover at the Quarry Amphitheatre (contrary to 

feedback in the Hames Sharley report). They further concurred that a large clear roof marquee 

that could be erected during the off peak season for private functions would be preferable as 

this would have no impact on the ticketed events. There were other comments made related to 

operational issues of the venue and they requested Council endorsement for recurrent 

consultation regarding any major future development of the venue. 

During the stakeholder meeting, other capital improvement works identified as key priorities 

included, but not limited to: 

1. Improved lighting; 

2. Additional seating; and 

3. New Tarkett (stage floor cover). 




Storage and improved access from the café to stage area (identified in the Hames Sharley 

report) was also raised. Although not given a high priority by the stakeholders, these capital 

improvements works were required from an Occupational Health and Safety perspective and 

would improve the management efficiency of the venue. 

Taking these comments into consideration plus other capital works identified in the Hames 

Sharley report, an overview of the proposed budget expenditure is provided as an attachment. 

The proposed works will enhance the facility for hirers and patrons. Furthermore, it would 

generate additional income particularly from non-ticketed private functions such as weddings. 

The overall cost to complete the works is approximately $420,000 and will be undertaken over 

two (2) financial years. Some minor work can be completed before the end of this financial 

year. However major works cannot commence until the peak season ends in April 2012. The 

proposed works would not detract from major structural works associated with the office 

accommodation and toilet facilities. 

It is recommended that a consultant is appointed to assist in the design of a number of the 

improved capital works items including proposed new seating, lighting, storage and 

access/pathway. 

Long Term 

As alluded to in CR11.45 (November 2011) the office, toilet block and pergola suffered termite 

damage. Although remedial works have been completed, a more holistic view needs to be 

determined in relation to these facilities. An amount of $1.1 million was identified by Hames 

Sharley for new office accommodation, toilet block and interpretive centre. In addition, 

significant costs were identified in relation to additional parking ($1.5 million for 100 bays). 

Due to the significant capital cost and lack of substantiation by Hames Sharley this was not 

supported by the Town. As previously mentioned in CR11.45, a consultant should be appointed 

to assist the Town in determining/critiquing the necessity and design of these facilities. 

Although this view was not supported at the November 2011 meeting, it should be further 

examined. 


Policy No. 2.1.18 - Facility Safety 


An amount of approximately $435,000 was included in the 2011/2012 Budget ($35,000 

maintenance and $400,000 capital works). 

The proposed works outlined total approximately $422,000 and would be undertaken over two 

(2) financial years. 


The Draft Quarry Amphitheatre feasibility study and consequent stakeholder meeting assists in 

meeting a number of key priority areas of the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, specifically: 

Planning for Our Community 

Delivering Our Services 





Consultation was undertaken with a number of key stakeholders during the compilation of the 

Draft feasibility report, as well as a stakeholder workshop on 8 December 2011 held after the 

draft report was presented to Council in November 2011. 

SUMMARY: 

There is no support for a permanent stage cover at the QA by the major stakeholders. 

However, an alternative large clear roof marquee that can be erected during the off-season is 

supported. A number of other capital items identified in the Hames Sharley report have also 

been itemised and will be undertaken during the next two (2) financial years. These capital 

improvements provide a number of benefits including: 

Meets the needs of major stakeholders; 

Improve operational efficiency; 

Improve safety standards; 

Creates more opportunity to hire venue; and 

Increase gross revenue by approximately 20%. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Proposed Stage 1 Quarry Amphitheatre Capital Works 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

no permanent stage cover be installed at the Quarry Amphitheatre; 

the following capital works be undertaken during the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 financial 

years: 

QUARRY CAPITAL WORKS 

FINANCIAL YEAR 

ITEM COST 2011/12 2012/13 

1 Replace stage $70,000 $70,000 

2 Cavern membrane $50,000 $50,000 

Lighting Ground support with 

3 Gantry $90,000 $90,000 

4 

Re-terrace rows ABC for extra 100 

seats $20,000 $20,000 

5 Clear Roof 10m x 20m Marquee $22,000 $22,000 

6 Access from Café to Stage $45,000 $45,000 

7 Side of stage storage room $60,000 $60,000 

Additional Lighting, Audio & New 

8 Tarkett $25,000 $25,000 

9 Consultant $40,000 $40,000 

TOTAL $422,00 $137,000 $285,000 

(iii) a Consultant be appointed to assist the Town in: 




(a) 

(b) 

design work in relation to 3, 4, 6 and 7 above; and 

the future office accommodation, toilets, parking and other associated facilities, 

subject to a business case. 


During discussion, Members were advised that the Perth City Ballet (Incorporating Ballet 

Workshop) requires a sprung stage at the Quarry Amphitheatre. 

The Western Australian Ballet for a number of years uses a temporary sprung floor at the 

Quarry Amphitheatre for their ballet season. The sprung floor is owned by the Department of 

Culture and Arts and when not being used at the Quarry Amphitheatre is housed at the Kings 

Street Arts Centre. 

The Western Australian Ballet will move to their new premise in Maylands in early March 2012 

which has a permanent sprung floor. The Western Australian Ballet has suggested that we 

approach the Department of Culture and Arts about the possibility of the temporary sprung floor 

being stored and managed at the Quarry Amphitheatre by the Town in return for local 

community groups such as Perth City Ballet having access to the sprung floor. 

Members agreed that a further report be submitted to Council detailing a revised scope of 

works and costings, including the cost of a temporary and permanent sprung stage. 

Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

That the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 


the following capital works be undertaken during the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 financial 

years: 



ITEM COST 2011/12 2012/13 

1 Replace stage surface $70,000 $70,000 



3 Gantry $90,000 $90,000 

4 Re-terrace rows for extra 100 seats $20,000 $20,000 





8 Tarkett $25,000 $25,000 

9 Consultant $40,000 $40,000 

TOTAL $422,00 $137,000 $285,000 

(iii) 

a Consultant be appointed to assist the Town in: 




(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

design work in relation to capital works outlined in the above table (exception of 

Item 5 - Clear Roof Marquee); 

the future office accommodation, toilets, parking and other associated facilities, 

subject to a business case; 

specifying an appropriate stage; 

(iv) the Department of Culture and Arts be approached regarding the use of WA Ballet's 

sprung floor; 

(v) 

a further report be submitted to Council with a revised scope of works and costings, 

including the cost of a permanent sprung stage. 





That:- 

(i) 


(ii) the following capital works be undertaken during the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 

financial years: 



ITEM COST 2011/12 2012/13 

1 Replace stage surface $70,000 $70,000 



3 Gantry $90,000 $90,000 

4 

Re-terrace rows for extra 100 

seats $20,000 $20,000 





8 Tarkett $25,000 $25,000 

9 Consultant $40,000 $40,000 

TOTAL $422,00 $137,000 $285,000 

(iii) 

a Consultant be appointed to assist the Town in: 

(a) 

design work in relation to capital works outlined in the above table (exception 

of Item 5 - Clear Roof Marquee); 

(b) the future office accommodation, toilets, parking and other associated 

facilities, subject to a business case; 




(c) 

specifying an appropriate stage; 

(iv) the Department of Culture and Arts be approached regarding the use of WA 

Ballet's sprung floor; 

(v) 

a further report be submitted to Council with a revised scope of works and budget, 

including the cost of a permanent sprung stage. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.11 ACCESS AND INCLUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - 24 

JANUARY 2012 


To present the minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) meeting held 

on Tuesday 24 January 2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Terms of Reference for the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) state that the 

minutes of meetings are to be presented to Council so as to form part of the public record of 

Council business. The Advisory Committee is constituted as a Council Committee with an 

Elected Member as Chairperson. 

DETAILS: 

The Minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee held on Tuesday, 24 January 

2012 are attached. 


Policy No. 2.1.5 – Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms of Reference. 

Policy No. 2.1.2 - Access to Services and Facilities for People with Disabilities, their 

families and carers. 

Disability Services Act (1993). 


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. 


The Disability Access and Inclusion Plan strongly supports a number of the business 

philosophies of the Town’s 2009–2020 Strategic Plan, namely:- 

 

 

 

Community Centered; 

Sustainability, and; 

Enhanced Services. 

It further supports a number of the Town’s priority areas:- 

 

 

 

Planning for your Community; 

Delivering our Services, and; 

Capacity to Delivery. 


In accordance with Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation is not required. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Minutes of Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Meeting – 24 January 2012. 


(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 


That the Minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee meeting held on 

Tuesday 24 January 2012 be received. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.12 

COMMUNITY SECURITY PATROLS 


To consider the introduction of a community security patrol within the Town of Cambridge. 

BACKGROUND: 

A petition signed by 386 people requesting the Town to fund and establish community security 

patrols was received by Council (via the Community and Resources Committee) at the 20 

December 2011 meeting. Of the 386 people, 348 resided within City Beach (90%), 7 from 

Wembley (2%), 16 from Floreat (4%) and 15 resided outside of the Town (4%). 

Community security patrols have been mentioned in despatches in a number of previous 

reports to Council (CCS06.59 and IC08.11) and during the development of the Town's 

inaugural 2008 Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan. The development of the plan 

incorporated the conduct of community safety and crime survey (undertaken during the month 

of June). The purpose of the survey was to identify crime and community safety issues 

requiring action and to enable local residents to comment directly on how they believe 

community safety strategies should be targeted. A total of 710 respondents responded to the 

survey. A total of 27 respondents requested some form of security patrol, 86 respondents 

requested more police presence and 23 respondents requested more ranger presence. 

Community Crime profiles and statistics was also captured within the Community Safety and 

Crime Prevention Plan. Statistics revealed the level of crime within the Town was less than the 

Central Metropolitan area (19.8% compared to 40.3%) and less than Western Australia (19.8% 

compared to 29.3%). 

The Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan was reviewed and updated in 2011, 

including up dated Community Crime profiles and statistics which reveal that for 2009/2010, the 

level of crime within the Town continued to be less that the Central Metropolitan area (16% 

compared to 32.1%) and less than Western Australia (19.8% compared to 23.2%). 

Nevertheless, the trigger to examine the possible introduction of community security patrols 

within the Town is the 386 signature petition received from residents within the Town. 

DETAILS: 

Community Security patrols have emerged over the past 5 -10 years in a number of Local 

Governments, predominantly in the larger metropolitan Councils. 

1. Other Local Governments 

Of the thirty (30) metropolitan Local Governments, 13 provide a community security patrol and 

17 do not. Further details are provided as Attachment 1. 




In relation to the potential cost to fund and establish a community security patrol within the 

Town, a review of seven (7) Local Government operating security patrols was undertaken, 

specifically: 

1. City of Belmont 

2. City of Melville 

3. City of Wanneroo 

4. City of Cockburn 

5. City of Stirling 

6. City of Joondalup; and 

7. City of Rockingham 

Costs vary from $556,000 to $2.2 million and consideration needs to be taken in relation to the 

location, size, actual hours in which the service is provided and whether or not it is undertaken 

in-house or out-sourced. The frequency of security patrols within the Council's respective 

suburbs will vary on the number of vehicles associated with the service and the number of 

incidents that occur. Nevertheless several assumptions have been made to ascertain the 

number of patrols per day per road in each local government. Specific details are outlined in 

Attachment 2. 

Four (4) Local Governments fund their security patrols through a service charge levy and the 

other (3) Local Governments fund their security patrols through rates. 

Details are provided in Attachment 3. 

2. Western Suburb Councils 

Contact was also made with other neighbouring Western Suburb Local Governments (Subiaco, 

Nedlands, Claremont, Cottesloe, Peppermint Grove and Mosman Park) who advised they do 

not have community security patrols. Their respective Community Safety and Crime Prevention 

Plans focus on community education and engagement strategies with a number of similar 

programs as the Town implemented, specifically: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neighbourhood Watch 

Child Restraint Fitting 

Safety House 

Party Safe Guidelines 

Eyes on the Street 

Graffiti Removal 

Constable Care; and 

Business Beat (soon to be implemented) 

3. Indicative Costs for Town 

The cost to implement a community security patrol in the Town will vary on the hours of 

operation and whether or not the Town delivers the service in-house or out-source. Further it 

would be the intention if community security patrols were introduced that it would cover the 

entire Town and not be suburb specific, i.e. City Beach. The seven (7) Local Governments 

highlighted in Table 1, split their respective geographical area into specific zones with staff 

allocated to each zone. In relation to the Town, the possible zones could be based on the 

Coast Ward and Wembley Ward. 

