Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes 

11 October 2011

MEETING OF COUNCIL 

11 OCTOBER 2011 

INDEX OF MINUTES 

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

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

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

4. Petitions .............................................................................................................................. 3 

5. Deputations ........................................................................................................................ 3 

6. Applications for Leave of Absence .................................................................................. 3 

7. Confirmation of Minutes .................................................................................................... 3 

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ........................................................ 3 

9. Committee Reports ............................................................................................................ 4 

Development Committee ................................................................................................... 5 

DV11.85 Lot 292 (No. 48) Tilton Terrace cnr Dorking Road, City Beach - Three 

Storey Dwelling 7 

DV11.86 Lot 76 (No. 20) Halesworth Road, Jolimont - Two Storey Dwelling 13 

DV11.87 Lot 68 (No. 22) Tranmore Way City Beach - Single Storey Dwelling 17 

DV11.88 Lot 3 (No. 45) Blencowe Street, West Leederville - Single Storey 

Dwelling 21 

DV11.89 Lot 382 (No. 13) Palana Road cnr Tumut Road, City Beach - Single 

Storey Dwelling with Undercroft 25 

DV11.90 Lot 29 (No. 34) Barrett Street Wembley - Additions to Single Dwelling 28 

DV11.91 

Lot 351 (No. 26) Challenger Parade City Beach - Additions to Single 

Dwelling 34 

DV11.92 Lot 209 (No. 25) Gregory Street, Wembley - Additions and Alterations 38 

DV11.93 Lot 3 (No. 68) Reserve Street, Wembley - Additions and Alterations 42 

DV11.94 Lot 36 (No. 25) Weldon Way, City Beach - Patio 47 

DV11.95 Lot 1463 (No. 10) Scaddan Street, Wembley - Patio 50 

DV11.96 Tender No. C12-11- Beach Lifeguard Service Contract 54 

Community and Resources Committee 59 

CR11.123 Birkdale Street/Cambridge Street - Commercial Precinct Parking and 

Landscape Plan 61 

CR11.124 Review of Drainage Network at No. 417-422 Cambridge Street 

(Corner of Selby Street) 69 

CR11.125 Perth Bicycle Network - Grant Submissions 2011/2012 and 2012/13 74 

CR11.126 Alderbury Street (Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive) - Traffic 

Management 79 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\11 MINUTES\October 2011\A Council Front.docx 

i

COUNCIL MINUTES 


CR11.127 Caithness Road - Proposed Traffic Island at The Boulevard 

Intersection 83 

CR11.128 Dedication of Sections of West Coast Highway 85 

CR11.129 Tender No. T23-11 - Panel of Maintenance Services Providers 87 

CR11.130 New Motor Vehicle Purchase - Community Development 92 

CR11.131 2011/2012 Financial Assistance to Community Organisations 94 

CR11.132 2012/2013 CSRFF Annual Grant Application 97 

CR11.133 Documents Sealed 102 

CR11.134 Delegation of Authority of Chief Executive Officer - Annual Review 104 

CR11.135 Annual Report Text 2010-2011 107 

CR11.136 Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting - 18 August 2011 109 

Audit Committee 112 

AU11.1 Internal Report for the Year Ended 20 June 2011 114 

AU11.2 Internal Audit Stage 2 - Purchasing/Contracts, Payroll/Human Resources 

and Cash Audit, Compliance Return Audit and Wembley Golf Course 

Operations Audit 117 

10. Council Report ............................................................................................................... 126 

10.1 Payment of Accounts - September 2011 126 

10.2 Investment Schedule - September 2011 128 

10.3 Monthly Financial, Review and Variances - September 2011 135 

10.4 Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities Development: Tender T20-11 140 

10.5 Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development: T21-11 145 

- Architectural Services 

11. Urgent Business ............................................................................................................ 149 

12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................... 149 

12.1 Cr Bradley - Underground Power in Floreat 149 

13. Confidential Reports ...................................................................................................... 150 

14. Closure ............................................................................................................................ 150 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\11 MINUTES\October 2011\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 

TUESDAY 20 SEPTEMBER 2011 

1. OPENING 

The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.02 pm. 

2. ATTENDANCE 

Present: 

Mayor: 

Councillors: 

Officers: 

Simon Withers 

Rod Bradley 

Sonia Grinceri 

Tracey King 

Alan Langer 

Corinne MacRae 

Otto Pelczar 

Hilary Pinerua 

Julie Watson 

Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Ross Farlekas, Acting Director Infrastructure 

Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure - Engineering 

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\11 MINUTES\October 2011\A Council Front.docx 1



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

Written Question 

Amanda Butterworth of Allerding & Associates, 125 Hamersley Road, Subiaco 

Re: Item DV11.91 - Lot 351 (No. 26) Challenger Parade, City Beach 

Question 

Are Councillors aware that we seek that the recommendation of Committee be set aside 

and that the application be deferred to allow for submission of further information and an 

onsite meeting with a Councillor, the Manager Development, the applicant and neighbour 

to assess and consider the impact of the development on the neighbours views to 

Rottnest Island 

Response 

Yes 

Verbal Questions 

Lorraine Cunniffe, 1/419 Cambridge Street, Floreat 

Re: Item CR11.124 - Review of Drainage Network at No. 417-422 Cambridge Street 

(Corner of Selby Street) 

Question 1 

In view of the Committee recommendation for a long term solution, I would like to ask 

whether there is any likelihood that works can be designed and completed in the coming 

year 

Question 2 

In the interim, what protection will be available to corner properties which will still be 

subject to flooding 

Response 

At present time, some interim 'quick fix' measures are being implemented which should 

be sufficient until the longer term solution is implemented. The longer term solution will 

cost approximately $300,000 and will be allocated in the following year's budget once the 

detailed design for an underground sump within the vacant property east of Selby Street 

and south of Cambridge Street has been prepared. 

Ray Palluci 

Re: 69 Lake Monger Drive, Wembley 

Question 1 

Is the Council aware that the Planning Department has issued summons of court 

proceedings against myself and my son 

Question 2 

Is it normal procedure for the Building and Planning Department to adopt court 

proceedings against a ratepayer without first consulting options to resolve the issues 




between Council and the ratepayer in a more constructive manner before opting for costly 

legal options. 

Question 3 

Variation plans and fees were paid for the assessment of the enclosure of the approved 

garage at 69 Lake Monger Drive, Wembley four months ago after calls from our Architect 

and the last call from myself on Monday 10 October 2011. The response of the Building 

Surveyor was sorry but nobody seems to know where the plans are. Is this standard 

procedure of the Town or is it a strategic procedure to delay the application until after the 

Court case. 

Question 4 

How much is it costing ratepayers for court proceedings and legal representation on a 

trivial matter that could have been resolved out of court. The only issue in question here 

is an approved garage that has been enclosed for the safety and security of the occupier 

and his young family. The addition of glazing to two openings and a roller door is the 

extent of the modifications. 

I wish to put forward a resolution that there be an immediate investigation of the matter 

and a response be prepared in writing within 14 days of the investigation. Please advise 

how much the Council has budgeted to waste on this matter. 

Response 

A response to the questions will be provided in writing. 

4. PETITIONS 

Nil 

5. DEPUTATIONS 

Nil 

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Pinerua 

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

be confirmed. 

Carried 9/0 

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION 

The Mayor advised that Cr Watson is retiring from Council this weekend and, on behalf of 

Council, wished her well and thanked her for her contribution over the last four years. 

The Mayor also advised that the terms of office for Crs Bradley and Pinerua are expiring, 

however, they are standing for Council again and wished them both well for the upcoming 

elections. 




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: Item DV11.85, 90 and 91 

Community and Resources: Items CR11.124 and 126 

Declarations of Interest: 

Nil 




DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

The report of the Development Committee meeting held on 4 October 2011 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 7.26 pm 

Cr Otto Pelczar 6.02 pm 7.26 pm 

Cr Hilary Pinerua 6.02 pm 7.26 pm 

Cr Alan Langer 6.02 pm 7.26 pm 

Observers: 

Cr Rod Bradley 

Cr Sonia Grinceri 

Officers: 

Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability 

Stevan Rodic, Manager Development 

Lee Rowley, Manager Compliance 


Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

7.26 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Leave of Absence - Cr Watson 


Nil 

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Item DV11.85 

Item DV11.90 

Diane Wainwright, applicant 

Peter Marshall, neighbour 

Kim Screaigh, neighbour 

Anne Kordic, neighbour 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 5



Item DV11.91 

Item DV11.92 

Item DV11.94 

Item DV11.95 

Amanda Butterworth, applicant 

Gerard McCann, applicant 

Nando Firios, owner 

Greg Foreman, neighbour 


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

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

confirmed. 

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Nil 

7. REPORTS 




DV11.85 LOT 292 (NO. 48) TILTON TERRACE CNR DORKING ROAD, CITY BEACH - 

THREE STOREY DWELLING 

PURPOSE OF REPORT: 

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

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

and setbacks. 

BACKGROUND: 

BA/DA REFERENCE: 222DA-2011 

LANDOWNER: 

G Gong 

APPLICANT: 

Riverstone Construction 

ZONING: Residential R12.5 

USE CLASS: 

Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted) 

LAND AREA: 1067 m 2 

DETAILS: 

Development description 

 

 

 

 

 

Three storey dwelling with split levels and a combination of flat and pitched roofs. 

Site slopes down from rear (north) boundary to front (south) boundary approximately 

4.5 metres. 

The flat roof section reaches a maximum height of 8.88 metres in lieu of a maximum 

overall height of 7.5 metres where it encroaches forward of the existing built up ground 

level. 

There is a proposed pool to be constructed facing the secondary street which results in 

new fencing along the secondary street boundary which reaches a maximum height of 

2.5 metres of solid fencing in lieu of 0.75 metres. 

The dwelling has setbacks of a minimum of 6.5 metres to both street frontages but is 

seeking a setback variation of 1.5 metres (minimum) in lieu of 6.0 metres from the rear 

boundary. 

Applicant's submission 

The applicant has provided the following justification for the rear setback:- 

 

 

 

 

The dwelling has a rear boundary setback ranging from 1.5 metres to 5.2 metres due 

to the walls being askew from the boundary. The setback averages about 3.3 metres. 

The existing residence has a similar setback and does not achieve a 6 metre rear 

setback. 

Other than the existing residence, there is evidence of other residences in the same 

street which do not have a 6 metre rear setback ie No. 2 Chidley Road, No. 2 Asten 

Road and No. 5 Esk Road. 

To utilise the higher levelled area to its maximum to gain a superior view, the proposed 

residence was positioned closer to the rear boundary as per the existing residence. 

This has assisted in ameliorating the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property 

at No. 46 Tilton Terrace. 




 

 

 

 

 

The reduced setback assists in maintaining most of the view from the balcony of the 

adjoining property at No. 46 Tilton Terrace as there is sufficient setback from Dorking 

Road for the proposed residence to have had a 3.75 metre setback from Tilton Terrace 

in lieu of 6.5 metres. 

The secondary street setback is a minimum of 6.5 metres and the section within the 

reduced rear setback has a setback of over 9 metres from Dorking Road,. This was 

deliberately designed to be in keeping with the setbacks of the original residence and 

to be sympathetic to the outlook from the residence at No. 4 Dorking Road. 

The rear two storey section has a wall height of 5.886 metres which is well below the 

6.5 metre maximum allowed and a ridge height of 8.0 metres. This was a deliberate 

design detail to enhance the amenity of adjoining residences by reducing the bulk and 

scale of the proposed residence. The only area of the dwelling which is overheight is 

the south eastern corner of Bedroom 3 on the upper floor and it should be noted that it 

is only the wall height that exceeds the limit and that is well below the height that a 

pitched roof would have been. 

There has been no deliberate lifting of floor levels as suggested by neighbours. 

There are no major openings to habitable rooms on the upper floor facing towards 

neighbouring properties so there is absolutely no issue regarding overlooking and 

privacy. 

Neighbour submission 

Comments were received from owners of two adjoining properties and are summarised 

below:- 

Submission one (No. 4 Dorking Road) 

 

 

As a corner block, the lot is compensated in area by approximately 20% over adjacent 

single frontage blocks and should not necessarily or automatically be given further 

compensation by a rear setback of 1.5 metres in lieu of 6.0 metres. We strenuously 

object to this variation. 