A break-down cost estimate of approximately $820, 000 in establishing community security 

patrols in the Town both in-house and out-sourcing is provided as Confidential Attachment 4. 

The cost has been based on a 24 hour, seven day a week service. 




It would appear that there are disadvantages and advantages to the introduction of community 

security patrols within the Town, specifically: 

Advantages 

 

 

 

Act as a deterrent due through their physical presence 

Ability to gather evidence; and 

Perception of comfort to residents. 

Disadvantages 

 

 

 

Cost 

Not a substitute for police and cannot respond to criminal offenses; and 

No substantiated evidence indicating that security patrols minimises crime. 

Although there are both advantages and disadvantages, the cost alone is difficult to justify. 

Further there is debate as to whether this is a state government or local government 

responsibility. Although there is available funding for various community safety initiatives from 

state government, there is no funding towards the operational costs associated with community 

security patrols. 

It is recommended that the Town continue to implement various strategies outlined in the 

Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan, where five (5) main priorities were identified. 

Specifically: 

 

 

 

 

 

Reduce Residential Burglary 

Decrease levels of graffiti and vandalism 

Reduce antisocial behaviour 

Increase education and awareness of community safety and crime prevention; and 

Decrease levels of theft from motor vehicles 

The Town has been successfully in securing funding to undertake many crime prevention 

programs to address the above issues, with the ultimate aim of providing a more secure 

environment for its residents. Some of these programs have included the undertaking of a 

Community Safety and Lighting Audit at its parks and reserves. This audit revealed that 

improved lighting and carefully CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) 

concepts in public areas can significantly enhance community safety, perception of safety and 

reduce the incidence of crime and anti-sociable behaviour. An example is the Perry Lakes 

(south) toilet that will soon be demolished, located closer to the playground and designed in 

accordance with CPTED principles. 

Recently the Town has also commenced a quarterly Community Safety newsletter to keep all 

residents up to date on Community Safety and Crime Prevention issues and programs that are 

running in the Town. The aim of the newsletter is to educate residents and provide access to 

as much information as possible on crime prevention strategies that they can undertake 

themselves both when at home and when away from their place of residence. 

The Town has also introduced the new free 'Graffiti Safewipes' packs for residents. It has been 

proven that the most effective control of graffiti comes from its timely removal. This way if 

residents find that their property has been vandalised with graffiti and they have a 'Graffiti 

Safewipes' pack on hand they are able to remove the graffiti in a timely manner. This program 

has been introduced to complement the very successful graffiti removal service provided by the 

Town. 




Further, the Town has also recently purchased a Mobile Variable Message Board to promote 

community safety and crime prevention messages in visible locations throughout the Town, 

including recently at the Floreat Beach and City Beach car parks. 


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


If Council was to introduce a Community Security Patrol, 24 hours per day, seven days per 

week, the approximate cost would be $820,000, or $75 per rate payable property 

($820,000/10,907) or equivalent to a 4% rate increase. 


2011-2013 Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan. 


If Council was contemplating implementing a community security patrol, it is suggested that the 

local residents and businesses be consulted to gather their support for this service and funded 

by a ratepayer levy. In addition what level of support received from the community would 

warrant the expenditure of approximately $820,000. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Metropolitan Local Governments Security Patrols 

2. Number of patrols per day per road comparisons 

3. 7 Local Governments Community Security Patrol Costs 

4. In- House and Out-Source of Community Security Patrols costs (Confidential) 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

a Community Security Patrol not be introduced within the Town; 

the Town act as advocates for the community by lobbying the State Government 

for more police officers within the Town; and 

(iii) the Town continue to implement various strategies in the Community Safety and 

Crime Prevention Plan. 

Carried 6/3 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae and Pelczar 

Crs Bradley, Carr and Walker 




CR12.13 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - DECEMBER 2011 AND JANUARY 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 two months. 


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-December-2011 02-December-2011 42199 - 42261 $136,958.85 




Municipal Fund 04-January-2012 06-January-2012 42530 - 42612 $222,104.96 




Golf Course 01-December-2011 30-December-2011 00260 - 00263 $2,628.42 

Golf Course 01-January-2012 31-January-2012 00264 - 00274 $2,221.25 

Total Cheque Payments $2,274,561.64 

(ii) 

ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S) 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Investments 01-December-2011 31-December-2011 Inv 379 - Inv 382 $3,363,485.08 

Investments 01-January-2012 31-January-2012 Inv 383 - Inv 386 $3,733,000.00 

Direct Bank Charges 01-December-2011 31-December-2011 Sup 138 - Sup 140 $81,848.29 

Direct Bank Charges 01-January-2012 31-January-2012 Sup 141 - Sup 142 $24,297.02 

Accounts Payable 01-December-2011 02-December-2011 E 5735 - E 5736 $46,153.85 





Accounts Payable 03-January-2012 03-January-2012 E 5926 - E 5983 $121,981.64 


Accounts Payable 09-January-2012 09-January-2012 E 5989 - E 5995 $0.00 





Golf Course 01-December-2011 12-December-2011 E 0095 - E 0097 $90,608.54 



Golf Course 05-January-2012 05-January-2012 E 0100 - E 0100 $41,514.37 




Payroll 01-December-2011 31-December-2011 Pay 378 to Pay 387 1,529,466.85 

Payroll 01-January-2012 31-January-2012 Pay 388 to Pay 396 1,036,137.84 

Total EFT Payments $12,699,107.93 

TOTAL PAYMENTS $14,973,669.57 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.14 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - JANUARY 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 February 2012 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia against market expectations 

decided not to reduce the cash rate. 

The Reserve Bank indicated it may not cut interest rates further unless the local economy 

slumps stating that a more optimistic economic global outlook was one of the bank's reasons 

for keeping interest rates on hold. 

Although the global economic outlook looks currently more promising with China's economy still 

robust and the United States beginning to show signs of a moderate recovery, the European 

sovereign debt crisis still continues to cause uncertainty. Most forecasters expect global growth 

to continue to slow throughout the forthcoming year to as low as 2.3%. 

On the local economy, the mining industry continues to perform strongly although other industry 

sectors such as retail continue to remain weak. Unemployment continues to remain close to 

five per cent. Inflation is expected to remain between the Reserve Bank's target of 2 to 3% not 

taking into account any effect from the carbon tax to be introduced in July. 

In terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term of 

two to three months are around 5.5% and 5.6%. Interest rates for securities for periods greater 

than six months are between 5.5% and 5.9% with the major Australian banks. 

The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day 

period) was 4.68% for January 2012. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of 

future interest rates) was 4.34% at 31 January 2012. As the Council’s investment portfolio is 

predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 4.25% for January 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 5.75%. The weighted average investment period 

of 151 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates (with the 

major Australian banks) for this period which were an average of 5.6%. 




Investment Portfolio Performance for January 2012 

The graph below shows the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 

12 month period January 2011 to January 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 January 2011 to January 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 January 2008. 

Interest Rates 

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance 

For January 2008 to January 2012 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jul-10 Oct-10 Jan-11 Apr-11 Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12 

Weighted Avg Interest 

90 UBS Bank Bill Index 




The total investment at the end of January 2012 is $27.1 million which consists of Municipal 

Funds of $14.6 million, Reserve Funds of $2.8 million and Endowment Lands Funds of $9.7 

million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from January 

2011 to January 2012. 

Millions 

30 

Investment Portfolio 

28 

26 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Jan 11 Feb 11 Mar 11 Apr 11 May 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Jan 12 

Reserves Endowment Municipal 




The investment performance as at the end of January 2012 is as follows: 

Term 

(Days) Rating 

Current 

Interest 

Rate 

January 2012 

Income 

Floating Rate Notes . 

Total Amount 

Invested 

% of 

Funds 

Invested 

ANZ Subordinated Debt "AA-" 4.82% $2,047 $496,588 1.83% 

Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 5.05% $4,057 $955,253 3.52% 

Sub-total $6,104 $1,451,842 5.36% 

Term Deposits and Bank Bills 

ING - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 5.94% $5,200 $1,049,772 3.87% 

ING - Term Deposit $4,932 

ING - Term Deposit $2,466 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 5.80% $2,562 $527,178 1.94% 


BANKWEST - Term Deposit 95 "A1+" 5.85% $4,968 $1,014,425 3.74% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 138 "A1+" 5.65% $389 $82,288 0.30% 






BANKWEST - Term Deposit 98 "A1+" 5.85% $240 $1,500,240 5.53% 

NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 5.68% $10,946 $2,293,351 8.46% 

NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.83% $4,083 $830,251 3.06% 

NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.81% $2,659 $543,187 2.00% 

NAB - Term Deposit 5.99 "A1+" 5.99% $5,087 $1,007,057 3.72% 

NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.79% $4,918 $1,020,305 3.76% 

NAB - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 5.80% $159 $1,000,159 3.69% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 185 "A1+" 5.79% $10,130 $2,093,647 7.72% 


WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.75% $3,809 $796,343 2.94% 


StGeorge - Term Deposit 150 "A1+" 5.70% $1,488 $310,412 1.15% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 5.83% $4,952 $1,025,396 3.78% 

St George - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 5.89% $3,075 $736,075 2.72% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 153 "A1" 5.75% $2,442 $510,476 1.88% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit $1,965 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 152 "A1" 5.87% $10,968 $2,226,889 8.22% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 151 "A1" 5.87% $3,739 $758,323 2.80% 

Sub-total $121,439 $25,653,990 94.64% 

70.38% 

Total Investments $127,543 $27,105,831 100.00% 

Weighted Average 151 5.80% 





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 

Jan 2011 % 

Budget 

2011/2012 

Actual as at 

Jan 2012 % 

General * $544,500 $409,250 75.2% $607,000 $464,790 76.6% 

Reserves $304,200 $166,332 54.7% $160,000 $69,240 43.3% 

Endowment Lands $576,400 $338,548 58.7% $419,900 $382,876 91.2% 

Total Investments $1,425,100 $914,130 64.1% $1,186,900 $916,906 77.3% 

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $43,685 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 - January 2012 




That the Investment Schedule as at 31 January 2012 forming part of the Notice Paper be 

received. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.15 MID YEAR BUDGET REVIEW 2011/2012 


To report on the mid year review of the budget and assess the financial performance for the six 

month period ended 31 December 2011, consistent with good governance principles and the 

requirements of the Local Government Act 1995. 

BACKGROUND: 

Under Regulation 33A of the Financial Management Regulation 1996, Council is required to 

conduct a budget review of its adopted annual budget after considering changes in its operating 

environment since the beginning of the financial year with a view to forecasting the financial 

impacts likely to arise for the remainder of the year. 

The following tasks have been undertaken: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

conducting an assessment of material variances to determine whether they are permanent 

or timing differences; 

identify any offsetting increases in income or reductions in expenditure that will help reduce 

major variances; 

establish whether the budget review process and recommendations have a material impact 

on the long term plans; 

establish whether at the close of the financial year there is sufficient working capital to meet 

current commitments before the following year’s budget is adopted; 

identify projects that may not be completed and which will need to be carried forward into 

the new financial year for inclusion in the following year’s budget; 

identify grants and contributions received that are likely to remain unspent at the close of 

the financial year. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

Revised 

Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD YTD Forecast 

2011/2012 31-Dec-11 31-Dec-11 

Variance 

$ 

Variance 

% 30-Jun-12 

CASH (SURPLUS)/DEFICIT 

FROM OPERATIONS 

(4,966,200) (12,258,500) (13,427,831) 1,169,331 -9.5% (5,595,600) 

CAPITAL (SURPLUS)/DEFICIT 16,327,000 1,766,000 1,584,526 181,474 10.3% 6,335,400 

(SURPLUS)/DEFICIT FROM 

OPERATING AND CAPITAL 

11,360,800 (10,492,500) (11,843,305) 1,350,805 -12.9% 739,800 

CLOSING FUNDS 2,100 (12,879,600) (15,471,248) 2,591,648 -20.1% 392,277 




The following commentary should be read in conjunction with the revised rate setting statement 

contained in attachment one. 

Operations - after adjustment for non cash movements, the surplus from operations is 

estimated to be $629k more than budget. This is attributable to an decrease in fees and 

charges of $260k mainly attributable to the Wembley Golf Course, an increase in interest 

earnings of $250k and operating subsidies and contributions of $112k reduced salaries and 

wages, $130k reduced materials and contracts expenditure, $398k, predominantly related to a 

small number of specific works, which will be carried forward. 

Capital Revenue - from non operating grants and contributions will be $110K less than budget, 

a result of grants not being received this financial year for projects being carried forward into 

the 2012/2013 financial year. 

Capital Expenditure - has been reduced by $10.1 million, largely due to the City Beach Surf 

Clubrooms and Commercial (Design and Build) building project with a $9.2 million project 

budget of which only $100K will be spent this year. 

Reserve and Endowment Lands Account Transfers - net draw down on reserves and 

Endowment Lands Account has decreased by a net $10 million, primarily due to a reduced 

transfer from the Endowment Lands Account of $9.1 million associated with the funding for City 

Beach Surf Clubrooms and Commercial (Design and Build). 

Carry Forwards - the amount of funds estimated to be carried forward for 2012/2013 is 

estimated to be $652K. The main projects contributing to this amount is capital project "West 

Leederville Road Works" ($100k) and operating programs swimming pool inspection fees 

($120k) and the Town Planning Scheme ($70k). 

Forecast Surplus/(Deficit) - The final surplus/(deficit) brought forward from the previous year 

is $271k less than estimated. Added to the forecasted 2011/2012 result, the predicted year end 

position is a deficit of $392k. 

DETAILS: 

The notes in Attachment 1 set out the detail the significant variations between the original 

adopted budget and the budget forecast for the end of the financial year and provide 

explanations for these variations. 

The review of the adopted budget has taken into account what has transpired over the first six 

months of the year, the likely operating environment over the remaining six months under the 

prevailing economic conditions and the likely impact this will have on the Town's financial 

operations. 

The focus of the review has been on ensuring there is sufficient capacity to deliver the services 

and programs within the current 2011/12 adopted budget and to accommodate Council 

decisions and events that have arisen since the budget was adopted in July 2011. 

Estimated Year End Financial Position for 2011/12 

The estimated deficit for year end of $392K represents 0.2% of the Town's total operating and 

capital budget (excluding non cash items). 




Areas of operation and capital which have contributed this overall position are as follows: 

Budget Line Item 

Increase 

Municipal Interest Earnings $70,000 

Parking Ticket Machine Revenue $39,000 

Beach Life Guard Contract Expenditure increase ($60,000) 

Compliance Officers Salaries Decrease $130,000 

Wembley Golf Course ($300,000) 

Carry Forward Deficit 2010/2011 ($271,000) 

Total ($392,000) 

Details of these adjustments are outlined in the attachment to this agenda. 

Funds Carried Forward from 2010/2011 Financial Year 

At the time of the adopting the 2011/12 budget the opening balance used in the budget rate 

setting statement was $3,747,200 representing funds for carry forward works not completed 

during the 2010/2011 financial year and grants received in advance. 

After the financial statements were finalised, the balance of funds available to be carried 

forward was $3,475,900 leaving a shortfall of $271,300. This was due to a deficit from 

Wembley Golf Course operations for the year that could not be funded from Reserve funds. 

Carry Forward Works for 2012/13 

Carry forward operating and capital projects funded by rates of around $652,200 have been 

identified for the 2012/2013 financial year at this time. The following main operating and capital 

projects contribute to this amount: 

West Leederville - Traffic management to local streets $100,000 

Swimming Pool Inspection Program $120,000 

Street Trees Inventory $77,300 

Town Planning Scheme Review $70,000 

Treescape Plan - Priority Streets Improvement Program $45,000 

Footpath - Oceanic Drive (Scenic -West Coast Hwy) $40,000 

Total 452,300 

Budget Amendments and Reallocations 

The following requests for budget amendments have been received. The details for these 

requests are in the attachments to this report. 

Details Budget Adjustment Amended 

Budget 

Capital Expenditure - City Beach Surf 

Clubrooms and Commercial (Design & 

Build) 

Endowment Lands Account Funds Transfer - 

City Beach Surf Clubrooms and Commercial 

(Design and Build) 

$9,200,000 ($9,100,000) $100,000 

($9,200,000) $9,100,000 ($100,000) 

Capital Expenditure - Wembley Golf Course $166,000 ($61,000) $105,000 





Budget 

Hospitality 

Wembley Golf Course Reserve Funds 

Transfer - Hospitality 

($166,000) $61,000 ($105,000) 

Wembley Golf Course - Green Fees $3,386,100 ($300,000) $3,086,100 

Capital Expenditure - Waste Management - 

Purchase of 120 Litre Domestic Bins 

Waste Management Reserve Funds Transfer 

- Purchase of 120 Litre Domestic Bins 


Purchase of 360 Litre Recycling Bins 

Operating Expenditure - Waste Management 

- Purchase of 360 Litre Recycling Bins 

Capital Expenditure - Road Surfacing - 

Cambridge St (Pangborne - Harborne) 


Dampier Ave (Templetonia - Lowanna) 

Capital Expenditure - Road Surfacing - Hay 

Street (Selby - Boundary) 


Cardigan Tce (Boundary - Halesworth) 

Capital Expenditure - Road Works - 

Underwood Avenue - Footpath and Kerb 


Southport Street - Crossing at Tower Street 

Operating Expenditure - Administration 

Building - Council Kitchen Replace/Fix Tiles 

Capital Expenditure - Buildings - 

Administration Building - Acoustic Shielding 

for Air Conditioning 

Operating Expenditure - Contract Beach 

Inspections 

$0 $123,000 $123,000 

$0 ($123,000) ($123,000) 

$0 $51,000 $51,000 

$51,000 ($51,000) $0 

$137,800 $44,500 $182,300 

$157,500 ($44,500) $113,000 

$133,600 $22,400 $156,000 

$22,400 ($22,400) $0 

$50,000 $10,000 $60,000 

$10,000 ($10,000) $0 

$0 $6,000 $6,000 

$12,000 ($6,000) $6,000 

$250,000 $60,000 $310,000 

Interest on Investments - Municipal $600,000 $70,000 $670,000 

Interest on Investments - Reserve $160,000 ($60,000) $100,000 

Reserve Funds Transfer from Operations - 

Interest 

Interest on Investments - Endowment Lands 

Account 

Endowment Lands Account - Funds Transfer 

from Operations - Interest 

Operating Revenue - Planning - Developer 

Parking Contributions 


Developer Parking Contributions 

($160,000) $60,000 ($100,000) 

$419,900 $240,000 $659,900 

($419,900) ($240,000) ($659,900) 

0 $112,000 $112,000 

0 ($112,000) ($112,000) 





Budget 

Operating Expenditure - Compliance Officers 

- Salaries 

160,000 ($130,000) $30,000 


The Local Government Act (1995), Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. 

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 

33A, which has effect as from 1 July 2005, expands on this requirement to include an annual 

budget review to be carried out between 1 January and 31 March for each financial year. The 

intention is to ensure local governments conduct at least one budget review each financial year. 

This report complies with this requirement. 

In accordance with the Regulations, the results of the budget review are to be submitted to 

Council within thirty days of the review being completed. Council is then required to consider 

the results of the review and determine whether or not to adopt the review, any part of the 

review or any recommendations made in the review. As per Regulation 33A, a copy of both the 

review and Council’s determination are then to be provided to the Department of Local 

Government within thirty days. 

The Town’s Budget Implementation and Management Policy 3.2.2 states that: 

It is the function and duty of the Chief Executive Officer to cause Council decisions to be 

implemented and manage the day-to-day operations of the Town. To ensure the Chief 

Executive Officer has the capacity to undertake this role, the Chief Executive Officer may 

reallocate funding to accommodate over expenditure variances. The reallocation of funds shall 

result in a revised budget for the purpose of producing the monthly financial report and 

accordingly be reported as a permanent variance. 

The Chief Executive Officer may authorise expenditure over a revised budget to a maximum of 

$50,000. In all other instances, authority from Council shall first be obtained. 

As some of the budget amendments are greater than $50,000, the amendments are submitted 

to Council for approval. Note that an Absolute Majority is not required as the budgets are not for 

an additional purpose. 


The projected budget for year end indicates a deficit position of ($392). 


The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal of financial 

sustainability, by ensuring the Town's expenditure is matched by its revenue. 


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: 

1. Summarised Statement of Financial Activity as at 31 December 2011 and notes 

accompanying the statement. 

2. December 2011 Wembley Golf Course Operations Report (confidential) 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the report on the mid year review of budget for the 2011/2012 financial year be 

received and the variances to the budget be noted; 

the following amendments to the budget be approved:- 


Budget 

Capital Expenditure - City Beach Surf 

Clubrooms and Commercial (Design & 

Build) 

Endowment Lands Account Funds Transfer - 

City Beach Surf Clubrooms and Commercial 

(Design and Build) 

Capital Expenditure - Wembley Golf Course 

Hospitality 

$9,200,000 ($9,100,000) $100,000 

($9,200,000) $9,100,000 ($100,000) 

$166,000 ($61,000) $105,000 

Wembley Golf Course Reserve Funds 

Transfer - Hospitality 

($166,000) $61,000 ($105,000) 

Wembley Golf Course - Green Fees $3,386,100 ($300,000) $3,086,100 


Purchase of 120 Litre Domestic Bins 

Waste Management Reserve Funds Transfer 

- Purchase of 120 Litre Domestic Bins 


Purchase of 360 Litre Recycling Bins 

Operating Expenditure - Waste Management 

- Purchase of 360 Litre Recycling Bins 

$0 $123,000 $123,000 

$0 ($123,000) ($123,000) 

$0 $51,000 $51,000 

$51,000 ($51,000) $0 





Budget 


Cambridge St (Pangborne - Harborne) 

$137,800 $44,500 $182,300 


Dampier Ave (Templetonia - Lowanna) 

Capital Expenditure - Road Surfacing - Hay 

Street (Selby - Boundary) 


Cardigan Tce (Boundary - Halesworth) 


Underwood Avenue - Footpath and Kerb 


Southport Street - Crossing at Tower Street 

Operating Expenditure - Administration 

Building - Council Kitchen Replace/Fix Tiles 

Capital Expenditure - Buildings - 

Administration Building - Acoustic Shielding 

for Air Conditioning 

Operating Expenditure - Contract Beach 

Inspections 

$157,500 ($44,500) $113,000 

$133,600 $22,400 $156,000 

$22,400 ($22,400) $0 

$50,000 $10,000 $60,000 

$10,000 ($10,000) $0 

$0 $6,000 $6,000 

$12,000 ($6,000) $6,000 

$250,000 $60,000 $310,000 

Interest on Investments - Municipal $600,000 $70,000 $670,000 

Interest on Investments - Reserve $160,000 ($60,000) $100,000 


Interest 

Interest on Investments - Endowment Lands 

Account 

Endowment Lands Account - Funds Transfer 

from Operations - Interest 

Operating Revenue - Planning - Developer 

Parking Contributions 


Developer Parking Contributions 

Operating Expenditure - Compliance Officers 

- Salaries 

($160,000) $60,000 ($100,000) 

$419,900 $240,000 $659,900 

($419,900) ($240,000) ($659,900) 

0 $112,000 $112,000 

0 ($112,000) ($112,000) 

160,000 ($130,000) $30,000 

(iii) 

a further report be presented to Council recommending budgets which may be 

reduced to offset the forecast deficit. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.16 

MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - JANUARY 

2012 

MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - JANUARY 2012 


To review the financial position for the period ended 31 January 2012 and to comment on both 

permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on 

financial results. December 2011 financial statements are also available for viewing. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures 

against the year to date budget. 