The planning of the proposed residence has been based on lifting the allowable floor 

levels by 1.48 metres to enhance views. The design and accommodation indicated in 

the drawings would not be affected by lowering the proposed levels to that required by 

the bylaws. These rules reflect concern for residents to the east and north of the lot as 

well as the general streetscape. 

Submission Two (No. 3 Asten Road) 

 

 

 

The rear setback variation increases the impact of the building bulk, reduces 

ventilation to our property by blocking the prevailing and cooling summer sea breeze 

and results in overlooking into our rear garden and south facing balcony and hence 

impacts our privacy. 

We currently have access to views of significance to the ocean and Rottnest and these 

will certainly be lost if the maximum height restrictions are not adhered to. 

The additional height will affect our privacy by the overlooking of out door living areas 

and our south facing balcony. It will also reduce the effectiveness of the prevailing 

winds which ventilate our home. 




Assessment against the performance criteria 

Street walls and fences 

Visual permeability 

Proposed 

Solid fencing to a maximum 

height of 2.5 metres 

Acceptable development provision 

Infill panels minimum open to solid 

ratio of 1:1 

Performance criteria: 

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

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

primary or district distributors or integrator arterials; or 

the need to provide screening to the front setback; or 

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

It is noted that the existing dwelling has solid fencing along the secondary street setback at a 

similar height to that proposed for the new dwelling. The current fencing is, however, angled 

and set back off the boundary which reduces its impact on the streetscape. The proposed 

fencing has a range of solid walls and retaining walls with visually permeable fencing above 

the walls proposed along the secondary street boundary. It is noted that all of the fencing 

proposed in the primary street setback area is visually permeable. Whilst the amount of solid 

fencing within the secondary setback area (60%) is acceptable, the proposed height right on 

the boundary is bulky and visually obtrusive. It is therefore recommended that the highest 

portion of wall which is proposed along the secondary street frontage be set back in from the 

boundary in line with the proposed steps with additional planter boxes in front of the fence to 

reduce the impact of bulky solid fencing along the secondary street boundary. 

It is considered that, with this minor change, the proposed fence in the secondary street 

setback area complies with the performance criteria for the following reason:- 

 

the need to provide screening and privacy to outdoor living areas. 

Buildings setback from the boundary 

Proposed 


Rear setback 1.5 metres to 5.2 metres. Minimum 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. 

It is noted that the current dwelling has a single storey garage and granny flat with a similar 

setback from both the secondary street (Dorking Road) and the rear boundary. The 

proposed dwelling maintains the same ground level but is proposed to be two storey and as 

close as 1.5 metres from the rear boundary. 




The applicant has kept the two storey element to as low a wall height level as possible to 

minimise the impact on adjoining properties in terms of access to adequate light and 

ventilation (adjoining properties are to the north and east of the subject site and on higher 

ground). In addition, there are no major openings at the upper level which have impact on 

adjoining properties in terms of loss of privacy. 

The main area of contention is therefore whether the two storey building has any impact on 

adjoining properties in terms of building bulk. It is noted that the dwelling complies with 

setbacks if the boundaries are treated as side boundaries and that, as both streets comply 

with the primary street setback requirement, either the north or eastern side boundaries 

could be treated as the rear and/or side boundary. The applicant has kept the two storey 

section of wall within the rear setback well below the maximum wall height requirements 

which also reduces the impact of building bulk on adjoining neighbours. 

The other area of contention for neighbours is whether the location of the two storey building 

towards the rear boundary has any impact on access to views of significance. As stated by 

the applicant, a design which achieved a rear setback of 6.0 metres and brought the dwelling 

further toward Dorking Road (to the secondary street setback of 3.75 metres) would actually 

have a much greater impact on access to views for the adjoining neighbour to the north. It is 

noted, however, that this is not one of the relevant performance criteria for considering 

setback variations. 

Overall, it is considered that the setback of the dwelling from the rear boundary complies 

with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

 

provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the dwelling and surrounding 

properties; 

assists in ameliorating building bulk to adjoining properties; 

assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 

Building height 

Maximum overall height 


Proposed 

8.8 metres maximum for a 

small portion of the dwelling 

towards the centre of the site. 


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 is a three storey dwelling but split level with the front portion of the dwelling 

facing Tilton Terrace being two storey and the rear of the dwelling facing Dorking Road 

being two storey. The dwelling becomes three storey for a small portion towards the centre 

of the site where the basement lift shaft links to the other two floors. The portion of third 

storey wall towards the front of the site which connects to the basement floor overhangs an 

area of the site that has not been previously retained to the existing floor level and therefore 

the heights have been calculated from the existing natural ground level which is the front 

garden of the existing dwelling. This means that a small portion of the upper flat roofed 

section of the second storey exceeds the height limit being 8.88 metres in lieu of 7.5 metres. 




All other portions of the dwelling comply with wall and roof ridge height requirements. On 

the basis that the overheight section of wall is towards the centre of the site, it does not 

impact on adjoining properties in terms of access to light and access to views of significance. 

Overall, it is considered that the height of the dwelling complies with the performance criteria 

for the following reasons:- 

 

 

allows adequate direct sun to buildings and opens spaces on adjoining properties. 

does not impact on access to views of significance. 

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 three storey dwelling submitted by Riverstone 

Construction at Lot 292 (No. 48) Tilton Terrace, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 24 

June 2011 subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

the fencing along the secondary street boundary being modified so that the southern 

most portion of wall is recessed back from the boundary to provide an additional 

planter area as shown in red on the approved plan. 




Committee Meeting 4 October 2011 

During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the application due to non 

compliance with the rear setback and wall height provisions of the R Codes and the negative 

impact on the adjoining properties. 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

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

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

Riverstone Construction at Lot 292 (No.48) Tilton Terrace, City Beach as shown on the 

plans dated 24 June 2011 for the following reason:- 

(i) 

the proposal does not satisfy the performance criteria of the R Codes relating to 

Building Height and rear setback due to its negative impact on the amenity of 

the adjoining properties. 

During discussion, Cr Pelczar suggested that the item be referred back to Committee to 

enable the further information circulated at the Council meeting to be considered. 

COUNCIL DECISION: 

Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

That the item relating to Lot 292 (No. 48) Tilton Terrace, City Beach be referred back to 

the Development Committee for further consideration. 

Carried 6/3 

For: 

Against: 

Crs Bradley, Grinceri, King, Pelczar, Pinerua and Watson 

Mayor Withers, Crs Langer and MacRae 




DV11.86 

LOT 76 (NO. 20) HALESWORTH ROAD, JOLIMONT - TWO STOREY 

DWELLING 


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

performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) and the Town Planning 

Scheme Policy Manual in respect to setbacks, filling of land, overshadowing and roof pitch. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Justin Norris and Naomi Willmott 

APPLICANT: 

New Home Building Brokers 

ZONING: 

Residential R20 

USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

Proposed two storey dwelling with a carport at the front and a garage with access from 

the ROW (Perry Lane) at the rear. 

The dwelling has a flat roof and a feature stone architectural feature wall facing the 

street. 

There is a minor setback variation to the southern boundary with the kitchen wall being 

set back 1.15 metred in lieu of 1.5 metres. 

The two storey dwelling is orientated to the southern side of the site to maximise its 

solar access but which results in an overshadowing variation to the adjoining property 

to the south. 

Delegated authority 

The Town's Delegation of Authority policy delegates certain powers to the Director 

Development and Sustainability and Manager Development to determine variations to the 

acceptable development provisions. 

There are variations to the acceptable development provisions regarding setbacks and 

retaining. These are considered minor and do not have any significant impact on the 

amenity of adjoining properties. The adjoining neighbours have not objected to these 

variations. 

An assessment against the performance criteria for all aforementioned variations has been 

prepared by the Administration and is available to Elected Members on request. 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the roof pitch and overshadowing 

variations: 




 

Roof pitch 

Our client has a strong desire for this style of roof and we have spent considerable 

time in designing the proposed residence and request that the Town consider our 

proposal as complying with the roof requirement policies for flat or skillion style roofs. 

 

Solar access for adjoining sites 

The outdoor living area to the adjoining lot is located on the southern side of the lot. 

Any overshadowing of the lot from our proposal does not occur over this area. 

Overshadowing of the adjoining residence occurs to highlight windows. 

We have been careful to design the proposal to avoid any overshadowing of the solar 

hot water unit on the adjoining residence. The overshadowing diagram clearly shows 

that no shade will fall on the solar collectors at midday 21 June. 

The adjoining residence has no balconies or verandahs affected by the overshadowing 

from our proposal. 



Proposed 


Roof pitch in Wembley Flat roof Primary roofs visible from the street to be 

hipped and/or gabled with a pitch between 22 

and 35 degrees 


 

 

 

Buildings which respect the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing in the street 

and immediate locality; 

buildings which respect the architectural styles which characterise the immediate locality; and 

buildings which relate to the palette of materials and colours are characteristic of housing in the 

immediate locality. 

The applicant proposes to construct a two storey dwelling with a flat roof. The Town 

Planning Policy Manual Policy 6.4 (Precinct 4: Wembley) identifies Halesworth Road, 

Jolimont as part of the Wembley Planning Precinct. Clause 6.2.7 of the Town Planning 

Scheme Policy Manual requires a roof pitch in Wembley to be between 22 and 35 degrees 

where visible from the street. 

It is considered that the roof pitch policy is less relevant to dwellings in Jolimont, particularly 

on Halesworth Road where dwellings were built at a much later date than dwellings in 

Wembley proper. It is noted that the majority of dwellings in Halesworth Road do have 

pitched roofs but probably at lower pitches than those required by the policy. 

Consideration has been given to amending the policy to exclude the Jolimont area from the 

roof pitch requirements for the Wembley precinct, however, at this time, it is not considered 

necessary. Rather, each application should be considered on its merits against the above 

performance criteria. 




Overall, in this particular instance, the proposed roof pitch is considered acceptable and will 

not have a significant detrimental impact on the streetscape, as the dwelling respects the 

height and massing of existing houses in the street and respects the architectural style of 

dwellings in the immediate locality. 

Solar access for adjoining sites 

Proposed 


Overshadowing 27.8% of site area Maximum 25% of site area 


Development designed to protect solar access for neighbouring properties taking account the 

potential to overshadow: 

outdoor living areas; 

major openings to habitable rooms; 

solar collectors; or 

balconies or verandahs. 

The majority of the overshadowing is over the adjoining dwelling to the south which has 

been designed with the main living areas and swimming pool area on the south side of the 

dwelling. The dwelling will cast a shadow of the side of the adjoining single storey dwelling, 

but not over its solar hot water system. There are no balconies or verandahs on the north 

side of the adjoining property. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant performance criteria for 

the following reason: 

 

protects solar access for the adjoining property by not overshadowing outdoor living 

areas or solar collectors. 













Scheme. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 


(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 



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

Home Building Brokers at Lot 76 (No. 20) 20 Halesworth Road, Jolimont as shown on 

the amended plans dated 24 August 2011. 

Carried 9/0 




DV11.87 LOT 68 (NO. 22) TRANMORE WAY CITY BEACH - SINGLE STOREY 

DWELLING 


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

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

boundary. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Mr B G Fraser 

APPLICANT: 

Webb & Brown -Neaves Homes 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 

Development Description 

 

 

 

 

The proposed single storey dwelling is located on a block which abuts parkland to the 

northern , eastern and partially to the western boundary; 

It will contain a parapet wall to the storeroom 5.64 metres in length and a maximum 

2.8 metres in height, set back 7.5 metres from the front boundary; 

The proposed development is of a similar layout to the existing dwelling, with the 

retention of the pool in the north-western corner; 

The development proposes a central courtyard open to the northerly sun. 

Delegated Authority 




There are variations to the acceptable development provisions regarding setbacks, fencing 

in the street setback area and landscaping. These variations have no impact on the 

adjoining properties. 