I. Executive Summary 

The following observations are made: 

Operating Revenue 

Operating revenue year to date is $31 million compared to budget of $32 million, giving 

an unfavourable variance of $1 million. Significant variances are as follows: 

 

 

 

 

Fees and charges below budget by $500k due to the impact of green fees revenue 

from the Wembley Golf Course under budget by $200k. 

Operating grants and subsidies $100k under budget due to grants for road 

infrastructure non capital works, mainly upgrade of traffic signals funded by Main 

Roads, not as yet claimed. 

Gain on disposal of assets $680k under budget due to delay with land sales, given 

the current lack lustre property market 

Interest earnings are $182k above budget due to municipal interest $84k and 

Endowment Lands Account interest $136k above budget, offset by reserve interest 

($24k) under budget. 

Operating Expenses 

Operating expenses year to date is $20 million compared to budget of $21.5 million, 

giving a favourable variance of $1.5 million. The only significant variance contributing to 

the budget underspend is: 

Materials and Contracts with actual expenditure of $6.1 million against year to 

date budget of $7.6 million, giving a variance of $1.5 million. Expenditure 

programs such as road infrastructure non capital works ($293k),contract 

swimming pool inspection ($86k), town planning scheme review ($65k), 

sustainability programs($69k), road reserves non capital works ($30k, and parks 

grounds non capital works ($68k) all contribute to this variance. 

Net Operating Result 

The net operating result from operations is $10.7 million compared to year to date budget 

of $10.5 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 




Cash Surplus 

The surplus as at 31 January 2012 is $13.3 million which is above the year to date 

budget of $11.5 million, a $1.7 million difference. The surplus is predominantly due to a 

time lag with: 

 

 

the various operating programs such as swimming pool inspections ($86k),Town 

Planning Scheme Review ($66k), road infrastructure non capital works ($293k), 

road reserve expenditure ($100k) all under budget. 

capital projects such as road works funded from general funds ($86k) and road 

surfacing ($259k) under budget. 

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 

Capital Works Programs 

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period 

ended 31 January 2012 is $3.9 million against year to date budget of $5 million, a 

variance of $1.1 million. 

A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows: 

 

 

Buildings - $0.5 million against year to date budget of $0.7 million with a 

favourable variance of $0.2k. No major variations exist with the building capital 

works program. 

Parks and Reserves expenditure is $0.6 million in line with year to date budget. 




 

Roads and lanes - $1.1 million against year to date budget of $1.4 million a 

favourable variance of $0.3 million. Road works project 

"Railway/Parade/Kimberley Street - relocate services for roundabout" currently 

under budget by $75k having the largest variance in the program. 

Capital works projects are very much seasonally influenced with major road works being 

carried out during summer. 

Material Variances 

A list of permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k are listed in 

the attached schedule. 

VI. 

Budget Reallocations 

No budget reallocations or adjustments have been 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 - January 2012 

2. Statutory Management Financial Statements - 31 January 2012 

3. Budget Variation Report 

4. Wembley Golf Course Operations Report - January 2012 (Confidential) 







That the report on the Financial Statements as at 31 January 2012 be received and the 

variances to the budget be noted. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.17 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 15 DECEMBER 2011 


To report on items considered at the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) Ordinary Meeting 

held on 15 December 2011. 

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: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phase 1 Fauna relocation complete, 

Phase 1 Grass tree and Zamia Palms relocation complete, 

Phase 1 clearing and mulching complete, 

Biodiversity Conservation Area construction fencing complete, 

Bulk Earthworks 85% complete, 

Lot Preparation 40% complete; 

Stage 1 Civil Works – Sewer construction 20% complete. 

Sustainability Initiatives Plan 

Approval was given to the use of the following sustainability initiatives Stage 1: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Third Pipe (non potable water supply system) - $3,500 per lot allowance; 

Waterwise landscape package - $4,500 per lot allowance 

Solar panels rebate - $2,000 per lot allowance; 

Fibre Optic service - $1,000 per lot allowance; 

Community Development - $1,200 per lot allowance; and 

Waste recycling (housing construction) - $2,000 per lot allowance 

The third pipe system provides for the use of grey/storm water for reticulating gardens and 

possibly flushing toilets and washing laundry. This is subject to further planning and approvals. 




Display village lots tender and allocation 

Tenders were considered and awarded on the basis of capacity to meet market demand, 

building design, sustainability credentials, innovation and financial capacity. A number of 

prominent and boutique Perth Builders were successful, supporting a number of differentiated 

building brands. 

Stage 1 land release to private purchasers 

The meeting discussed the land sales terms and conditions and had specific discussion on 

elements of the proposed design guidelines and incentive packaging. The meeting approved 

the contract documentation, annexures and supporting documents. 

Project cashflow review – July 2011 to December 2011 

The meeting noted that a delay in the sales release has required a revision to the projected 

cashflow - predominantly a timing issue. As details are confidential, further information is 

available for Elected Members on request. 

Other items of business considered by the meeting include:- 

• Statement of Financial Activity for the month of August 2010 

• List of Monthly Accounts submitted for the month of August 2010 

• Internet & communication services tender 

Power of Attorney 

In August last year, the TPRC has written to the Owners seeking the appointment of the TPRC 

as Attorney to dispose of the land. 

Whilst the Establishment Agreement provides for the TPRC “to undertake, in accordance with 

the objectives, the rezoning, subdivision, development, marketing and sale of the Land”, the 

TPRC consider the Power of Attorney necessary to avoid any potential issues in the future 

associated with land dealings for the project. 

Council decided that: 

the Town grants to the Tamala Park Regional Council the Power of Attorney to sell and 

deal with any part or parts of the Land, described as Lot 9504 (comprising of Certificate 

of Title Volume 2230, Folio 334), which comprises or will comprise a lot or strata lot 

under or by virtue of the Transfer of Land act 1893 and the Strata Titles Act 1985. 

Subsequent legal advice obtained by the TPRC has resulted in a revised POA document to that 

which was previously supplied to the Town and attached to the August 2011 report to Council. 

The intent of the document remains and it is brought to Councils attention to note. 


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 


During discussion, the Mayor asked whether the Tamala Park Regional Council had arranged 

credit to underwrite cash flow during the initial construction phase and lot release of the project. 

This question was taken on notice. 

Subsequently, the Chief Executive Officer of Tamala Park Regional Council has advised that 

he is currently investigating a range of financing options, including an overdraft facility (up to $5 

million) with the four major banks and that a report to the Council (TPRC) to authorise the 

facility would be required. 




That the report relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meeting of the Tamala Park 

Regional Council held on 15 December 2011 be received. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.18 

JOAN WATTERS CENTRE LEASE RENEWAL TO THE YMCA OF PERTH 


To seek authority to lease the Joan Watters Centre for a further 5 year term under maintenance 

agreement lease for a proposed annual maintenance contribution (in lieu of rent) of $15,000 

per annum. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Joan Watters Centre is located at 183 Jersey Street Wembley. The Centre is constructed 

upon a 1004m² parcel of land owned freehold by the Town and is currently zoned Parks and 

Recreation. 

Prior to 2001, the Town operated a day care centre and decided to tender out the building for 

the provision (and management) of out of school care and occasional care programs (Item 

CCS01.70). 

Subsequently, at its September 2001 meeting, Council awarded the lease of the Joan Watters 

Children Centre to the YMCA of Perth on a peppercorn basis for a period of five years, with a 

five year option, effective from 1 February 2002 (Item CCS01.108). 

The lease provides for the tenant to assume responsibility for maintenance generally and 

permits the use for: 

"a day care centre for the conduct of before and after school vacation and occasional 

care programmes for the care of school aged children." 

The lessee has sub-let the building to a private business known as 'Tiddly Winks' who pay rent 

to the YMCA of Perth of approximately $16,000 per annum. 

The current lease agreement expired on 31 January 2012 and the tenant and sub tenant 

continue to occupy the building under the hold over clause of the lease. 

The tenant has verbally indicated that they wish to enter into a new lease agreement with the 

Town for the continued use of the building. 

DETAILS: 

A property inspection was carried out on the building by CT Management in September of 

2010, with a 10 year maintenance program being subsequently developed as a result. A 

provisional allowance for maintenance over a 10 year period for the building is estimated at 

around $118,000; however, there is a significant amount of maintenance required to the 

building in the first 5 years in order to deal with the current backlog of maintenance. 

A more recent property inspection was carried out on the building by the Town's Building 

Maintenance Officer and concluded that the building was in poor condition with several 

maintenance items identified requiring attention. 




The lease agreement refers to the YMCA's obligations to keep and maintain the building in 

good and tenable repair and condition. However, it is evident that maintenance has not been 

maintained to the standard expected by the Town. To address this situation the Town has 

proposed two possible options for the terms of the future lease as follows: 

Option 1 

Option 2 

That the YMCA pays an annual maintenance fee over the term of the lease to 

cover the maintenance works which will be carried out on the premises by the 

Town of Cambridge. 

That the YMCA carries out maintenance works as per the maintenance program 

over the term of the lease with quarterly inspections being conducted by the 

Town to ensure that maintenance works have been completed to the satisfaction 

of the Town of Cambridge. 

The tenant has verbally advised the Town that option 1 is the preferred option moving forward 

with a new lease agreement. 

The use of the building as a child care/after school centre is still considered a reasonable 

application of a Town asset, providing a convenient community service. This service should 

continue to be supported on the basis it has no impact on the ratepayer, other than the use of a 

local government asset; and more importantly to ensure there is sufficient childcare services to 

meet the needs of the growing population and the change in population demographics (more 

families) in the area. 


In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Functions and General) 

Regulations 1996, Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act does not apply. This enables the 

Town to enter directly into a lease with the YMCA, being required to tender, hold a public 

auction or provide notice. 

Dispositions of property to which section 3.58 of the Act does not apply. 

(1) A disposition that is described in this regulation as an exempt disposition is 

excluded from the application of section 3.58 of the Act 

(2) A disposition of land is an exempt disposition if- 

(b) 

The land is disposed to a body, whether incorporated or not 

(i) the object of which are charitable, benevolent, religious, cultural, 

educational, recreational, sporting or other like nature; and 

(ii) the members of which are not entitled or permitted to receive any 

pecuniary profit from the body's transaction. 


Sufficient provision has been built into the proposed maintenance contribution to cover both 

planned maintenance and minor contingencies. Major structural defects would have to be 

borne by the Town, but maintenance inspections reveal no apparent defects. An amount of 

$15,000 will be set aside annual to undertake the maintenance activities. 





This report embraces the following strategy of the Towns strategic plan 2009 - 2020: 

To develop partnerships with other service providers, aiming to improve delivery and quality of 

services. 


This matter has been assessed under the community consultation policy no 12.11 and is not 

required as the matter is administrative in nature. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Nil 


That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Town lease the Joan Watters Centre, located at 183 Jersey Street Wembley, to the 

Young Men's Christian Association of Perth (YMCA) for a further 5 year term under a 

maintenance agreement lease, for an annual contribution of $15,000 per annum; 

the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise all other terms and conditions 

(including the sub lease) and execute the Lease Agreement. 


During discussion, Members agreed that a further report be prepared on the implications of sub 

leasing, including leasing the premises directly to Tiddliwinks. 

The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5. 




That a further report be prepared on the implications of sub leasing the Joan Watters 

Centre, including the option of leasing directly to Tiddliwinks. 

Carried 9/0 




CR12.19 

APPLICATION FOR PERMITTED USE OF CITY OF PERTH SURF CLUB FOR 

AN OCCASIONAL 'POP UP' SUNSET BAR 


To seek initial comment from Council on a proposed hire of the City of Perth Surf Club to run a 

'pop up' sunset bar over four consecutive Sundays in April, and invite comments from the public 

on the proposal. 

BACKGROUND: 

The City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club lease the Surf Club premises at City Beach. 

The lease currently operates on a hold over clause until such time as the Club enters into an 

agreement with the Town for the redevelopment of the surf club (this is the subject of a 

separate report to Council this month). 

The lease permits the use of the premises for surf club/life saving purposes only and not to be 

used for any business, commercial, illegal or immoral purposes. Further, the Club must not 

permit the sale of any liquor without a valid liquor licence. 

The Club has a Club Liquor Licence which permits the sale of alcohol to members and the 

guests of members only. 

The Club regularly hire their function area for private functions (birthdays, weddings etc) but are 

not permitted to use their premises for public functions where alcohol is sold, unless the 

approval of the Town and the Department of Liquor Racing and Gaming (DLRG) is first 

obtained. 

DETAILS: 

A proposal has been received by an Event Organiser (ISpy Perth) who wishes to hire the City 

of Perth Surf Life Saving Club function area on four separate occasions for use as a "pop-up" 

bar. The concept is to run a low key function for a limited number of ticketed guests. This 

proposal will require an Application to the DLRG for an Occasional Licence and ,as noted 

above, it also requires the Town's approval, as the Landlord in accordance with the lease and 

as the Local Government under the Endowment Lands Act. 

Commencing at 2pm and concluding at 9pm, it is proposed that the function will run on the 

following dates: 

Sunday 8 April 2012 




The function will be staffed by qualified bar staff and have in place security staff, as required by 

the DLRG, should approval be granted. Background music is proposed but would be contained 

within acceptable noise levels. The organiser is also proposing to provide a free shuttle bus 

service at the conclusion of the evening. 




The Event Organiser has run a number of corporate events previously, including the Heath 

Ledger Tribute Night (a telethon event). 

The Club stands to receive $4,000 from the hire and sees this as an opportunity to contribute to 

it's current fund raising target for the new premises. 

The Event Organiser has been advised that this report will seek Council's endorsement to 

proceed to seek public comment and will not provide an approval (or otherwise). Council would 

only consider approval once the public have been given the opportunity to comment. 

Alternatively, if Council is of the mind, it may simply choose to not issue an approval without 

seeking public comment. 

It is important to bear in mind that the Town has engaged a hospitality consultant to provide 

advice on the hospitality offerings that may be provided as a result of the proposed City Beach 

Surf Club and Commercial Tenancies Development Project. If this event is not run in 

accordance with community expectations, it may adversely affect what the community would 

accept at that location. 


Liquor Licensing Act - Occasional Licences 

An occasional licence may be granted in relation to a festival or other event authorising the 

organiser and specified persons participating in or associated with that festival of event to sell 

liquor, or liquor of a specified description, during such period or on such occasion as may be 

specified. It is normal practice for DLRG to seek Local Government comment. 

Endowment Lands Act 1920 Section 45 

45 Liquor licence for premises on said land not to be granted without local Government's 

consent. 

No licence under the liquor control act 1988 or any statutory amendment or modification 

there of shall be granted by any licence authority to any person in respect of any 

building created or to be created on any part of the said land without the consent in 

writing of the Town of Cambridge. 

Community Facilities - Asset Management Policy 

The Town recognises that in certain circumstances, it is appropriate for the community 

facility to be used to generate an income, where that income is used to support the 

community activity. 

Further, the policy states that the following is a deemed permitted use: 

Food and beverage 

sales 

sale to members; and 

sale to spectators during sporting events; or 

Planning, health and liquor licensing approvals have been 

obtained, if required. 


Nil 





This report embraces the following strategy of the Town's strategic plan 2009 - 2020: 

Connecting communities and bringing people together 


It is proposed that a letter box drop be undertaken to residents within a 1km radius of the surf 

club and further, that public notice be given in the local newspapers and on the website, inviting 

comment. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Nil 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

local public notice of the proposed hire of the surf club for the purpose of a 'pop up' bar be 

given inviting comments from the public; 

comments from residents living within a 1km radius of the club specifically be invited by 

mail drop. 


During discussion, Members were not prepared to support a 'pop up' bar at the Surf Club as it 

was considered inappropriate at this stage. 

The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5 




That the proposed hire of the City of Perth Surf Club for an occasional 'Pop Up' Sunset 

bar not be approved. 

Carried 6/3 

For: 

Against: 

Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae and Walker 

Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley and Pelczar 




CR12.20 INTEGRATED PLANNING - COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND THE 

STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 


To initiate the first stage of Integrated Planning - Community Engagement, leading to the 

development of the Strategic Community Plan. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town's existing Strategic Plan was completed in 2009 following workshops with Elected 

Members and the Community (Item 10.1, 28 July 2009). 

Following the adoption of the Plan, the key elements underpinning the integrated planning 

framework were developed as "first generation" documents, including the Corporate Plan, 

Financial Plan and Asset Management Plan. These documents were submitted to the 

Department of Local Government as a response to the Minister's Reform Checklist. Each of 

these elements requires further enhancements to improve the planning, integration and 

decision making processes. As such, the documents have not been formally presented to 

Council or the community, but have to some degree guided actions and resources. 

Recently, the State Government amended the Local Government Act to legislate for integrated 

planning and reporting, specifically requiring Councils to adopt a Strategic Community Plan and 

Corporate Business Plan, in accordance with the regulations by 30 June 2013. A number of 

guidelines provide information on the various elements and processes, and a dedicated 

website supports the capacity of the sector to deliver good planning integration (refer 

http://integratedplanning.dlg.wa.gov.au). The legislation mandates that the community is to be 

consulted in the development of the plans and provides some guidance how this should be 

undertaken. 

In January this year, the Department of Local Government released the Integrated Planning 

Advisory Standard to assist local governments to meet their Integrated Planning compliance 

requirements. Specifically, to meet a basic standard of community engagement, the Standard 

states that: 

… engagement should include 500 or 10% of residents, whichever is fewer, and is 

conducted by at least 2 documented mechanisms. 

It seems opportune to initiate the integrated planning process from the start, given the last 

process commenced in 2008 and concluded in 2009. Community Engagement is the first step 

in the cycle of implementing (and reviewing) the Integrated Planning Framework. However, to 

meet the legislative deadline, finalising the other corporate documents (asset, financial and 

workforce plans) must run in parallel based on the existing strategies and actions, and be 

subsequently updated once the strategic Community Plan is complete. 

DETAILS: 

In developing an approach to community engagement, the Administration has researched a 

number of Local Government documents (research papers, community engagement strategies, 

and community plans) and has liaised with other Local Governments who have advanced 

engagement processes in place. 




One of the key findings is that the dialogue with the community should be undertaken around 

"themed areas", which are broad enough to encompass all services and assets within a 

community, but which are capable of being aligned to strategic land use planning. In other 

words, the engagement needs to tie in with the Local Planning Strategy development. 

Community Engagement is an on-going process, which should be embedded in an 

organisation's culture and systems. Indeed, the Town has been actively involved in 

engagement on a variety of issues and projects over the past few years, but there has not been 

one overarching approach. The purpose of this community engagement is to take a high level 

coordinated approach that will lead to further specific engagement as issues are refined. 

Community 

Engagement 

Local (land use) 

Planning 

Strategy 

Strategic 

Community Plan 

Housing 

Strategy 

Asset Plan 

Commercial 

Strategy 

Financial Plan 

Parking & 

Access Strategy 

Workforce Plan 

Recreational 

Strategy 

Strategic Action 

Plan 

So why are we doing this and what are the benefits A quick summation is provided below. 

The Drivers for Improved Community Engagement 

 

 

 

The Local Government Sector – both internationally and nationally through various 

Associations (ALGA, ACLGE, SOLACE etc), aimed at stronger engagement to address 

issues of population growth and complex multicultural societies; 

The Federal Government’s Local Government Reform Agenda, targeted at improving 

Local Government capacity, strategic planning, asset management and financial 

sustainability. 

The State Government’s Local Government Reform Agenda, consistent with the above, 

and specifically aimed at implementing the Integrated Planning and reporting 

framework. 

What Are The Benefits 

 

 

Beyond Compliance – The Town can demonstrate that its size and structure is well 

suited for engaging with the community; 

Education – Engagement is an effective tool to educate the community on the 

challenges facing the community, the strategies/polices adopted by other spheres of 

Government and Local Governments role in supporting a sustainable future; 




 

 

Mandate – Good community engagement can provide the mandate to progress 

projects of strategic importance; 

Satisfaction – A community which is engaged and has a sense of influence will produce 

a greater level of satisfaction within the community. 

It is suggested that a project approach be taken to engagement and this is illustrated in the 

attached project plan, which is indicative and by no means complete or final. Ideally, the project 

would be established as follows: 

Objectives 

To collaborate and involve a representative section of the community to establish a 

future vision for the Town based on a number of scenarios. 

To raise awareness of local issues and responses. 

To determine the areas of priority for community planning. 

To achieve (at least) a minimum standard for community engagement, involving at least 

500 members of the community and a minimum of two engagement methodologies. 

Scope: 

Community Engagement will be centered around Assets, Land Use, Services and Major 

Projects, to create an overall community vision for the Town. 

A Community Engagement Strategy will set the parameters for engagement and is to be 

developed as part of the project brief. This will include identification of stakeholders, 

decision makers, decision points and the type/level of community engagement. 

The Community is defined as residents, ratepayers, visitors, community groups, 

businesses who live, work and/or utilise facilities and services within the Town of 

Cambridge. 

The geographical survey area is to incorporate the suburbs of City Beach, Wembley, 

West Leederville, Floreat, Jolimont, Wembley Downs and Mount Claremont. 

The engagement will employ a number of methodologies (and as a minimum at least 

two robust methodologies) to meet an acceptable degree of confidence in representing 

the views of the community. This will be outlined in the Community Engagement 

Strategy. 

This engagement project will link in with development of local planning (land use) 

strategies. The scope of this initial (engagement) project does not extend to 

engagement centered around specific land use policy development, which could be 

progressed as phase two. 

This engagement project has the potential to link in with the development of major 

projects through the formation of specific reference/focus groups. 

Timeframe: 

This engagement project will commence in March and conclude in December 2012. 




Project Group: 

The project will be managed through an Advisory Committee of Council supported by an 

Officer Project Group. 

The Advisory Committee of Council will consist of three Elected Members, the Directors 

of Corporate & Strategic, Development & Sustainability, Community Development and 

the Chief Executive Officer. 

The Officer Project Group will consist of the following officers: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Director Corporate & Strategic 

Manager Community Development 

Manager Planning 

Manager Information & Business Systems 

Senior Community Development Officer 

Strategic (land use) Planner 

Community Engagement Officer (reclassified position) 

Communications Officer 

Resourcing: 

A dedicated Community Engagement Officer, for the duration of the project will be 

required. 

A Community Engagement consultant will be required to develop the community 

engagement strategy, surveys, workshop facilitation, response collation and scenario 

development. 

Budget: 

The budget will depend on the Community Engagement Strategy adopted by the 

Advisory Committee. Typically Local Governments are spending between $150,000 to 

$400,000 over a twelve to eighteen month period. 

Finally, a small delegation of officers and Elected Members will be visiting the City of Geraldton 

later this month to review their community engagement and planning processes. This visit will 

help inform the Town's own Community Engagement Strategy. 


Title: Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 

Division 3 -- Planning for the future 

Web link: 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/lgr1996443/ 

Regulations: 

19C. Planning for the future: strategic community plans -- s. 5.56 

19DA. Planning for the future: corporate business plans -- s. 5.56 

19DB. Planning for the future: transitional arrangements until 30 June 2013 

19D. Notice of plan to be given 

Specifically the following sub regulations are applicable to the community engagement 

undertaken in developing the Strategic Community Plan 




(9) A local government is to ensure that the electors and ratepayers of its district are 

consulted during the development of a strategic community plan and when preparing 

modifications of a strategic community plan. 