Applicant's Submission 

The applicant has provided the following justification for the side setback variation to the 

north:- 

 

The setback of the store boundary wall is 7.5 metres, consistent with the minimum 

setback desired under the City's Policy; 




 

 

 

 

The proposed boundary wall features an average height of 2.7 metres, which is 

consistent with the average height specified for the R20 zone. The wall therefore has a 

height that is considered desirable in terms of ensuring suitable levels of residential 

amenity; 

The level of overshadowing does not exceed the requirements of the Codes and the 

location of the wall on the boundary will not result in any perception of additional 

building bulk on major openings or outdoor living areas; 

The proposed boundary wall is to be located adjacent to the front setback area of the 

building adjoining property and will therefore not result in any perception of additional 

building bulk on major openings or outdoor living areas; and 

The wall will provide additional privacy and security for residents. 


The application was advertised to the adjoining owners to the north. Comments were 

received from and are summarised below: 

Submission one (No. 20 Tranmore Way) 

 

 

 

 

No. 22's block size is approximately 1000 sqm; 

Given that the property sits approximately 1 metre higher than ours (once you get a 

few meters along their existing garage, see attached picture 2 & 3) this new building 

will reduce the sunlight able to reach our property and given the garage is being 

moved forward a 1 meter and store room to be butted up against our boundary, this 

would significantly darken the area across our front verandah, restrict the light to the 

main bedroom of our property and also our view out of the window would be a brick 

wall rather than the existing tree's/bushes; 

The storeroom which looks to be an additional side extension to part of the garage 

would butt up right against the existing boundary wall which is a brick and iron railing 

design. Whilst having no visible impact from no. 22, it would look totally out of place 

from our property and as mentioned earlier, due to no. 22 being on the northern side of 

our home, block light from reaching our front verandah and bedroom; and 

In summary, our main issue relates to the combination of the garage being brought 

forward by 1 meter, together the side wall of the property being positioned against the 

boundary fence. We feel that this will significantly compromise the light to our property, 

compromise the look of the boundary and that the positioning of the building so close 

to our boundary (considering the size of the block) is unnecessary. 


Buildings on boundary 

Setback storeroom from 

southern (right) boundary 

Proposed 

Nil. 


1.0 metre 


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

to: 

make effective use of space; or 

enhance privacy; or 

otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; 

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




 

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

adjoining properties is not restricted. 

The proposed storeroom will be located 7.5 metres from the primary street and will be 2.8 

metres in height at the highest point, and 5.64 metres long. The reduced setback to the 

storeroom is to the southern boundary so will have some impact on overshadowing to the 

adjoining property's verandah, however, it will consist of a flat roof to minimise the overall 

impact. The storeroom will make effective use of the space and allows a large north-facing 

courtyard for the subject property, while not overshadowing any habitable room windows or 

outdoor living areas of the adjoining property 

The proposed development will enhance privacy between the adjoining properties as there 

are no major openings on the southern elevation. The dwelling has been designed to 

increase solar efficiency with little increased impact on the adjoining property. The family 

room has been set back 1.727 metres to allow sunlight to the windows on the northern 

elevation of the adjoining property. The pool and outdoor living area of the adjoining property 

is located to the rear of the property and the proposed application will have little impact on 

sunlight to these areas. 

Overall, it is considered that the setback of the storeroom from the southern boundary 

complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

will have little increased impact on overshadowing to the adjoining property; and 

assists in protecting privacy between properties. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 








1, Council APPROVES the application for a single dwelling submitted by Webb & 

Brown-Neaves Homes at Lot 68 (No. 22) Tranmore Way, City Beach, as shown on the 

plans dated 4 August 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

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

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

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

(iii) the infill panels of the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a 

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

Carried 9/0 




DV11.88 LOT 3 (NO. 45) BLENCOWE STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - SINGLE 

STOREY DWELLING 



performance criteria of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual in respect of roof pitch in 

West Leederville. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Barbara Row 

APPLICANT: 

Dale Alcock Homes Pty Ltd 

ZONING: 


USE CLASS: 


LAND AREA: 655m 2 

DETAILS: 


The proposal is for the construction of a single-storey dwelling on a lot fronting 

Blencowe Street and with rear access via Blechynden Lane. 

The dwelling is set back at 4.0 metres from the Primary Street and 13.1 metres from 

the rear boundary. 

A retaining wall surrounding the dwelling allows the retention of a consistent ground 

level on much of the site with a lower level towards the rear of the lot. Retaining along 

the northern boundary peaks at 0.67 metres and on the southern boundary peaks at 

1.05 metres. 

The major opening to the sitting room has a setback, within the cone of vision, of 1.6 

metres to the northern boundary in lieu of 6.0 metres. 

Similarly the major opening to bedroom 2 has a setback, within the cone of vision, of 

3.2 metres in lieu of 4.5 metres. 

The roof of the dwelling has a proposed pitch of 25º and reaches a maximum height of 

5.4 metres. 





There are variations to the acceptable development provisions regarding site works and 

visual privacy. These are considered to meet the relevant performance criteria. 







The applicant has provided the following justification for the roof pitch variation:- 

 

 

 

 

My proposed dwelling is single storey, with a hipped and gabled roof form. The façade 

of the house incorporates smaller vertical windows, and has been purposefully 

designed in order to fit the desired ‘West Leederville’ aesthetic. The proposed 

development respects the height and massing of existing and historical dwellings in 

the streetscape, and in fact represents a much more sympathetic development 

outcome than other approved dwellings in the area such as number 71 Blencowe 

Street and 51 St Leonards Avenue which clearly do not meet the roof pitch OR 

character goals of the Council policy. 

The proposed development will respect and enhance the architectural styles of the 

immediate locality, and has been deliberately designed to ‘fit in’ to the streetscape. 

The frontage of the house incorporates a number of architectural features 

characteristic of the area, including the roof form, the smaller windows to the front 

elevation, the provision of a porch element with turned verandah posts and the setback 

of the building from the street. 

The proposed development will be neutrally coloured rendered brickwork, with a 

wooden frame roof with corrugated sheeting. These materials are all common within 

the locality and respect the traditional construction materials and form of the local 

housing stock. The fencing will match the predominant type in the street, and I intend 

landscaping the front garden. 

I have lived and paid rates at this address for 25 years and take pride in both the area 

and the contribution that my new home will make to the character of the 

neighbourhood. I firmly believe that the 5 degrees of difference in the roof pitch will 

make NO discernable difference to any passer- by, nor would it create any undesirable 

precedent as the plan meets the performance criteria requirements of the Council’s 

own streetscape policy. 



Proposed 


Roof pitch 25º 30 - 40º 


 

 

 



Buildings which respect the architectural styles in which characterise the immediate locality: 

and 

Buildings which relate to the palette of materials and colours are characteristic of housing in 

the immediate locality. 

There are no examples of a similar roof design within the immediately surrounding 

streetscape and, as such, the proposal would detract from the conformity of the area and 

would be contradictory to the heritage of the surrounding precinct. West Leederville remains 

a relatively older development area with many houses in the area being longstanding 

dwellings. The roof pitch requirement for the precinct is aimed at retaining this character for 

the area and the development proposes a direct contradiction to this policy. 




In summary, it does not respect the roof pitches of existing housing in the street and 

immediate locality and is contradictory to policy. 

Further to the aforementioned factors, the proposed roof pitch would present an undesirable 

precedent for future development in the area. It is, however, noted that at least the 

proposed roof is pitched in a traditional sense although at a lower level. 

Overall, it is considered that the roof pitch does not comply with the performance criteria for 

the following reasons:- 

 

 

Building does not respect the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing in 

the street and immediate locality; 

The development would set an undesirable precedent for future development in the 

area. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



Council REFUSES the application for a single storey dwelling submitted by Dale Alcock 

Homes Pty Ltd at Lot 3 (No. 45) Blencowe Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans 

dated 13 June 2011 for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

the roof pitch does not meet the acceptable development provision for roof pitch in 

West Leederville; 




(ii) 

(iii) 

the roof pitch does not satisfy the performance criteria relating to roof pitch of the Town 

Planning Scheme Policy Manual; 

building does not respect the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing in 

the street and immediate locality. 


During discussion, Members were prepared to support the application and considered that 

the roof pitch was traditional and satisfied the performance criteria of the policy relating to 

roof pitch. 

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


(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) 



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

Alcock Homes Pty Ltd at Lot 3 (No. 45) Blencowe Street, West Leederville as shown 

on the plans dated 13 June 2011. 

Carried 9/0 




DV11.89 LOT 382 (NO. 13) PALANA ROAD CNR TUMUT ROAD, CITY BEACH - 

SINGLE STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT 


To consider an application for a single storey dwelling with undercroft requiring assessment 

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

buildings setback from the boundary. 


LANDOWNER: 

Natasha Eaves 

APPLICANT: 

Natasha Eaves 

ZONING: 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


Subject property located on the corner of Palana Road (Primary Street) and Tumut 

Road (Secondary Street). 

The site slopes significantly from east (Tumut Road) to the west by approximately 3.4 

metres. 

Proposed dwelling results in a rear (south) setback variation of 1.5 - 4.2 in-lieu of the 

required 6 metres. 





There is a variation to the acceptable development provisions regarding site works on the 

western boundary. No objection was received from the adjoining landowner to the west and 

this variation is considered to meet the relevant performance criteria and is therefore not 

discussed further in this report. 




The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed rear setback 

variation:- 

 

Building Bulk or Mass 

1) The building is within height limits; 

2) The building is essentially single storey; 

3) The mass of the building is broken both horizontally and vertically; 




 

 

4) The setback increases as the building height above natural GL increases; and 

5 The setback is greater than the R-code requirement for side setbacks to a similar 

size building. In this situation the building situations are similar to side by side 

dwellings. 

Privacy/Overlooking 

1) There are no clear glazed windows overlooking the neighbour; 

2) We have a 100% visually opaque screen to western balcony; and 

3) The privacy arc complies with minimum setback 

Environmental/Overlooking 

1) The maximum allowable shading at 12 noon midwinter is 25%. The actual 

shading is 90m/approximatley 1000m2 adjoining site area = 9% of adjoining site; 

and 

2) There is no shading of vital elements such as courts, windows ect. 


Comments were received from the owners of No.15 Tumut Road which is summarised 

below: 

Submission one (No. 15 Tumut Road, City Beach) 

 

We have viewed the plans and are strongly opposed to the setback of 1.5 - 4.2 metres 

shown on the photo. 



Side setback 


Proposed 

6.0 metres from wall on the 

south elevation to the rear 

(south) side boundary. 


1.5 - 4.2 metres 








The proposed rear setback variation is not considered to have an undue impact on the 

adjoining property as the reduced portion of wall on the rear (south) elevation is adjacent to 

the driveway and carport of the adjoining property to the south at No.15 Palana Road. 

Adequate levels of direct sun and ventilation will be available to the adjoining property to the 

south with the shadow falling over the driveway and carport structure located on the 

common boundary. No habitable rooms or outdoor living areas will be affected in terms of 

access to direct light. There is a significant gap between the proposed dwelling and the 

adjoining dwelling to the south which will allow for sufficient levels of ventilation to this 

neighbouring property. 




The perception of building bulk as viewed from the rear adjoining property is minimised as 

the proposed dwelling is predominately single storey. The undercroft section of the dwelling 

will only become partially exposed as the land slopes down from Tumut Road and will only 

reach a maximum overall height of 5.15 metres on the rear (south) elevation. The finished 

floor level of the proposed dwelling is also 0.68 metre lower than the finished floor level of 

the adjoining property to the south. 

A visual privacy screen is proposed for the alfresco on the southern elevation eliminating any 

potential to overlook into the rear property. 

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

for the following reasons:- 

 

 

 

 

adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to the adjoining property; 

protection of access to direct sun for the adjoining property; 

ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on the adjoining property; and 

protection of privacy between adjoining properties. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling with undercroft 

submitted by Natasha Eaves at Lot 382 (No. 13) Palana Road, City Beach as shown on 

the plans dated 14 September 2011. 

Carried 9/0 




DV11.90 

LOT 29 (NO. 34) BARRETT STREET WEMBLEY - ADDITIONS TO SINGLE 

DWELLING 


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

performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) and the Town Planning 

Scheme Policy Manual in respect to buildings on boundary and roof pitch. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

E P Maddren and K A Maddren 

APPLICANT: 

E P Maddren and K A Maddren 

ZONING: 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


The proposed additions to the rear and front of the existing dwelling will consist of: 

 

 

 

 

Two unroofed open style balconies to the front of the existing dwelling overhanging the 

front garden and the driveway; 

A single storey extension to the rear containing two parapet walls on the eastern 

boundary with lengths of 9.0 metres with maximum height of 3.5 metres and 5.4 

metres with maximum height of 2.9 metres; 

An alfresco set back 1.0 metre from the western boundary; 

The property slopes downwards approximately 5 metres from the back right corner to 

the front left corner. 