(10) A strategic community plan for a district is to contain a description of the 

involvement of the electors and ratepayers of the district in the development of the plan 

or the preparation of modifications of the plan 

In addition to the Regulations, the Department has released an Integrated Planning Advisory 

standard. The section relevant to this report follows. 

Title: 

Web link: 

Integrated Planning and Reporting Advisory Standard 

Part A – What Are the Standards 

1.1.1 Strategic Community plan, Page 4 

http://dlg.wa.gov.au/Content/Updates/View.aspxItemID=776B4C50615248716A43553D 

Advisory Standard (extract, pp4): 

Basic Standard is met when: 

• A council has, by 30 June 2013 or earlier, adopted a Strategic Community Plan that 

meets all of the regulatory requirements. 

• The local government has a community engagement policy/strategy. 

• Community engagement involves at least 500 or 10% of residents, whichever is fewer, 

and is conducted by at least 2 documented mechanisms. 

Intermediate Standard is met when: 

• The Strategic Community Plan connects most of the activities / services that are 

delivered by the local government with the community’s vision, aspirations and 

objectives. 

• The Strategic Community Plan takes into account a range of relevant external factors, 

including relevant plans of State and Commonwealth agencies. 

• Community engagement involves more than the minimum number of electors, is 

inclusive and uses more than the minimum 


A number of operating budgets are already established that include a community engagement 

component, which may provide a source of funds for this exercise. 

Specifically, funds this year are available in the Governance Programs area and in the TPS 

Review budget to enable the project to commence. In house resources will be utilised, however 

a specific provision will need to be made in next year's budget to continue the project. 


The recommendation is consistent with the Planning for our Community priority area and the 

following goal: 

Alignment of the Towns plans with Community needs. We will engage with key demographics 

and stakeholders. 





This matter has been assessed under the community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level – 

Collaborate – To work directly with the community throughout the process to ensure that their 

issues and concerns are understood and considered and to assist in decision making. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Indicative Project plan 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the Town initiate the Community Engagement project; 

the establishment of a Community Engagement Advisory Committee be approved 

by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY; 

the purpose and Terms of Reference for the Community Engagement Advisory 

Committee be as follows: 

(a) 

Purpose: 

To develop a Community Engagement Strategy and guide the on going 

community engagement activities of the Town. 

(b) 

Terms of Reference: 

1. Liaise with Officers, Consultants and Community Groups 

2. Develop the Community Engagement Strategy 

3. Oversee the implementation of the Community Engagement Strategy 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

membership of the Community Engagement Advisory Committee comprise of three 

Elected Members, the Directors of Corporate & Strategic, Development & 

Sustainability, Community Development and the Chief Executive Officer. 

Mayor Withers, Cr King and Cr MacRae be nominated as the Elected Members on 

the Community Engagement Advisory Committee; 

the Community Engagement Advisory Committee shall meet on an “as required” 

basis. 

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0 


COUNCIL 


10. COUNCIL REPORTS 

10.1 WEMBLEY SPORTS PARK: LEASE OF LAND FOR STATE NETBALL CENTRE AND 

FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR NETBALL WORKS 


To seek Council approval to enter into a lease with the State Government for land to be used 

for the State Netball Centre within Wembley Sports Park and to undertake a Funding 

Assistance Agreement (FAA) with the Department of Sport and Recreation for netball works. 

BACKGROUND: 

At a Special Council Meeting held on 24 November 2011, Council decided to enter into an 

agreement with the State Government pertaining to the development of netball facilities and 

associated infrastructure at Wembley Sports Park. 

The decision included agreement for a funding mechanism and scope of works to be 

undertaken by both parties and that a lease be entered into with the State for the State Netball 

Centre to be located at Wembley Sports Park. 

In February 2011, Council determined a response to the 14 Principles outlined by the 

Department of Sport and Recreation pertaining to this project and the Nursery site. A summary 

of the relevant Principles, Council requirements and current status with respect to the State 

Netball Centre lease is as follows: 

Principle Council Requirement Status 

3 PNA are granted guaranteed access to 2 indoor 

courts as an essential term of the lease 

4 Netball First policy whereby netball takes 

precedence over other activities 

5 Car parking provision of 200 bays is guaranteed 

to the State Netball Centre except for Perth 

Netball Association (PNA) competition days 

Has been incorporated in the 

lease with provisions 

Has been undertaken in the 

definition of the State Netball 

Centre and its purpose and a 

suitable lease clause 

The number of car bays has 

been increased to 300, in 

line with State funding of the 

number of bays necessary 

for the State Netball Centre, 

with principles as per Council 

decision. This number of car 

bays is counted as across 

the whole site and specific 

State Netball Centre bays 

are not provided. 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 153

COUNCIL 



6 Legal agreements being executed prior to State 

commencing construction and binding the State 

to access provisions for PNA 

7 Fees charged to PNA are no greater than 

charges applied elsewhere by the State for 

similar facilities 

Agreements are ready for 

execution. Conditions have 

been met 

Suitable clause included in 

lease 

With regards to Perth Netball Association's Building Redevelopment and Court Reconfiguration 

principles, these are captured within the Financial Assistance Agreement (FAA) to be 

undertaken between the Department of Sport and Recreation and the Town of Cambridge. The 

following principles are addressed as follows: 


2 State Government meeting all costs for works 

required to accommodate the State Netball 

Centre at Wembley Sports Park and functional 

requirements of Matthews Netball Centre are 

adequately met 

10 Construction staging works by State not to use 

existing car parks 

12 Town to approve final design of PNA facilities in 

consultation with Perth Netball Association 

The FAA contains the 

financial details and scope of 

works agreed with the State 

as determined in the 24 

November 2011 Council 

decision 

Included in scope of FAA 

Inherent in the mechanism 

by which the Town is now 

undertaking the design 

The remaining principles are related to matters surrounding the Nursery Site which is subject to 

separate agreements to be developed. 

DETAILS: 

Due to their length, the Lease and Financial Assistance Agreement have not been included in 

the council report. 

The Lease has been the subject of substantial negotiation between the Town and Department 

of Sport and Recreation. All matters have been satisfactorily resolved with the exception of the 

environmental issues surrounding the site which are discussed below. 

Subject to Council decision on this matter, drafting and execution of the final lease would be 

completed in a short time. 

The matters relevant to the nature of the agreements are summarised herein. 

Proposed Lease Area of the State Netball Centre 

The site is ~14,400 m 2 within Wembley Sports Park as shown on attached indicative plan 

included in the Lease. The Lease will contain two sub areas, which relate to agreed uses of the 

land: 


COUNCIL 


 

 

The first ("Area A") is the building footprint for the State Netball Centre (including expansion 

space for two future indoor courts) with permitted uses related to a facility of this nature. 

The second ("Area B") is the 'promenade' between the State Netball Centre and Matthews 

Netball Centre. Whilst the State is responsible for this area, it is recognised that it forms 

part of the access to Matthews Netball Centre and certain operating conditions regarding 

access prevail. The State will maintain this area and provide access to Matthews Netball 

Centre as required. 

The boundary between Areas A and B is still subject to the final design of the State Netball 

Centre, and as such will be finalised in due course. In any event, the overall site area of the 

State Netball Centre is fixed. 

The Lease is proposed for an initial 35 year term with an option of the State to extend for a 

further 15 years. 

The lease was developed by the Town's solicitors and thus meets our requirements (subject to 

resolution of the environmental clauses) for lease conditions. 

The Lease includes the following provisions: 

1. Definition of State Netball Centre 

The State Netball Centre is defined as a centre primarily for netball as well as other 

sport, recreation and entertainment purposes, including a minimum of four indoor netball 

courts, administration facilities and ancillary facilities. 

2. PNA Access 

PNA is guaranteed use of two indoor courts on Saturdays during their competition 

season from May to September each year. The State will offer PNA access to the other 

two courts if they are available. PNA will be charged court hire fees at prevailing rates. 

3. Rescheduling of PNA Access 

Notwithstanding the above guarantee, the State requires the flexibility to book, on an 

infrequent basis, all four indoor courts for other sporting events on the PNA Saturdays 

(by way of example these may be National or International Netball events). 

This requirement can only be enacted by the State with sufficient notice to PNA and the 

Town (by 31 January in the year proposed) and only on three occasions during the PNA 

Saturday Season (two of which can be the bye weekends when PNA competition is not 

scheduled). This provision means that the State may require PNA to reschedule their 

access to the indoor courts for a maximum of one round per season. Advice from 

Venues West, the State's operator, is that this need will be very infrequent over the life 

of the lease; however they wish to maintain this flexibility to cater for major sporting 

events. 

It is considered that this requirement is reasonable given the nature of the facility and 

the period of notice required, and is acceptable to Perth Netball Association. 

4. Netball Access at times (other than Saturdays during PNA season) 

The lease contains a 'Netball First' clause whereby the State must manage the facility 

under a policy whereby netball takes precedence over any other activities. 


COUNCIL 


5. Car Parking 

Negotiations with the State over the last 12 months have resulted with the State 

determining that it needs to provide 300 car bays for the Centre. The lease conditions 

mean, in effect, that these 300 car bays are considered part of the overall Wembley 

Sports Park car parking provision and are not dedicated or separately identified State 

Netball Centre car parking bays. The lease provides that the Town will guarantee the 

State that 300 car bays will be available for users of the State Netball Centre at all 

times, except when PNA Competition occurs during the Winter Saturdays. This is a 

practical outcome which recognises the multiple users of Wembley Sports Park over 

various times of the year. 

6. Environmental Issues 

The Town's position was to enshrine in the lease a requirement that the State did not 

contaminate the site, or if it did, to undertake clean up of the site. The State would 

accept this requirement only if the Town agreed to accept full time and cost 

responsibility if any existing contamination was found on the site. This was deemed too 

onerous upon the Town as it potentially could hold the Town liable for any prolongation 

costs for the State's construction works. 

In any event, the State's Contaminated Sites Act 2003 prevails in which the basic 

premise of the person causing the contamination is responsible for its rectification. 

A full site contamination survey has not been undertaken. The State, however, in 

undertaking their initial planning works for the State Netball Centre conducted a 

geotechnical survey in the site (predominately to determine construction footing risks) 

and concluded in their report that "it is unlikely that contaminated material will be 

encountered". 

The Site has been used for netball operations for 50 years. The Town does not have 

conclusive information regarding the use of the site prior to then. 

It is believed that the risk of the site being contaminated to the extent that it is material 

to cost or time is unlikely. 

Our legal advice is that the Town is responsible for any existing contamination unless 

we can identify the party responsible. Practically, this means that the Town is 

responsible. 

The Town can, however, as part of commercial negotiations put into place an 

agreement that the State accept the cost and time risks of clean up for pre-existing 

contamination. This would be appropriate on the basis that the Town is not a party in 

the development of the State Netball Centre and therefore the State should accept the 

risks of the project, including any pre-existing site contamination (ie the State accepts 

the site 'as is where is'). 

The Administration saw that five options existed: 

1. The Town accepts all risk for existing site contamination, if found, and binds the 

State to all issues post site occupancy. 

2. The Lease becomes silent on the matter, allowing the Contaminated Sites Act to 

come into effect if contamination occurs. 

3. The State accepts all risk. 


COUNCIL 


4. The risk of existing site contamination is shared between the Town and State. 

5. If contamination is found, the Town has the option to walk away from the Lease 

and project. (This would cover the Town if the costs to remediate any 

contamination are excessive or otherwise unreasonable). 

The State has rejected Options 3 & 4 and is open to either Option 1 or 2. Option 5 has 

not been put to the State. 

This matter appears to be the only outstanding issue to finalise the Lease and if 

unresolved will result in delaying the signing of the documents. In any case, the Town 

should not be responsible for the State prolongation costs if contamination is found. 

Financial Assistance Agreement (FAA) for Matthews Netball Centre works 

As part of the netball works, the State agreed to provide a Financial Assistance Agreement to 

the Town of Cambridge to undertake the redevelopment of the Perth Netball Association 

building and associated court works. A condition of the FAA of the State is that the lease for 

the State Netball Centre is executed before funding is provided. 