There are variations to the acceptable development provisions regarding landscaping in the 

street setback area. These are considered minor and do not have any significant impact on 

the amenity of adjoining properties. 







The applicant has provided the following justification for the roof pitch and setback 

variations: 

Roof Pitch 

The balcony project to the front elevation serves to provide protection to two (2) 

vehicles that will be parked in the created undercroft area. 

Rather than extend the whole deck, we only extended the area that provides protection 

to the vehicles. 

Buildings on Boundary 

 

 

 

 

To ensure there is adequate useable open space we have designed to the boundary. 

This boundary is a driveway for the majority of the block length, with an open carport at 

the northern portion of the property. 

A single level dwelling will have a significantly lower impact on the neighbouring 

dwellings. 

We have discussed the proposed development with the neighbours and have complied 

with their request to not exceed 3500mm at the highest point. 


Letters were sent to the adjoining owners to the east with regards to the parapet walls and 

the owners to the west due to the ongoing issues of development on the street. Comments 

were received from all owners and are summarised below: 

Submission one (No. 32A Barrett Street) 

 

 

 

 

Builders / owners will not be able to construct new building without accessing driveway 

immediately adjacent. 

Excavation up to the boundary will undermine the driveway and vibration caused by 

the construction will affect my residence; 

The proposed building is a single dwelling on a 728sqm block - there is no need for it 

to be built on the boundary; 

Worry that this development will cause damage like previous developments in the 

area; 

Submission two (No. 32B Barrett Street) 

 

 

 

 

Do not want a total of 14.4m of wall exceeding 3.3 metres on the boundary; 

Height of the wall on our boundary exceeds 3.5 metres above the driveway; 

Drawings are misleading when they show the level of the adjacent property dashed, as 

this shows the level of a 100mm strip of retained soil which will be removed when the 

building works start; 

The building works will require access to our property. 

Submission three (No. 36 Barrett Street) 

 

 

 

Not happy with the quality of the drawings and lack of working drawings; 

Nothing to suggest what construction form the retaining walls will take. 

The large alfresco wall will impact on us and there have been no details on the form 

that this will take. 




 

 

This is another project which could potentially be a disaster. 

Object to the flippant approach being taken by the council in allowing a redevelopment 

to proceed without a full and thorough investigation. 

It should be noted that there are no variations being sought on the western side. 


Roof Pitch 

Roof Pitch Wembley 


Proposed 

No roof, flat perception to 

front balconies 


Primary roofs visible from the street 

to be hipped and/or gabled with a 

pitch of 22 – 35degrees 

 

 

 



buildings which respect the architectural styles which characterise the immediate locality; and 

buildings which relate to the palette of materials and colours are characteristic of housing in the 

immediate locality. 

The applicant proposes to construct two balconies to the front of the dwelling with a square 

'block' façade and which do not meet the minimum pitch requirements. These balconies 

however, are unroofed and will provide sightlines from the street through to the roof of the 

existing dwelling. The sides of the balconies have been opened up with the addition of 

louvers to reduce the building bulk to the street. 

The overall height of the roof will not be changing and there is evidence of other more 

contemporary designed buildings on this street. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant performance criteria for 

the following reason:- 

 

the proposed additions respect the architectural style of dwellings in the immediate 

locality. 

Buildings on Boundary 

Setback living room and 

ensuite from eastern 

boundary 

Proposed 


0 metres 1.0 metre 



to:- 





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

adjoining properties is not restricted. 




The reduced setback to the living room and ensuite is to the eastern boundary, so any 

overshadowing will be directed to the front of the dwelling and will have little impact on the 

adjoining properties to the east. The remainder of the additions are set back 5.17 metres 

from the eastern boundary, therefore reducing the overall impacts of building bulk and 

ensuring minimal impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties. The parapet walls will be 

abutting a driveway and an open style carport to the adjoining property therefore sunlight will 

not be affected. The outdoor living area No. 32B Barrett Street is located in the north-eastern 

corner therefore the proposed parapet walls will have no impact on sunlight to this outdoor 

living area. 

The adjoining owner has stated that if the walls were reduced to a maximum height of 

3.0metres they would be more acceptable. The Town encourages applicants to lower 

boundary walls as much as possible and practical. It is considered that the wall of the retreat 

could be lowered to not exceed a maximum of 3.0 metres above natural ground level at the 

boundary by lowering the floor level of the addition. 

Overall, subject to the above modification it is considered that the proposal complies with the 

relevant performance criteria for the following reason:- 

 

protects solar access for the adjoining property by not overshadowing any habitable 

room windows or outdoor living areas. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 






Council APPROVES the application for additions to single dwelling submitted by K A 

Maddren and E P Maddren at Lot 29 (No. 34) Barrett Street, Wembley, as shown on the 

amended plans dated 23 August 2011, subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to be 

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

all boundary fencing to be a minimum 1.6 metres above the modified ground levels to 

comply with the acceptable development provisions of part 6.8.1 Visual Privacy of the 

Residential Design Codes of Western Australia; 

the boundary wall to the retreat room having a maximum height of 3.0 metres above 

natural ground level. 


During discussion, Members agreed that the item be deferred to enable further information 

to be obtained on:- 

 

 

 

the finished ground levels on the western boundary; 

further detail of excavation to be provided on all boundaries and how this will be 

retained; 

the overall effect of lowering the wall height of the retreat room to 3 metres above 

natural ground level. 

FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 4 October 2011) 

The property owners Kim and Eric Maddren have provided an undertaking that they will 

move the rear part of the development to 1.0 metre from the eastern boundary, in response 

to objections raised by the neighbour. The 1.0 metre setback would meet acceptable 

development provisions of the R Codes. 

The Committee recommendation is that the application be deferred. The applicants have 

requested that, on the basis of their undertaking to remove the building from the side 

boundary, that the application be determined at the Council Meeting. 

If Council is prepared to do this, this could be achieved by requiring the 1.0 metre side 

setback by way of imposing a condition on the approval. An alternative recommendation to 

this effect will be provided prior to the Council meeting. 

The applicant has since submitted an amended plan detailing the correct level of the top of 

the stairs in relation to the courtyard level on the western side. As a result, this now shows 

the boundary fencing being of a sufficient height to alleviate potential overlooking of the 

neighbour's property. Accordingly, the previous recommended condition (ii) relating to 

screening is no longer necessary. 







That the item relating to Lot 29 (No. 34) Barrett Street, Wembley be deferred for one 

month. 

Lost 3/6 

For: 

Against: 

Crs Bradley, Grinceri and Pelczar 

Mayor Withers, Crs King, Langer, MacRae, Pinerua and Watson 


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson 


1, Council APPROVES the application for additions to single dwelling submitted by K 

A Maddren and E P Maddren at Lot 29 (No. 34) Barrett Street, Wembley, as shown on 

the amended plans dated 23 August 2011 and 11 October 2011, subject to the 

following condition:- 

(i) 

the eastern side of the additions being set back 1.0 metres from the side 

boundary and not to exceed a height of 3.5 metres above natural ground level as 

measured at the boundary (as defined in the R Codes for boundary setback 

calculations). 

Carried 6/3 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs King, Langer, MacRae, Pinerua and Watson 

Crs Bradley, Grinceri and Pelczar 




DV11.91 

LOT 351 (NO. 26) CHALLENGER PARADE CITY BEACH - ADDITIONS TO 

SINGLE DWELLING 


To consider an application for a additions to a single dwelling requiring assessment under 

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

height. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

J C Harcourt-Cooke and B H Harcourt-Cooke 

APPLICANT: 

Allerding & Associates 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


First and second floor additions to an existing two storey dwelling, resulting in a 3 

storey dwelling; 

The additions will contain predominantly flat roofs, maintaining the existing style of the 

building as seen from the street; 

An open style carport to the front with grass paving being provided as the hardstand; 

All additions are located over the existing pad, with no change to the building footprint. 

All existing ground levels are being maintained; 

The additions propose a maximum height of 9.3 metres as seen from the street, and a 

maximum 8.1 metres as seen from the rear (in lieu of 7.5 metres). 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the building height:- 

 

 

 

 

 

The design and scale of the proposed additions is comparable with the scale of other 

buildings in the locality; 

The proposed extensions will result in an updating and upgrading to the existing 

residence and is a high quality development that will improve the streetscape; 

The development will not adversely affect the amenity of the adjacent residents or the 

locality and will still allow neighbours to the rear to have a view of the ocean. 

The extent of variation to the building height is in our opinion minimal and located to 

the front of the lot in order to reduce the potential impact on the rear neighbour's views. 

The proposal has significantly less impact on the neighbour's view when compared to 

a compliant gable roof. 





The plans were advertised to the four adjoining properties. One submission was received 

and is summarised below: 

Submission one 

 

 

 

The addition will block out our ocean and sunset view with a brick wall. 

The proposed extensions to the 3rd level appear to be over height and definitely 

interfere with our direct vision to the horizon and Rottnest Island. 


Building height 

Proposed 


Maximum overall height 9.3 metres maximum 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 is currently a two-storey dwelling with the proposal of adding to the existing first 

floor, and adding a new second floor resulting in a three storey dwelling as seen from the 

street (Challenger Parade). The portion of the second floor towards the front of the property 

is located immediately above the undercroft garage which is approximately 1.5 metres below 

the ground floor finished floor level. The calculation of the height has been taken from the 

undercroft garage level as defined in the R-Codes. This results in a maximum height of 9.3 

metres. 

The additions will have little impact on sunlight to adjoining dwellings, as most of the shadow 

will be cast to the front yard of the adjoining dwelling, and will not impact any outdoor living 

areas or habitable room windows. 

The development proposes a flat roof to the additions which will reduce the overall bulk of 

the additions and improve sightlines for the dwellings to the rear. The overall height is below 

the maximum permissible ridge height for a pitched roof of 10.5 metres. 

Overall, it is considered that the height of the dwelling complies with the performance criteria 

for the following reason:- 

 

allows adequate direct sun to buildings and opens spaces on adjoining properties. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



Council APPROVES the application for additions to a single dwelling submitted by Allerding 

& Associates at Lot 351 (No. 26) Challenger Parade, City Beach as shown on the plans 

dated 25 July 2011. 


During discussion, Members noted the concerns of the adjoining neighbour with regard to 

the loss of views of significance as a result of the proposed addition. Also, Members 

expressed concern with regard to the proposed overall height of the addition and its impact 

on the amenity of the neighbours. 

The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 1/3 

For: 

Against: 

Cr MacRae 

Crs Langer, Pelczar and Pinerua 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: 



1, Council REFUSES the application for additions to a single dwelling submitted by 

Allerding & Associates at Lot 351 (No. 26) Challenger Parade, City Beach as shown on 

the plans dated 25 July 2011 for the following reason:- 




(i) 

the development does not satisfy the performance criteria of the R Codes 

relating to building height in that it has a significant impact on views of 

significance. 

During discussion, Cr MacRae advised that the applicant has requested that the item be 

referred back to Committee to enable further information to be provided on building height 

and the impact of the development on the views of the neighbours. 


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson 

That the item relating to Lot 351 (No. 26) Challenger Parade, City Beach be referred 

back to the Development Committee for further consideration. 

Carried 9/0 




DV11.92 LOT 209 (NO. 25) GREGORY STREET, WEMBLEY - ADDITIONS AND 

ALTERATIONS 



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

setback from the boundary. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Mark and Maria Roberts 

APPLICANT: 

Gerard McCann 

ZONING: 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal is for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling. 

Demolition of the patio, store and WC built to the northern boundary, the carport built to 

the southern boundary and the rear shed. 

Construction of a new laundry, kitchen, dining area, family area, alfresco and study. 

Alterations to windows to the craft room and bathroom are proposed. 

The laundry has a nil setback to the north with a boundary wall. 

Boundary wall is 4.9 metres in length and has a maximum height of 3.4metres. 