The FAA contains the following matters: 

 

Agreed value of $7.48m to be provided to the Town, net of State retained funds being: 

o $315,000 for professional fees incurred to date for works now being delivered by 

the Town; 

o $134,000 as the Town's contribution to joint infrastructure works; and 

o $430,000 as the maximum Town's contribution to access road and roundabout. 

 

 

 

The net funding of $6.601m will be paid to the Town under an agreed mechanism of 

progress payments to the Town subject to milestones being met. 

Recognition of partnership arrangements, in that both the State and Town need to work 

together to deliver Stage 1. 

Recognition that Perth Netball Association is a key stakeholder in the process. 

State Netball Centre Design 

The Town will need to sign off the design (acting reasonably) of the State Netball Centre prior 

to planning approval. The Lease also provides that construction of the State Netball Centre (or 

subsequent extensions or modifications) cannot commence without the Town's approval. 

It is understood that the State is currently progressing the concept design of the State Netball 

Centre to a schematic design phase after a preliminary presentation made by the State's 

architects to the Office of the Government Architect. 

The State has responsibility for seeking planning approval for the building. The State Netball 

Centre will be subject to a Development Assessment Panel process, including public comment. 


COUNCIL 



In accordance with the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations, (Part 3, 

Clause 7) this Lease does not meet the threshold to be defined as a Major Land Transaction. 

Accordingly, there is no requirement to undertake a Business Plan in accordance with s3.59 of 

the Local Government Act pertaining to Major Land Transactions. 


The Town will receive a funding grant of $7.48m (less $879,000 retained costs) as negotiated 

with the State in November 2011. 


The opportunity for development of the Wembley Sports Park supports the Town's 2009-2020 

Strategic Plan vision of Planning for Our Community through the actions of a wide range of 

quality, accessible recreational facilities. 


In accordance with the Town's existing Community Consultation Matrix, this report in relation to 

the lease and FAA, would not require further community consultation on the basis that the 

community's views are well known and recorded as part of the Masterplan consultation 

process. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. State Netball Centre Site Plan (indicative). 


(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae 

That:- 

(i) the Lease for the State Netball Centre at Wembley Sports Park be approved in 

principle and that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to conclude lease 

terms based on the details provided in this report; 

(ii) the Lease for the State Netball Centre will include provisions that the State accepts 

all responsibilities for managing contamination risks; 

(iii) the Financial Assistance Agreement provided by the Department of Sport and 

Recreation to the Town of Cambridge for netball works as detailed in this report be 

approved in principle and that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to 

conclude the agreement terms; 

(iv) the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign and affix the Common 

Seal to the State Netball Centre Lease and Financial Assistance Agreement 

documents. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


10.2 CITY OF PERTH SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - AGREEMENT FOR 

REDEVELOPMENT AND LEASE OF PREMISES 


To seek the endorsement of Council of an Agreement (for the redevelopment and lease) and 

the Lease of the surf club premises. 

BACKGROUND: 

Previous reports to Council refer: 

Surf Club Redevelopment 

28 September 2010 Item CR 10.12, Surf Club Redevelopment - Integral and Pracsys 

Report 

20 December 2011 Item 10.2, Appointment of Architectural Services. 

Community Facilities Lease 

19 April 2011, Item CR 10.2, Adoption of Community Facilities (leasing) Policy and the 

standard lease. 

23 August 2011, Item 10.1, Community Grants to the Surf Clubs (incorporated in the 

lease) 

In September 2010, Council received the Integral and Pracsys Report on the redevelopment of 

the City of Perth Surf Club, and initiated the next phase to appoint an architect and commercial 

leasing consultant, and develop a business case for the redevelopment, which includes a 

number of commercial hospitality premises. 

Concurrently, the Town had also been advancing a policy position on the long term lease of 

community facilities and, in April 2011, adopted a standard lease to apply to all clubs. 

The Town has been negotiating with the Surf Club on the terms and conditions surrounding the 

redevelopment and those negotiations have included some of the standard lease terms. 

The current position of Council was confirmed at the December 2011 Ordinary Council 

meeting, at which Council decided that: 

(i) the tender for Tender T20-11 for architectural services for Surf Club and Commercial 

Facilities Development be awarded to Christou Design Group at an indicative cost of 

$536,000 for the project; 

(ii) a report to Council be prepared on the new lease agreement between the Town and 

the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club; 

(iii) Christou Design Group not commence work on the project until Council has 

approved the new lease. 


COUNCIL 


DETAILS: 

Agreement for Lease 

The general outline of the agreement is that the Parties agree that:- 

The Town will prepare a business case in consultation with the Club, which will consider 

the Club's own Business Plan; 

The Town will make a project decision to proceed or not proceed, depending on the 

conclusion of the business case; 

The Club remains in the existing premises until the project decision is made; 

If the project decision is to proceed: 

o the Town will complete the construction of the premises, but is not obliged to fit 

out* the premises; 

o the Club has an opportunity to elect to take the new lease or not; 

• If the Club elects to take the new lease, it is to vacate the premises once 

the Town has given notice to do so, relocating to temporary facilities 

provided by the Town under terms outlined in the Agreement (which 

include nil rent); 

• If the Club elects not to take the new lease, it is to vacate the premises 

within 9 months; 

If the project decision is not to proceed, the Club will have the opportunity to take a 

lease of the existing premises for five years; 

No rent is payable until the project decision is made; 

The new premises comprise the following: 

(a) a gross floor area of 1,480 m2; 

(b) external, load bearing and lease perimeter walls, doors and windows to select finish; 

(c) roof over building area; 

(d) utilities and services, such as gas, electricity, water, sewer, drainage and 

telecommunications supplied to single points of connection within the premises; 

(e) air conditioning system capacity for up to 500 m2 of administration and members 

space; 

(f) ventilation for approx 830 m2 of surf club storage space and approx 150 m2 of 

male/female club showers/toilets/change rooms; 

(g) fire services; and 

(h) access to common use plant room and bin store as needs be. 

*Fitout Works means the works to be carried out by the Club to the New Premises to fit out 

the New Premises for the Club’s occupation and use, including: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

internal walls (non load bearing), doors and partitions; 

internal wall and door finishes; 

ceilings as necessary, ceiling finishes, air conditioning registers and ductwork; 

reticulation of all utilities and services within the Premises; 

sole use amenities such as kitchens, showers, toilets, change facilities and the like; 

and 

security system. 


COUNCIL 


The Lease 

Clause 4.1 - Contributions by the Association 

An additional clause has been inserted to allow the Club's contributions to be offset against any 

grant the Club may obtain which is paid to the Town for a major item of premises maintenance 

or improvement. 

Clause 7 Assignment, Subletting and Hiring 

This clause has been amended to remove the 48 hour restriction on hiring, but in turn to 

strengthen the link between the Permitted Uses and the Prohibited Uses. 

Clause 10.1 Use of premises – Permitted Uses 

Fundamental to this lease is to ensure that the Club do not use the premises to make a profit 

which adversely affect the business at City Beach, which has been addressed at clause 10.1(c) 

bellow. 

The document specifies that the Club may use the premises for the purpose of a surf club and 

may also use the premises for any one or more of the following uses: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

the sale of club branded merchandise, beach attire, sunscreen and flyscreen; 

the hire of beach equipment; 

the sale of light refreshments, chilled drinks, ice cream and confectionary (but only if 

and to the extent to which that activity does not compete with any business from time 

to time conducted by any commercial tenant of the Town at City Beach as 

determined by the Town in its absolute discretion); 

the sale of alcohol to members and guests of the Association; 

a members only gym; 

a physiotherapy facility; and 

social function hire. 

Clause 10.2 Use of Premises – Prohibited Uses 

The sale of alcohol has been tightened to specifically permit sale to members and guests of 

members (refer 10.1), but not to the public. The lease provides the ability for the Town to give 

its approval for sale to the public if it so chooses and if a valid liquor licence is in place. 

Clauses 11 and 12 Insurance & Indemnity 

These clauses have been simplified and consolidated. 

Clause 17 Redevelopment 

This clause has been removed as it is proposed to build new premises and it is unlikely the 

Town will want to initiate a redevelopment of the premises during the 20 year term of the lease. 

It provided the ability of the Town to give notice and terminate the lease if it wished to alter, 

demolish or redevelop the premises. 


COUNCIL 


Fit-out commentary 

The feasibility proposed by Integral and Pracsys received by the Town in September 2010 did 

not provide any allowance for fitting out the surf club premises. The Integral Report on which 

the project feasibility was based stated that: 

"The areas are provided with a bare shell, sealed floor, face blockwork walls, basic 

lighting, smoke detection, off form concrete ceiling." 

This then provided the basis for the Town progressing to the next phase of design and 

business case evaluation. 

The Club have advised the Town that as a volunteer organisation they are in no position to be 

able to contribute to a fit out that they estimate to be in excess of $1 million. They note that the 

Council report included in the September 2010 Minutes of Council indicates the Club's 

expectation to contribute $100,000 to the fit out. They have since revised that amount to 

$300,000. 

Whilst the Club is in no position to provide funds for building works, they are keen to work with 

the Town to secure funding from alternate sources, such as Lotteries West. The Club also 

advises if applications for funds are not successful and the Club is still not in a position to 

contribute to building works, any shortfall would have to be met by the Town. 

At this point in time, neither the Club nor the Town are in a position to finalise contributions to 

the fit out works. 

From the Town's perspective, the question that needs to be determined is how much should 

ratepayers of the Town contribute to the redevelopment of the Surf Club. The Town has 

already indicated it is prepared to fund approximately $3.6 million when considering the Integral 

and Pracsys Report. The final commitment will depend upon the design, final feasibility of the 

business case including finance serviced by the revenue from the commercial facilities. This 

amount would fund the cost of replacing the building with a similar floor area currently occupied 

by the Club, with the fit out funded by the Club. 

The Town (on behalf of its ratepayers) is already making a significant contribution and is not 

aware of any current precedent in Western Australia where a Local Government has funded 

close to 100% of a surf club building, and certainly not in the order of $4 million. 

In any event, any contribution by the Town in excess of the building shell, excluding fit out, 

would be subject to the business case. If the business case could not support the project costs 

as specified, the option should be to cancel the project or reduce the scope (e.g. lesser floor 

area). 

In summary, the Club is getting a new and more functional building and will be better off than 

they are currently. However, the underlining issue is that the Town does not have an unlimited 

supply of funds for this project, and its commitments need to be carefully managed. 

As such, the Town is currently not in a position to commit any further contributions to the 

project to assist the Club with its fit out. The capacity to do this will only become apparent as 

the business case develops and the design, costings and funding sources are firmed up. Fit 

out aside, the Town is able to commit to other aspects of the agreement with the Club and this 

report recommends that Council approved the agreement and lease noting that the clauses 

specific to fit out will be subject to further change. 

The approach taken continues the working partnership between the Town and the Club, which 

is instrumental to advancing the design phase. 


COUNCIL 



The recommendations made in this report are considered an integral part of the community 

facilities leasing policy. 


The following information has been extrapolated from the 28 September 2010 report to Council 

on the feasibility of the Surf Club Redevelopment. 

Indicative Costs 

Indicative costs have been developed by construction costs consultants. A summary of the 

costs is outlined below: 

Table 2: Indicative Costs 

Buildings $5,170,000 

Site works $1,375,000 

Car Park $105,000 

Sub-Total $6,650,000 

Additional Costs - staging $100,000 

Car Parking $105,000 

Estimated Consultant Fees @ 10% $665,000 

Estimated Project Contingency @ 10% $665,000 

Sub-Total $1,535,000 

Total Indicative Project Cost (Excl. GST) $8,185,000 

Market, Development and Commercial Feasibility Analysis 

At an Elected Members workshop held in May 2009 it was suggested that the community 

component should only comprise fifty percent of the total building area, and be at ground level. 