There is a variation to the acceptable development provisions regarding visual privacy to the 

southern boundary. The adjoining neighbour to the south provided no objection to the 

proposal within the two-week advertising period conducted. Similarly, the alfresco has a 

setback within the cone of vision of 4.0 metres in lieu of 7.5 metres, however, screening has 

been provided to avoid any impact on the southern neighbour's property. This is considered 

to meet the relevant performance criteria. 

An assessment against the performance criteria for the aforementioned variation has been 



The applicant has provided the following justification for the boundary setback variations:- 




 

 

 

1.2 metre setback is a compromise between the 1.5 metres required by the code and 

the existing house 0.8 metre setback. 

The proposed Kitchen wall height is reduced to an average of 3.7 metres from the 

existing main roof of the house which has a 4.3 metre wall height. 

The height of the wall is a function of the slope of the land, but as it is on the southern 

boundary of Lot 208 to the north, it is considered to have little impact on the adjacent 

neighbour. 


The adjoining neighbours to the north were given a 14 day advertising period to comment on 

the proposed additions and alterations. The following summarises their comments:- 

 

 

 

We are opposed to both setback variations drawn on the plans of 25 Gregory Street, 

Wembley. We do not believe it is appropriate for the kitchen and laundry to be 

positioned at such close proximity to their northern boundary. 

We are opposed to the proposed setbacks mainly for privacy reasons. As these are 

narrow blocks, setbacks of 1.2 metres in a kitchen would encroach upon our privacy. 

We do not consent to the laundry wall built on the boundary as it would adversely 

affect the visual aesthetics of our fence line. 

The adjoining neighbours to the south were given a 14 day advertising period to comment on 

the proposed additions and alterations. The following summarises their comments:- 

 

Please ensure effective privacy screening to the craft room, particularly to our 

bathroom. Otherwise no objection to the proposal. 


Boundary setbacks 

Proposed 


Right (north) setback 1.2 metre setback 3.3 metre setback 









The proposed additions and alterations to the existing dwelling result in a kitchen wall 

setback 1.2 metres of the northern boundary. The subject property is located on the south 

side of this property and therefore will have no impact on access to direct sun for the 

adjoining neighbours. 

The kitchen is set back further than the existing line of the dwelling and as such is very 

unlikely to have a significant adverse affect in terms of building bulk. The roof of the kitchen 

is also reduced compared to that of the main dwelling, further ameliorating the impact. 




The adjoining neighbours have raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposed 

kitchen on their visual privacy. To address these concerns screen walls to a height of 1.6 

metres above finished floor level have been provided on the northern boundary to prevent 

overlooking from the kitchen and also the family room to the northern neighbours' property. 

Also, vegetation along the boundary is likely to further screen the development. 

Due to the orientation of the lot and the right boundary facing the north, it is important for 

openings to be present on the northern side to provide direct sun to the dwelling. This has 

been provided in the proposal with an evident effort to prevent the proposal form having a 

significant adverse impact on the adjoining property. 

Overall, it is considered that the setback of the kitchen from the northern boundary complies 


 

 

 

provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building 

ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties 

provides adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces 

Buildings on the boundary 

Right (north) setback 


Proposed 

Nil setback with a boundary 

wall 


1.0 metre 


to: 





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

properties is not restricted. 

The proposal of the laundry on the northern boundary of the lot makes effective use of 

space. This prevents further encroachment into the deck and outdoor living area located to 

the south-west of the additions and into the proposed pool and backyard. The presence of 

the laundry with a nil setback and a boundary wall presents development that would have an 

improved impact on the adjoining property in terms of privacy than if it was set back and had 

an opening. 

The proposed boundary wall borders the adjoining property at a point that is largely 

screened by vegetation. 

In addition, the location of the wall on the northern boundary of the lot means that it will not 

impact direct sun to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas on the adjoining property. 

Overall, it is considered that the setback of the laundry from the northern boundary complies 


 

 

 

makes effective use of space 

enhances privacy 

enhances the amenity of the development 




 

ensures that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms or outdoor living area of 

adjoining properties is not restricted 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





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

Gerard McCann at Lot 209 (No. 25) Gregory Street, Wembley as shown on the plans 

dated 5 August 2011 subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the north to 

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

Carried 9/0 




DV11.93 

LOT 3 (NO. 68) RESERVE STREET, WEMBLEY - ADDITIONS AND 

ALTERATIONS 


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

assessment under the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) with 

respect to buildings setback from the boundary. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Mr Anthony Revesz & Ms Lisa Boston 

APPLICANT: 

Anthony Revesz 

ZONING: 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

The proposal includes an undercroft garage addition with bedroom and balcony above 

as well as a living room addition to the north-eastern corner of the existing dwelling. 

Replacement of roofing material from existing concrete roof tiles to Zincalume 

Colorbond is also proposed. 

The site slopes from the east (rear) to the front (west) of the property by approximately 

4.3 metres. 

The proposed undercroft garage with bedroom and balcony above results in ground 

and upper floor setback variations to the right (south) boundary. 





There are variations to the acceptable development provisions regarding the side setback 

from the left (north) side boundary, privacy setback from the balcony to the left (north) side 

boundary, garage width, landscaping and site works. No objections were received from the 

adjoining landowner to the north and these variations were considered to meet the relevant 

performance criteria and are therefore not discussed further in this report. 







The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed side setback 

variations:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adequate direct sun and ventilation are provided to our proposed extension. 

Proposal does not unduly affect the amenity of our neighbour in terms of direct sun 

and ventilation. The building is setback 1100mm from the boundary as a continuation 

of the existing side wall and complies with sun studies as required in 6.9.1 of the code. 

Ventilation is not impaired as we still have a 1100mm setback and the adjacent area is 

mainly open lawn and a small part of a carport. 

Adequate direct sun is provided to our building and appurtenant open spaces, via 

windows and part glazed panelift door to the garage and via windows to Bed 1. 

We have assisted in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on the adjoining property 

by: 

1. Sitting the new Bed 1/Garge in approximately the same location as the existing 

metal roofed carport and lowering the floor level. 

2. The new garage floor level is approximately 800mm below the adjacent property 

FGL at the front of the Garage and 1720mm below at the rear. 

3. We have proposed a full width plater along the top of the Garage and set Bed 1 

back to reduce the visual impact of the building. 

The design keeps the proposed building at a reasonable distance from the boundary 

with benefit to both parties. Even if we adjusted the setback to the 1800 and 1500 

suggested, no benefit would be gained by our neighbour, but on the other hand our 

design would be compromised resulting in reduced secure, vehicular assessed 

storage and a new Bedroom with look "stuck on" the front instead of forming a 

harmonious part of the whole building. 

The outlook from the adjacent house at 66 Reserve Street, which is elevated 

approximately 3100mm above our proposed garage FFL & setback approximately 

9500mm from the proposed rear wall of our Bed 1 and Garage is not impeded. 

Furthermore there is a carport in front of the house which partially blocks direct line of 

sight. The "affected area" is not a "sensitive" area. 


Comments were received from owner of No.66 Reserve Street which is summarised below: 

Submission one (No. 66 Reserve Street, Floreat) 

 

 

 

I do not approve of these variations as I feel they will have a negative impact on the 

enjoyment and value of my property because of building bulk, overshadowing and loss 

of view. 

I have plans to remove my existing carport in the near future and restore the view from 

my veranda to the North West, and while the allowable setback distances of 1.5m and 

1.8m for the proposed garage and bedroom will cut off some of this view, I would like 

to keep this to a minimum. The building bulk will impact more noticeably after the 

removal of my existing carport. 

While considering this matter, my attention turned to eth proposed Zincalume roof for 

68 Reserve Street. I have concerns about the glare as viewed from the landing at the 

front of my premises after the removal of the existing carport, but especially as seen 

from my veranda. I feel this too will have a negative impact on the enjoyment and 

value of my property. 






Side Setbacks 


Proposed 

1.1 metres from the proposed 

Garage on the ground floor to 

the right (south) side 

boundary. 

1.1 metres from the proposed 

Bedroom 1 on the upper floor 

to the right (south) side 

boundary. 


1.5 metres 

1.8 metres 








The proposed undercoft garage with bedroom above is not considered to have an undue 

impact on the adjoining property to the south as it is set back the required distance from 

Reserve Street and proposes a side setback which is a continuation of the existing setbacks 

of the dwelling to the right (south) side boundary. 

The maintenance of the existing setback of 1.1 metres from the side boundary will ensure 

adequate ventilation will be available to the adjoining property. Sufficient direct sun will also 

be provided to the adjoining property with no overshadowing of appurtenant open spaces 

with the majority of the adjoining area of the neighbouring property being occupied by a 

carport. Moreover, it is to be noted that the proposal complies with the design for climate 

requirements set out in the Residential Design Codes. 

The proposed finished floor level of the undercroft garage is significantly lower than the 

natural ground level of the adjoining property to the south, alleviating any perception of 

building bulk as viewed from No. 66 View Street with the dwelling maintaining its single 

storey appearance. The portion of wall to Bedroom 1 on the upper floor has been stepped 

down from the existing portion of wall of main dwelling consistent with the falling natural 

ground level of the site to wards the street. This provides visual articulation as viewed from 

the south elevation and further reduces any impact of building bulk. 

The addition will have no privacy variations that affect the adjoining property to the south, 

with only a minor portion of the front setback area of No. 68 Reserve Street being indirectly 

overlooked by the window to Bedroom 1 on the street (west) elevation. 

It is noted that the applicant has expressed concern regarding the proposed replacement of 

roofing material from tiles to Zincalume Colorbond. However, as the subject property is 

located outside of the Local Law 43 area, this type of roof material is permitted and has been 

consistently approved by the Town. 




Overall, it is considered that the setbacks of the dwelling from the right (south) side boundary 


 

 

 

 

adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to the adjoining property; 

protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; 

ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and 

protection of privacy between adjoining properties. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





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

Anthony Revesz at Lot 3 (No. 68) Reserve Street, Wembley as shown on the plans 

dated 8 August and 23 August 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

the removal of the Native Peppermint tree on this verge (including stump 

grinding), by the Town’s Tree Maintenance Contractors, a cost of $460.00 

(inclusive of GST). This charge includes the street tree replacement in a suitable 

location on the verge and specific maintenance (includes watering, formative 

pruning and staking) by the Town during the street tree establishment period 

(approximately the first 3 summers after planting); 




(ii) 

the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and 

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

the satisfaction of the Town. 

Carried 9/0 




DV11.94 

LOT 36 (NO. 25) WELDON WAY, CITY BEACH - PATIO 





BACKGROUND: 

BA/DA REFERENCE: 445BA-2011 

LANDOWNER: 

Nondas Firios & Carolyn Firios 

APPLICANT: 

Goodlife Pergolas and Gazebos 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


The proposal is for a patio proposed to the rear of an existing double-storey dwelling. 

The patio is open on all sides, except to where the roof adjoins the dwelling, and has a 

skillion roof with a maximum height of 3.45metres (east side) down to 2.65 metres 

(west side). 

The lot is north-south oriented and has Bent Park located to the rear/north. 

The patio is 8.4 metres in length and 6 metres in width. 

The patio has a 1.5 metre setback to the rear in lieu of 6 metres. Setbacks of 6.1 

metres and 10.9 metres are maintained to the east and west respectively. 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the boundary setback variations:- 

 

 

 

 

The proposed extension is well away form neighbouring properties and does not 

overshadow adjoining lots. 

The adjoining property to the west has no view as it is 0.3 metres below our property. 

Also their outdoor living area is on the opposite side of their property. 

We have chosen the skillion design to enhance the appearance of the structure and 

match the existing dwelling. A gable roof would increase the impact of the proposal on 

adjoining properties. 

We also note that other properties adjoining Bent Park have built similarly close to their 

rear boundary. 


The adjoining neighbours to the east and west were given a 14 day advertising period to 

comment on the proposed patio application. One response was received and is summarised 

as follows:- 




 

 

 

The proposal to build beyond the 6.0 metre setback will negatively affect views and 

amenity. 

The patio is particularly high (3.4m) where as a lower structure (closer to 2.6m) would 

be more appropriate. 

The proposal will dominate the outlook from the backyard of adjoining properties, 

which is currently not obscured. 