Commercial space would be located on the upper level and comprise three restaurants and a 

kiosk/café, being the highest yielding tenants. 

Based on the estimated $8.2 million capital costs, the funding mechanism is: 

1. The Town’s dollar for dollar portion of the community component of the building: 

$2.45 million from the Endowment Lands Account 

($8.2 million x 53.7% community component x 50% dollar for dollar policy on club 

facilities, plus $500,000 for the public toilets) 

2. The Commercial Component: 

$5.75 million, comprising of $3.8 million for the commercial space and $1.95 million for 

the community component, loan financed. 


COUNCIL 


The components are shown in detail in the table below: 

Areas 

Proportion 

ELA 

Commercial 

(loan) 

Total 

Restaurant 1 305 

Terrace 158 

9.9% 

5.1% 

$812,110 

$420,699 

$812,110 

$420,699 


Terrace 105 

9.9% 

3.4% 

$809,447 

$279,579 

$809,447 

$279,579 


Terrace 106 

Deli 123 

Kiosk 19 

Subtotal 1424 

9.9% 

3.4% 

4.0% 

0.6% 

46.3% 

$809,447 

$282,241 

$327,507 

$50,590 

$3,791,620 

$809,447 

$282,241 

$327,507 

$50,590 

$3,791,620 

Public Male & Female Toilets 185 

Subtotal 185 

6.0% 

6.0% 

$492,591 

$492,591 

$492,591 

$492,591 

COPSLSC Storage 767 

COPSLSC Admin & Members 

Facilities 481 

Toilets 150 

25.0% 

15.6% 

4.9% 

$1,021,128 

$640,368 

$199,699 

$1,021,128 

$640,368 

$199,699 

$2,042,256 

$1,280,737 

$399,398 

Plant Room 25 

Bin Store 42 

Cambridge Coastcare 53 

City Beach Surf Riders Club 38 

Subtotal 1465 

0.8% 

1.4% 

1.7% 

1.2% 

47.7% 

$33,283 

$55,916 

$70,560 

$50,590 

$1,950,394 

$33,283 

$55,916 

$70,560 

$50,590 

$1,950,394 

$66,566 

$111,831 

$141,121 

$101,181 

$3,900,789 

Total 3074 

100% 

$2,442,986 

$5,742,014 

$8,185,000 


This is a key strategic initiative for the Town as outlined in the Strategic Plan. The Town is 

aiming to provide community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained. Its 

intent is to develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to 

ensure their sustainability for future generations. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Agreement and lease 

It is therefore recommended that:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Agreement and Lease for the redevelopment and lease of the City of Perth Surf Life 

Saving Club premises be approved, noting that the clauses specific to the fit out of the 

new premises will be subject to change and contingent on the outcomes of the business 

case; 

Christou Design Group be instructed to commence work on the project. 


COUNCIL 


FURTHER REPORT: 

The negotiations with the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club have continued and further issues 

have been raised by the Club, some of which have been agreed (requiring an amendment to 

the Agreement and Lease attached to the report) and some which have not. 

The Agreement 

(a) Definition of New Premises - External Areas 

The Club has sought a commitment for like for like external areas in the new premises. The 

Town has responded by advising it is prepared to add 

‘external areas to allow for wash down and breakout space for members social 

activities, incorporated as a non-exclusive licence'. 

The Club subsequently advised that it is essential that the Club has included in the lease the 

external areas for wash down and social facilities. It is impractical to have these on a non 

exclusive licence as they are integral to the Club's operation. 

The Lease 

(b) Term 

The Club has sought an option to renew, which the Town has responded by advising that: 

'it has had considerable dialogue with various Clubs on an acceptable term and agreed 

to a 20 year term (where previously 10 year terms were the standard). The Council 

does not want to impede a future Council beyond 20 years and for the reasons above, it 

is not agreed'. 

The Club has reserved its position on the lease term subject to the determination of the Fit Out 

definition. 

(c) Five Yearly Reviews 

The Club has sought a cap of the maintenance contribution on the five yearly review. The Town 

responded advising that: 

'This clause is one of the pillars of the standard community facilities lease and policy, 

and extensive discussion was undertaken with the various Clubs. In response to the 

Clubs concerns, the Town locked in the two-thirds / one-third contribution rate, which is 

a substantial long term commitment of Council. The Council were adamant that other 

than the contribution rate, no other boundaries were placed around the review (other 

than what exists in the clause currently, which state that the review has to reflect the 

predicted maintenance costs). As discussed, it is highly unlikely that a review would 

result in more than 100% increase'. 

The Club's view is that the method of capping the increase in maintenance at 100% is not 

unreasonable. Unlike other Clubs who may relocate if they were to exercise the opt out clause 

after the review, this clause is of little benefit to the Surf Club whose purpose binds it to the City 

Beach location. The Club believe the implementation of a reasonable cap is appropriate. 


COUNCIL 


(d) Non Compete Provision 

The Club is seeking a non-compete provision for Permitted Use. The intent is to ensure that 

any activity, such as the gym, does not face competition from third parties after they have been 

implemented by the Club. The Club is simply keen to protect any investment of time and 

resources by the Club by preventing a commercial operator from competing with an established 

Club activity. 

The Town responded by: 

'This is technically difficult to administer. It requires prohibition clauses in the 

commercial tenancies lease. We considered the scenario that the Club isn’t undertaking 

an activity, the commercial tenancy provides the activity, then the Club takes it up, 

requiring the commercial tenancy to cease. It did not seem reasonable so it is not 

agreed'. 

Other Points Agreed. 

(e) Temporary Premises: 

Add a clause (c) ‘to enable the Club to operate’. 

(f) Use of Premises: 

The Club requested the inclusion of community recreation activities. Given it is a broad term, 

the Town agreed to permit ‘programs aimed at health, fitness, well being and personal 

development’. This was agreed and the lease required an amendment to reflect this use. 

Aside from the issues raised in points (a) to (d), and the finalisation of the fit out terms for the 

new premises, the Club has agreed to the remainder of the Agreement and the Lease. 


(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That:- 

(i) 

the Agreement and Lease for the redevelopment of the City of Perth Surf Life 

Saving Club premises as attached be approved with the following amendments: 

(a) 

(b) 

the Agreement, Definitions, Temporary Premises - Add a Clause (c) 'to enable 

the Club to operate"; 

the Lease, Clause 10.1 Permitted Use, Add 'programs aimed at health, fitness, 

well being and personal development'; 

noting that the clauses specific to the fit out of the new premises will be subject to 

change and contingent on the outcomes of the business case; 


COUNCIL 


(ii) 

the City of Perth Surf Club's request to amend or include: 

 

 

 

 

New Premises - 'like for like' external areas 

Term - Option to renew 

5 Yearly Review of Maintenance Contributions - capped 

Non-Compete Provision 

not be agreed; 

(iii) 

Christou Design Group be instructed to commence work on the project. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


10.3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM - POLL PROVISIONS 


To consider a proposal to support the retention of the Poll Provisions in the Local Government 

Act in relation to boundary amendments and amalgamations as proposed by the Towns of 

Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park and Shire of Peppermint Grove. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Mayors and President of the Town of Claremont, Town of Cottesloe, Town of Mosman 

Park and Shire of Peppermint Grove respectively have written to the Mayor of the Town of 

Cambridge seeking "….. your Council's support to join with your fellow councils to preserve the 

right of your constituents to decide for themselves whether or not your Council should be 

amalgamated with another council if that is ever proposed." 

The content of that letter in its entirety is provided below: 

" 

COUNCILS FOR DEMOCRACY 

Western Australian Local Governments in support of their constituents’ democratic right 

to self-determination 

Dear Mayor / Shire President 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM AGENDA 

We write to you to seek your Council’s support to join with your fellow councils to preserve the 

right of your constituents to decide for themselves whether or not your Council should be 

amalgamated with another council if that is ever proposed. 

That right to self-determination is embodied in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) of Schedule 2.1 of the 

Local Government Act 1995 (WA). These “Poll Provisions” (called the “Dadour amendment” 

after the politician who introduced them) enshrine the right for 250 electors or 10% of electors 

in a local government district (whichever is the lesser) to require a poll on any proposed merger 

of their council, whereby they can veto the merger so long as at least 50% of electors 

participate in the poll and more than 50% of those who do participate elect to vote against the 

proposed merger. 

This is fair in requiring proponents for change to use persuasion rather than force. 

The Poll Provisions embody your constituents’ democratic right to self-determination. Every 

democracy should be entitled to determine its own future. 

The State Government of Western Australia intends to reduce the number of Local 

Governments, initially through its Metropolitan Local Government Review, but without any 

assurance that the Poll Provisions will not later be repealed, diluted or circumvented so as to 

forcibly implement any proposed reduction in council numbers. 

The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) in its submission to the 

Metropolitan Local Government Review shied away from any mention of the Poll Provisions 


COUNCIL 


and may not defend their continued preservation. 

To better ensure that the State Government and WALGA recognise that the Poll Provisions are 

sacrosanct and must not be repealed, diluted or circumvented for any reason whatsoever, we 

request that you move your Council to formally resolve as follows: 

THAT COUNCIL: 

1 Advise the Premier of the State of Western Australia, the Minister for Local 

Government, the Leader of the Opposition, the Shadow Minister for Local Government, 

our local members of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, the Metropolitan 

Local Government Review Panel, and the President of the Western Australian Local 

Government Association, that this Council calls upon the Parliament of Western 

Australia to forever uphold and not dilute our constituents’ right to self-determination as 

embodied in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 

(WA). 

2 Request the recipient of each such letter to notify our Council by written reply as to 

whether they do support and will continue to support the preservation without dilution of 

our constituents’ right to self-determination as embodied in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) of 

Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA). 

3 Provide to the Secretariat of the Councils for Democracy a copy of each of our above 

letters and any responses that our Council receives, for use in demonstrating collective 

support for our constituents’ right to self-determination in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) of 

Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995. 

We attach for your convenience contact details and a draft letter you can use to facilitate the 

above resolution. 

We acknowledge that each council and each elected member of a council may have differing 

views on the benefits or otherwise of rationalisation of council numbers in this State. We 

nevertheless believe that all councils and each elected member share the view that their own 

and neighbouring democracies must decide for themselves whether rationalisation of their own 

council is in their best interests. 

Each of the below signatories to this letter will be putting this proposal to their respective 

councils when it next convenes, and we would hope that you do likewise. 

Even if you personally do not share this view we would be grateful if you would table this 

correspondence with your Council to enable it to consider our proposal. ……." 

A WALGA info page was circulated on 20 February 2012 clarifying their support for the Poll 

Provisions in the Act. A copy of the info page is attached. 


The Poll Provisions in relation to boundary amendments and amalgamation of Councils is 

provided in clauses 8, 9 and 10 (2) of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995. 


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. 


COUNCIL 



The Town's Strategic Direction is based on creating Communities of Choice. Supporting self 

determination is consistent with this strategy. 


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. 

We do not propose to conduct any community consultation. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. WALGA info page. 


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Langer 

That consideration be given to the draft motion proposed by the Towns of Claremont, 

Cottesloe, Mosman Park and Shire of Peppermint Grove in relation to the retention of the 

Poll Provisions of the Local Government Act related to boundary amendments and 

amalgamations. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Mayor Withers 

That the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

Council notes that, at the moment, there is no proposal from the State Government 

to remove or amend the Poll Provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 related 

to boundary amendments and amalgamations; 

Council supports the objectives and the retention of clauses 8, 9 and 10 (2) of 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

Council notes that, at the moment, there is no proposal from the State Government 

to remove or amend the Poll Provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 related 

to boundary amendments and amalgamations; 

Council supports the objectives and the retention of clauses 8, 9 and 10 (2) of 


Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


11. URGENT BUSINESS 

Nil 

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 

Nil 

13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 

Nil 


COUNCIL 


14. CLOSURE 

There being no further business, Mayor Withers thanked those present for their 

attendance and declared the meeting closed at 8.32 pm.

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?