Proposed 


Rear (north) setback 1.5 metre setback 6 metre setback 


Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: 







The patio has a variation to boundary setback requirements to the rear boundary where Bent 

Park is located. As there is public open space to the north and the patio is set back 6.1 

metres to the east and 10.9 metres to the west side boundaries, the proposal will not have a 

significant impact in terms of building bulk on the adjoining properties. The patio has a 

skillion roof and is open on all sides. There are also examples of similar development within 

the 6 metre rear setback area on adjoining lots with a frontage to Bent Park. 

The patio will have an impact on direct sun and ventilation to the lot, however, with large 

areas of open outdoor living being retained to the east and west of the patio there is still 

adequate direct sun to the building and open spaces. Further to this, the open nature of the 

patio prevents a major adverse affect on ventilation to the dwelling. 

The proposal will have a limited adverse impact on adjoining properties, particularly given 

the public open space to the rear of the lot, will increase the amenity of the development by 

providing covered outdoor living and will provide passive surveillance of the parkland to the 

north. 

Overall, it is considered that the setback of the patio from the northern boundary complies 


 

 

 

provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building 

ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties 

provides adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for a patio submitted by Goodlife Pergolas and 

Gazebos at Lot 36 (No. 25) Weldon Way, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 16 

August 2011 subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

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

Carried 9/0 




DV11.95 

LOT 1463 (NO. 10) SCADDAN STREET, WEMBLEY - PATIO 





BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Graham Drabble & Corinne Drabble 

APPLICANT: 

Graham Drabble 

ZONING: 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 

A similar patio and deck was proposed as part of a previous application for planning 

approval. This proposal differs to the previous application in that it has a lower finished floor 

level to the deck. The initial application was cancelled by the applicant. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal is for a raised patio and deck area behind the existing dwelling on the lot 

and adjacent to the western boundary. 

The patio has a raised floor level to a maximum height of 1.38 metres above natural 

ground level on the lot. The patio however is 4c lower than the floor level of the existing 

dwelling. 

Timber and lattice screens have been proposed along the western boundary of the 

patio to a height of 1.75 metres above finished floor level. 

The patio will reach a maximum height of 4.1 metres above natural ground level under 

the eaves and 5.3 metres to the top of the roof. It is 7.3 metres in length and 4.05 

metres in width. 

The patio is set back at 1.0 metre from the left/western boundary in lieu of 1.6 metres. 

The patio is set back approximately 3.5 metres from the left/western boundary, within 

the cone of vision, in lieu of 7.5 metres. 





There are no further variations to the Town's planning requirements. 





The applicant has provided the following justification for the boundary setback and visual 

privacy variations:- 

 

 

A large 3.1 metre high neighbouring parapet wall on the west of the proposed patio 

extends approximately a further 2.4 metres north from the proposed patio along the 

western boundary. A lattice privacy screen extends another 1.75 metres north beyond 

the parapet. The parapet and screen prevents any overlooking form the proposed 

patio to any living areas to the western neighbouring property. 

The proposed patio floor is stepped down significantly form the existing residence and 

the roofline is separated from the existing residence and approved living room 

extension with respect to any visual bulk from the western boundary. 


The adjoining neighbours to the south were given a 14 day advertising period to comment on 

the proposed patio application. The following summarises their comments:- 

 

 

It is important to us to ensure that our privacy is not compromised. The new plans 

have gone some way to addressing our concerns about overlooking of our outdoor 

living area by lowering the height of the patio and sunroom. However, whilst the 

potential for overlooking has been reduced there will still be some sightlines from the 

unenclosed north end of the proposed patio over the finished parapet height to our 

outdoor living area. We believe that the height of the patio floor-level needs to be 

further lowered to protect our privacy. 

We believe that either the roof of the patio needs to be lowered or setback further form 

the boundary to reduce the building bulk in particular when viewed from our main entry 

area. 



Proposed 


Left (west) setback 1.0 metre setback 1.6 metre setback 


Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: 







There is an existing parapet wall for the neighbouring property built along the western 

boundary which will screen the patio and deck form the adjoining lot. Further to this, the 

proposed patio and deck area follow the existing line of the dwelling, set back at 1.0 metre 

from the western boundary, further minimising the impact of the proposal in terms of 

ventilation and building bulk. It is also built to the same eaves height as the existing dwelling 




and the roof height does not exceed that of the primary dwelling. All these factors act to 

reduce the impact of the proposal in terms of building bulk. 

The proposal will not impact access to direct sun to the adjoining lot being built near the 

western boundary and with a parapet wall already built on the boundary. With a 1.0 metre 

setback retained to the west, in line with the existing dwelling, and the open-style of the 

patio, it is unlikely that the proposal will have any significant impact on ventilation to the 

adjoining lot or indeed the subject lot. 

The major area of outdoor living on the lot is provided to the rear/north of the dwelling. This 

area has remained unaffected by the development proposal which has provided a further 

covered outdoor living area. This creates diversity in potential use of the outdoor living to the 

rear of the dwelling and will increase the amenity of the development without impacting 

direct sun and ventilation to major outdoor livening areas. 

Overall, it is considered that the setback of the patio and deck from the western boundary 


 

 

 

provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; 

ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; 

provides adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces. 

Visual privacy 

Proposed 


Left (west) setback 3.5 metre setback 7.5 metre setback 


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 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. 

A previous application in 2010 for a similar patio and deck was cancelled by the applicant. 

The current proposal shows an improvement on the previous design in terms of the impact 

on visual privacy with the finished floor level of the patio being reduced by 0.12 metres as 

well as the implementation of screen walls. 

The finished floor level of the proposed deck is, at its highest point, 1.38 metres above 

natural ground level. However, it is 0.3 metres below the finished floor level of the remainder 

of the existing dwelling. With the declining slope of the land to the north, the dwelling 

requires some degree of raised finished floor levels to maintain single-storey appearance. 

The applicant has attempted to reduce the impact on the proposal on visual privacy by 

lowering the deck's finished floor level without having a significant detrimental impact on the 

useability of the area in conjunction with the existing dwelling. 




There is an existing parapet wall built along the western boundary adjacent the patio, to a 

height of 1.75 metres above finished floor level for the deck, and for a length of 2.4 metres 

further north of the patio. Screening also persists for a further 1.75 metres from the end of 

the parapet wall. Further to this, timber and lattice screens have been provided along the 

western boundary of the patio. These factors mean that the cone of vision from the raised 

deck will only encroach into a small area to the rear of the adjacent property to the west. 

This area is largely screened by trees and is relatively inactive open space so the deck will 

have minimal adverse impact on the adjoining property in terms of visual privacy. 

Overall, it is considered that the setback of the deck from the western boundary complies 


 

direct overlooking is minimised by design of outdoor habitable spaces and screening 

devices. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for a patio and deck submitted by Graham 

Drabble at Lot 1463 (No. 10) Scaddan Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 10 

August 2011. 

Carried 9/0 




DV11.96 

TENDER NO. C12-11 - BEACH LIFEGUARD SERVICE CONTRACT 


To award the contract for the provision of Beach Lifeguard Patrol Services at City Beach and 

Floreat Beach. 

BACKGROUND: 

Since 1995/1996, Surf Life Saving WA (SLSWA) has been contracted by the Town to 

undertake a beach inspection and patrol service and the provision of lifeguard services 

during peak summer periods. SLSWA was established in 1925 and is recognised by the 

peak ocean aquatic safety and management body in Western Australia in conjunction with 

Surf Lifesaving Australia. 

The current contract with Surf Life Saving WA commenced on 1 September 2005 for a 

period of five years and expired in August 2010. This contract was extended for 12 months 

(and further extended to 30 October 2011) so that a service and risk analysis could be 

undertaken to define the specifications of a revised contract that met the Town's 

requirements relative to its resources and the associated aquatic risks. 

As a result, the Town's Administration held numerous meetings and workshops with the Risk 

Manager; Local Government Insurance Services, the Manager Operations, and the Beach 

Services Coordinator, both of SLSWA. 

These meetings identified, analysed and assessed the environmental, aquatic and physical 

risks in the beach environments of City Beach and Floreat Beach. This resulted in the 

production of a full risk assessment report by SLSWA and identified a proposed Service 

Review Recommendation (SRR) to be included in the proposed tender document. 

This Service Review Recommendation satisfied the primary requirement in that it 

represented the best possible service within the budgetary limits. The proposed service was 

benchmarked against similar services in Western Australia and, in some instances, it 

established a new benchmark. 

Due to concerns raised by the Town's Executive regarding possible negative public 

perception of the proposed changes to the level of service identified in the Service Review 

Recommendation, alternative service delivery options, incorporating flagged swimming 

areas manned by 2 lifeguards were included into the tender options. 

DETAILS 

Tender Process 

The tender was prepared and advertised in accordance with the Local Government 

(Functions and General) Regulations. The tender was advertised in the Western Australian 

newspaper on Saturday, 20 August 2011. 

The tender closed at 2:00pm on Tuesday, 6 September 2011. Surf Life Saving Western 

Australia Inc was the only tenderer. 




Lifeguard Service Levels 

In order to fully understand the complexities of an aquatic lifeguard service and the coastal 

risks, it is recommended that the Elected Members be briefed at a workshop/forum with 

representatives from Surf Life Saving Western Australia and Local Government Insurance 

Services, so as to develop an understanding of the risk assessment process that has been 

undertaken, and to then determine the level of the beach lifeguard service for the future. 

As a result of the complexity of the different service options under consideration, it is 

recommended that the Council adopt an interim decision as follows: 

1. Tender C12-11 be awarded to Surf Life Saving Western Australia Inc; 

2. Surf Life Saving Western Australia Inc be engaged to maintain the level of service 

defined in Option One for the month of November 2011; 

3. Surf Life Saving Western Australia Inc be informed that the Council will review and 

determine the level of service it considers appropriate at its meeting on 22 November 

2011, with the revised service to be implemented from 1 December 2011. 

A summary of the different service options and costs are detailed in the Commercial In 

Confidence attachment. 

Summary of Tendered Service Options 

Option 1 -Existing Service 

Single Beach Inspector 

7am to 3pm, Monday to Sunday, April to September; 

6am to 6pm (or 7pm), Monday to Sunday during October to March 

Conducts roving patrols of entire beach (4.8km) but primarily focuses on City and Floreat 

Beaches. 

Single Lifeguard at City Beach (December to February) 

9am to 7pm, Monday to Friday (Excl public holidays). 

Single Life Guard at Floreat Beach (December to February) 

9am to 3pm, Monday to Friday (Excl public holidays). 

Option 2. 

Single Roving Lifeguard - 7:30am to 2:30pm, every day during April to September only. 


Beaches. 

Single roving lifeguard - 10.00am to 5pm, Monday to Friday during December and January 

school holidays. 

Two lifeguards at City Beach - 10.00am to 5pm, Monday to Friday(excl public holidays), 

during October to March. 

Additional single Lifeguard at City Beach - 7:30am to 2:30pm, Monday to Sunday during 

April, July and October school holidays. 

Floreat Beach - No lifeguard service. 




Option 3 

Single Roving Lifeguard 


6am to 6pm, Monday to Sunday, October to March 


Beaches. 

Two Lifeguards at City Beach 

6am to 6pm, Monday to Friday (excl public holidays), December to February; 

Additional single Lifeguard at City Beach - 7:30am to 2:30pm, Monday to Sunday during 

April, July and October school holidays. 

Two Lifeguards at Floreat Beach (period December to February) 


Alternative Tender A - submitted by Surf Life Saving Western Australia 

Roving Lifeguard 


6am to 6pm, Monday to Sunday, October to March 


Beaches. 


10am to 5pm, Monday to Friday (excl public holidays), October, November and March 

6am to 6pm, Monday to Friday (Excl Public Holidays), December to February. 

Additional single Lifeguard at City Beach - 7am to 3pm, Monday to Sunday during April, and 

July school holidays. 

Two Lifeguards at Floreat Beach 

9am to 3pm, Monday to Friday, (excl public holidays), December to February. 

Alternative Tender B - submitted by Surf Life Saving Western Australia 

Roving Lifeguard 

7am to 2pm, Monday to Sunday, May to September; 

6am to 6pm, Monday to Sunday, October to March; 

6am to 3pm, Monday to Sunday, April. 


Beaches. 


10am to 5pm Monday to Friday (excl public holidays), October, November and March. 


Additional single Lifeguard at City Beach - 7am to 3pm, Monday to Sunday during April, and 

July school holidays. 

Two Lifeguards at Floreat Beach 

9am to 3pm, Monday to Friday (excl public holidays), December to January. 





The built environment of the beach is designed to (and has the effect of) attracting residents 

and visitors to the beach. As a result, the Town has an obligation, and there is a public 

expectation, to provide lifeguard services at its beaches within the scope of the Town's 

resources. 


$259,000 has been allocated in the 2011-2012 budget for Beach Inspections. The contract 

costs will be reviewed and adjusted annually based on Consumer Price Index (All Groups 

Perth), as published by Australian of Statistics in the September Quarter. 


The provision of beach surveillance and lifeguard service falls within the Town's priority area 

of Planning for our Community with the goal to provide a wide range of quality, accessible 

recreational facilities by developing and improving the Town's main beaches and reserves. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 In 

accordance with the assessment criteria no consultation is required as the report is 

administrative in providing information to the Council. 

SUMMARY: 

The Service Review Recommendation recommended by LGIS, Surf Lifesaving and the 

Town's Administration offers better value than the existing service because it has been 

vigorously risk assessed and designed to minimise aquatic risks and maximise the safety of 

the beach users. Importantly, this level of service also meets current budgetary parameters. 

However, the span of hours in this option is reduced to meet budgetary limits 

The risk assessment identified that a one person lifeguard operation on designated beach 

bathing areas is high risk; and that a two person lifeguard operation significantly reduces the 

risk to employees while maximising aquatic rescues, enhancing risk mitigation, and providing 

a higher level of service for beach users. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Commercial in Confidence - Spreadsheet showing existing service, recommended risk 

based service, executive direction and two tender alternatives. 




That:- 

(i) 

Tender C12.11 for the provision of Beach Lifeguard Patrol Services be awarded 

to Surf Life Saving Western Australia Inc for a period of 5 years commencing on 

1 November 2011; 




(ii) 

Surf Life Saving Western Australia Inc be engaged to maintain the level of 

service defined in Option One for the month of November 2011 at a cost of 

$21,000; 

(iii) Surf Life Saving Western Australia Inc be informed that the Council will review 

and determine the level of service it considers appropriate at its meeting on 22 

November 2011, with the revised service to be implemented from 1 December 

2011. 

Carried 9/0 




COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

The report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on 3 October 2011 

was submitted as under: 


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources 

Committee open at 6.02 pm. 




Members: 

Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 6.50 pm 

Mayor Simon Withers 6.02 pm 6.50 pm 

Cr Rod Bradley 6.02 pm 6.50 pm 

Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.02 pm 6.50 pm 

Observers: 

Cr Hilary Pinerua 

Officers: 

Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Ross Farlekas, Acting Director Infrastructure 

Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure Engineering 

Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works 


Adjournments: 


Nil 

6.50 pm 


Apology - Cr King 


Nil 


Item CR11.126 - Yvonne Stokes, 136 Alderbury Street, Floreat 

Helen Martin, 134 Alderbury Street, Floreat 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 59




That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee 

held on 12 September 2011 as contained in the September 2011 Council Notice Paper 

be confirmed. 


Nil 




CR11.123 BIRKDALE STREET/CAMBRIDGE STREET - COMMERCIAL PRECINCT 

PARKING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN 


To consider a landscape plan for the Birkdale Street and Cambridge Street commercial 

precinct and to seek endorsement to commence works in accordance with this plan and in 

conjunction with the Council endorsed street parking works programmed for Birkdale Street, 

between Cambridge Street and Newry Street. 

BACKGROUND: 

In February 2011, (Item CR11.3), Council decided: 

"That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

parking and channelisation Plan No. E171-10-02 (Option 1) be adopted for 

implementation for the improvement of street parking in Birkdale Street from 

Cambridge Street to Newry Street; 

funding provision of $74,000 for the construction of parking improvements in Birkdale 

Street from Cambridge Street to Newry Street be included for consideration in the 

2011/12 Draft Budget; 

a landscape plan be presented to Council". 

This report relates to Item (iii) above. 

The adopted Budget for 2011/12 included $80,000 for Birkdale Street parking improvements 

between Cambridge Street and Newry Street. The $80,000 was the calculated budget to 

implement the revised parking scheme only and made no allowance for footpath 

improvements or landscape works. This approved plan is included in the report attachment. 

DETAILS: 

A landscape plan, drawing No. E171-10-04 has been prepared by the Administration for the 

Birkdale Street and Cambridge Street commercial precinct and is included in this report as 

Attachment 1. This plan proposes planting trees within the entire commercial precinct of this 

location, not just in the area where car parking improvements will be undertaken. 

This proposal is in accordance with the Treescape Plan's Priority Streets Improvement 

Program (listed in year 1), which was endorsed by Council in September 2011 and is 

included in this report as Attachment 2. 

The landscape strategy prepared for this commercial precinct included:- 

 

To select a tree species for the intersection only of Cambridge Street and Birkdale 

Street to identify the location of the commercial precinct, improve aesthetics, provide 

summer shade and generate interest throughout the seasons through foliage or flower 




displays. This strategy can be achieved by selecting a deciduous and colourful tree 

species which will de-foliate in Autumn and re-foliate in Spring. 

 

To select a tree species to plant in the remaining commercial areas of this precinct to 

identify the extent of the precinct, improve aesthetics, provide summer shade, 

generate interest throughout the seasons through foliage or flower displays with some 

floral scent if possible. This strategy can be achieved by selecting an evergreen or 

semi-evergreen tree species with good floral display. 

In preparing the landscape plan for this commercial precinct a set of selection criteria, 

principles and considerations were used (which are in accordance with the Tree Species 

Selection Criteria of the Treescape Plan 2010-2020) to select trees with the most desirable 

and appropriate characteristics. This included:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Structural Characteristics of Street Trees; 

Physical Environments; 

Available Space For Tree Growth; 

Existing On-Site Requirements; 

Heritage / Historical Value, if any; 

Native Versus Exotic; 

Deciduous Versus Evergreen; and 

Consistent Versus Inconsistent Plantings. 

A preliminary assessment of the location identified that the challenge for this site was the 

existing physical environment including the extent of shop front awnings covering a 

significant amount of the verge, above and below ground utility services infrastructure and 

traffic sight line clearance considerations. 

Following an assessment of the site, including the consideration of the above landscape 

strategy and selection criteria, two tree species have been selected for use in this 

commercial precinct as follows:- 

Corner of Cambridge Street and Birkdale Street: 

Common Name: Crepe Myrtle 

Botanical Name: Lagerstroemia indica 

Height: 7 metres, Width: 5 metres 

A fast growing deciduous tree with pale mauve flowers in summer. 

This species aims to identify the location of the precinct. 

Remaining Commercial Precinct: 

Common Name: Native Frangipani 

Botanical Name: Hymenosporum flavum 


An evergreen native tree with an upright open canopy and yellow fragrant flowers in spring. 

This species aims to identify the extent of the precinct. 

Due to the need to implement this project as soon as possible this financial year, an 

alternate tree species has been selected below if the quantity of Native Frangipani trees 

cannot be sourced:- 

Common Name: Golden Shower Tree 

Botanical Name: Cassia fistula 





A semi-deciduous tree with masses of yellow flowers in summer. 

Whilst these trees eventually could be taller than the current verge building canopies, it is not 

expected tree size is a problem. A similar situation exists on Cambridge Street between 

Jersey Street and Pangbourne Street (IGA). 

An assessment of irrigation requirements for these trees has been undertaken. This 

identified that these trees will require watering, for at least the first 10 years from planting. 

As experienced at the Wembley Town Centre, due to vandalism and the hot hostile 

environment for growing trees, replacement trees will be required from time to time until all 

trees mature, usually when they're about 10 years old. 

In these situations the provision of a good water supply regime to all trees until 

establishment and beyond is the key to producing healthy trees, viable growth habits and 

flower displays and consequently iconic streetscapes. 

Watering the trees with a water truck was evaluated as part of the above criteria when 

assessing the existing physical environment. This identified that the quantity and frequency 

of the watering schedule required for these trees, coupled with the confined space available 

for a water truck to access the trees, watering the trees with a water truck is not considered 

economically or physically viable and would create traffic problems. 

The irrigation system proposed as part of the landscape plan will be a reticulated system to 

each tree, similar to the Wembley Town Centre's system. However, instead of using mains 

scheme water the reticulation system here will be connected to the existing irrigation system 

that irrigates Birkdale Park with ground water. This system is currently connected to the 

Town's weather station, so irrigation will only occur when necessary. 

The total cost to fully implement this total commercial precinct landscape plan is estimated at 

$135,000. There are no budgeted funds available. In order to implement this landscape 

plan, three options have been identified for Council to consider:- 

Option 1 

Implement the landscape works in Birkdale Street, north of Cambridge Street, within the car 

parking improvements area only, 17 new trees in total. 

Cost of Option 1 - $55,675. 

Option 2 

Implement landscape works as in option 1 above, 17 new trees, plus 8 new trees at the 

intersection of Cambridge Street and Birkdale Street, 25 new trees in total. 


Option 3 

Implement the landscape plan in full, 45 new trees. 


It is recommended that the Birkdale Street/Cambridge Street Commercial Precinct 

Landscape Plan be adopted and any works be undertaken in conjunction with the 

programmed car parking improvements works. 




Parking Improvements (Plan No. E171-10-02) 

As recommended at the February 2011 Council meeting, the 2011/12 Budget currently 

includes funding of $80,000 for parking improvements. Part of this project includes a 

$40,000 contribution by the developer of the new childcare facility on the corner of Birkdale 

Street and Newry Street. The childcare development was completed in July 2011. 

The Budget of $80,000 allowed to only provide the additional parking and made no 

allowance for additional verge pavement or improved brick paving adjacent the new 

childcare facility. 

It is now evident landscape works are warranted for the verge area and accordingly, a 

revised Budget has been developed for Council consideration. 

The final design for the roadworks component of the project is estimated to cost $142,000. 

The increased workscope will be highlighted and explained at Committee by the 

Administration. 

It is evident an additional $62,000 will be required to complete the project as shown on the 

final design drawings. 


This landscape plan is in accordance with the Treescape Plan 2010-2020 and associated 

Priority Streets Improvement Program and Policy No 5.1.3 - Management of Street Trees. 


Resultant from the completion of the commercial precinct landscape plan, costs for its 

implementation have not been included in the 2011/2012 financial year. To enable the 

implementation of this plan, the following options are proposed for Council consideration:- 

1. Funding Required - Extra to Budget of $80,000 

(a) $62,000 for full verge paving and verge improvements adjacent shopping 

precinct and childcare centre. 

(b) Tree Option 1 - $55,675 (Total $117,675) 

(c) Tree Option 2 - $81,875 (Total $143,875) 

(d) Tree Option 3 - $135,000 (Total $197,000) 

2. Options for Re-Allocation within Existing Budgets 

(a) Ruislip Street - new path Marlow to Selby - C/F $34,000 

Report November 2010 (Item CR10.41). This project was suspended and 

funding allocated to paths in Catesby Street. The Catesby Street sections have 

a separate allocation in the 2011/12 Budget. 

(b) Cambridge Street - landscaping enhancement - C/F $25,000 

These funds are not currently allocated to a project. 

(c) Beaches and Dunes - upgrade City Beach Groyne - $87,000 

This project required a grant of $88,000 to proceed with the project. This grant 

has not been successful in 2011/12. 




Total funds identified = $146,000. 

If Tree Option 3 was to be funded also, an additional allocation of $53,125 is required. 

Note: The landscape improvement to Birkdale Street and Cambridge Street Commercial 

Precinct is included in the first year of the Priority Streets Improvement Program of the 

Treescape Plan 2010-2020, recently endorsed by Council with a cost estimate of $44,000. 

This was programmed to be implemented in financial year 2012/2013. By adopting this 

report recommendation this project is now brought forward into financial year 2011/2012 and 

so will not require to be funded in 2012/2013. 

All costs are exclusive of GST. 


This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

 

 

 

 

Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; 

Preserve the Character of our suburbs; 

Consult with our community on their changing needs; and 

Review the Town’s asset management practices and improve transport infrastructure. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11 as 

“Inform” with the objective “to provide the community with balanced and objective information 

to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and solutions”. 

This will be achieved via a letter box drop of affected proprietors prior to implementation of 

car parking and landscape improvement works without the requirement for feedback. 

SUMMARY: 

A landscape plan, drawing No. E171-10-04, has been prepared by the Administration for the 

Birkdale Street and Cambridge Street commercial precinct and is included in this report as 

Attachment 1. This plan proposes to plant trees within the entire commercial precinct of this 

location, not just in the area where car parking improvements will be undertaken. 

This proposal is in accordance with the Treescape Plan's Priority Streets Improvement 

Program (listed in year 1), which was endorsed by Council in September 2011 and is 

included in this report as Attachment 2. 

The landscape plan aims to identify the location and the extent of the commercial precinct, 

improve aesthetics, provide summer shade and generate interest throughout the seasons 

through foliage or flower displays. 

The total cost of the precinct landscape plan is estimated at $135,000. It is recommended 

that the plan be adopted. Based on the listed reallocation of funding, it is recommended the 

full carpark and verge works be completed in conjunction with Option 2 of the landscape 

plan and the trees in Option 3 be considered for Budget works in 2012/13. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Landscape Plan Drawing No. E171-10-04. 

2. Treescape Plan Priority Streets Improvement Program. 

3. Plan No. E171-10-02. 

4. Photographs of Birkdale Street (Cambridge Street to Newry Street). 


That:- 

(i) the Birkdale Street/Cambridge Street Commercial Precinct Landscape Plan No. E171- 

10-04 be adopted and any works be undertaken in conjunction with the programmed 

car parking improvements works; 

(ii) 

to facilitate parking and verge works along with the landscape works in (i) above, 

funding be reallocated as follows:- 

(a) Ruislip Street- Marlow Street to Selby Street Path $34,000; 

(b) Cambridge Street - landscape enhancement works $25,000; 

(c) Beaches and Dunes - City Beach Groyne $87,000; 

(iii) 

the 2011/12 Budget Item "Birkdale Street (Cambridge Street to Newry Street) Parking 

Improvements - $80,000" be amended to include verge landscaping and a total Budget 

be amended to $226,000; 

(iv) planting of the additional 20 trees, as detailed in Option 3, be included in the 2012/13 

Budget at a cost of $65,500. 


During discussion, Members agreed that, rather than a staged programme, Option 3 (full 

implementation) should be completed in the 2011/2012 financial year together with an 

additional 3 trees being planted in front of the Child Care Centre in Newry Street. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

That:- 

(i) the Birkdale Street/Cambridge Street Commercial Precinct Landscape Plan No. E171- 

10-04 be adopted as per option 3 (full implementation), plus an additional three trees 

planted on the north verge of the Childcare Centre at an estimated total cost of 

$139,000; 

(ii) 

the Birkdale Street Parking Plan No. E171-10-02, from Cambridge Street to Newry 

Street, inclusive of verge improvements, be adopted at an estimated cost of $142,000 

and works be undertaken in conjunction with the landscape plan in (i) above; 




(iii) 

the works in (i) and (ii) above, at a total estimated cost of $281,000, be funded as 

follows:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

an amount of $80,000 from existing Budget Item Birkdale Street (Cambridge 

Street to Newry Street) Parking Improvements; 

an amount of $34,000 being reallocated from existing Budget Item - Ruislip 

Street- Marlow Street to Selby Street Path; 

an amount of $25,000 being reallocated from existing Budget Item - Cambridge 

Street - landscape enhancement works; 

an amount of $87,000 being reallocated from existing Budget Item - Beaches 

and Dunes - City Beach Groyne; 

(e) an amount of $55,000 being authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as 

unbudgeted expenditure in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government 

Act 1995; 

(iv) 

as a result of (iii) above the 2011/12 Budget Item "Birkdale Street (Cambridge Street to 

Newry Street) Parking Improvements - $80,000" be amended to include the works in (i) 

and (ii) above and the Budget be increased by $201,000 as follows: 

"Birkdale Street Parking and Precinct Landscape Improvements - $281,000; 

Amendment carried 4/0 



Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the Birkdale Street/Cambridge Street Commercial Precinct Landscape Plan No. 

E171-10-04 be adopted as per option 3 (full implementation), plus an additional 

three trees planted on the north verge of the Childcare Centre at an estimated 

total cost of $139,000; 

the Birkdale Street Parking Plan No. E171-10-02, from Cambridge Street to 

Newry Street, inclusive of verge improvements, be adopted at an estimated cost 

of $142,000 and works be undertaken in conjunction with the landscape plan in 

(i) above; 

the works in (i) and (ii) above, at a total estimated cost of $281,000, be funded as 

follows:- 

(a) 

(b) 

an amount of $80,000 from existing Budget Item Birkdale Street 

(Cambridge Street to Newry Street) Parking Improvements; 

an amount of $34,000 being reallocated from existing Budget Item - Ruislip 

Street- Marlow Street to Selby Street Path; 




(c) an amount of $25,000 being reallocated from existing Budget Item - 

Cambridge Street - landscape enhancement works; 

(d) an amount of $87,000 being reallocated from existing Budget Item - 

Beaches and Dunes - City Beach Groyne; 

(e) 

an amount of $55,000 being authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as 

unbudgeted expenditure in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local 

Government Act 1995; 

(iv) as a result of (iii) above the 2011/12 Budget Item "Birkdale Street (Cambridge 

Street to Newry Street) Parking Improvements - $80,000" be amended to include 

the works in (i) and (ii) above and the Budget be increased by $201,000 as 

follows: 

"Birkdale Street Parking and Precinct Landscape Improvements - 

$281,000; 

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0 




CR11.124 REVIEW OF DRAINAGE NETWORK AT NO. 417-422 CAMBRIDGE STREET 

(CORNER OF SELBY STREET) 


To review solutions for improving the drainage of stormwater at the intersection of 

Cambridge Street and Selby Street and reduce risk of flooding at four properties (No. 417 - 

422 Cambridge Street). 

BACKGROUND: 

Council briefly considered this matter at its meeting held on 23 August 2011 (Item CR11.99) 

and 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". 

This report concerns Location No. 1, as listed in the August 2011 report (Item CR11.99), 

where four properties were flooded on 20 March 2010, 20 May 2011 and 24 June 2011. 

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. The properties are lower than the drainage inlets in Cambridge Street. 

The appropriate "quick fix solutions" for this location identified in Item CR11.99 are listed in 

the table below. The longer term, expensive solution is highlighted in bold type. 

No. Priority Location Solution Estimated 

Cost 

1 1 No. 417-422 Raise crossovers above flood level. $ 4,000 

Cambridge (Completed No. 419 in July 2011) 

Street near Educt the deep manhole in the middle of the $ 2,000 

Selby Street road that holds silt. (Completed July 2011) 

Carry out drainage analysis by consultant. $16,000 

(Completed June, July, August 2011) 

Excavate small temporary sump in vacant $ 5,000 

block at No.420 (Town of Cambridge) 

Install 6 additional side entry inlets and $20,000 

soakwells. Scheduled October/November 

2011. 

No. 370-376 Reserve Street. Replace pipe 

$10,000 

overflow to street with internal soakwells. 

Total for Quick Fix Solutions 

 

Construct landscaped (rain garden) sump 

in reserves east side of Selby Street 

(longer term solution). 

$57,000 

$300,000 

(TBC) 




The works that have been carried out since the storm in March 2010 to address the flooding 

at this location are:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Removed sand and other storm debris from the network of pipes and drainage pits. 

Provided sand bags to residents on request. 

Survey of the area to determine flood levels and flood volume. 

Raised the driveway to No. 419-421 Cambridge Street to above the flood level. 

CCTV video inspection of the pipe network of this catchment to check for blockages 

and "as constructed" information. 

Educted a significant build-up of sand from the junction pit in the middle of the 

intersection of Selby Street and Cambridge Street after it was determined that the 

450mm pipe from Cambridge Street entered this pit at 1m lower than the 675mm pipe 

that flows to Mabel Talbot Lake. This sand would have created a significant restriction 

on the flow of water from Cambridge Street. 

From this work and the more recent storms, it became apparent that the long term solution is 

extensive and high cost. In June 2011, the Town engaged GHD, a consultant that is 

experienced with stormwater drainage design, to analyse the stormwater catchment 

surrounding these properties and provide both short term and long term solutions. It was 

reported in August 2011 that the GHD final report would be available in late August 2011. 

DETAILS: 

GHD carried out an analysis of the stormwater drainage network that drains the intersection 

of Selby Street and Cambridge Street. This is based on a mathematical model of the 

drainage network and was analysed with drainage computer software "DRAINS". A copy of 

the GHD report "Wembley Drainage Assessment" will be tabled at Committee. Plans of the 

location of sump proposal options are provided in the attachment to this report. 

The main findings and recommendations of the report are listed and discussed below:- 

1. The current drainage network was probably designed for a "once in five year storm" 

event. The computer model of the drainage system, including a proportion of runoff 

from private property, indicates flooding during a "once in five year storm" event. 

2. The computer model of the drainage system assumed that all runoff from Selby Street 

was captured in Selby Street and none overflowed to the low point in Cambridge 

Street outside No. 417-422 Cambridge Street. This supports the need to install 

additional drainage inlets in Selby Street to capture runoff before it flows into the low 

point in Cambridge Street. During the storm events, a significant amount of runoff was 

observed overflowing down the road gutters in Selby Street. Eight soakwells/side 

entry pits are proposed for this location and scheduled to be carried out in November 

2011 after a drainage contractor is appointed. 

3. The current drainage network has a "trapped low point" at the intersection of Selby 

Street and Cambridge Street where the 450mm pipe from Cambridge Street joins the 

675mm pipe in Selby Street. Blockages by means of silt and other materials are likely 

to continue to occur at this location. This supports the need to remove this "trapped 

low point" and provide an alternative outlet for the 450mm stormwater pipe in 

Cambridge Street. 

4. Diverting the runoff from Cambridge Street (east of Selby Street) and Selby Street 

(north of Cambridge Street) to another sump or new pipe has been reviewed and is not 

an option to impact greatly on the observed flooding. This observation eliminates a 




proposal to install a new drainage pipe in Veryard Terrace to capture runoff from the 

north and east of the low point. 

5. Provide a separate sump for the runoff from Cambridge Street with a capacity of 420 

cubic metres. This requires the 450mm pipe to be disconnected from the 675mm pipe 

at the Selby Street/Cambridge Street junction manhole. A suitable sump can be 

provided at specific locations:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

An open and landscaped sump in the vacant land at No. 420 Cambridge Street 

that is owned by the Town. This would be the lowest cost to construct but would 

occupy a green title property owned by the Town that has potential for 

development opportunity. 

A landscaped sump in the reserve bounded by Selby Street, Cambridge Street 

and The Boulevard. This would occupy a significant part of this landscaped 

reserve. 

Underground drainage sump in the vacant land on the east side of Selby Street 

and south of Cambridge Street that is owned by the Town. This can only be 

provided as an underground sump using drainage cells because there is not 

sufficient space for an open sump. The size of drainage cells sump to provide 

the volume of 420 cubic metre is a rectangle 6 metres wide and 32 metres long. 

An overflow pipe from this sump will be provided back into the 675mm pipe in 

Selby Street which is connected to Mabel Talbot sump as a fail-safe precaution. 

These three options for sumps are indicated on a plan in the attachments to this 

report. The size of the sump required correlates with the volume of floodwater that 

overflowed in the private properties in the storms. 

6. The underground sump will require a suitable Gross Pollutant Trap to clean debris 

from the runoff before it enters the sump. 

No costing was provided in the GHD report and no detailed design of the sumps has been 

carried out at this stage. The preferred option is to construct an underground sump on the 

vacant property on the south side of Cambridge Street and east of Selby Street. The 

preliminary costs for installing an underground sump are:- 

Gross Pollutant Trap: $50,000. 

420 cubic metres of drainage cells and install: $210,000. 

Extending the 450mm pipe that is 3m deep in Cambridge Street to the sump: $40,000. 

Total cost is in the order of $300,000. 

The other alternative of installing approximately 100 soakwells of 4.5 cubic metre capacity to 

provide the same total of 420 cubic metre capacity is in the order of $300,000. However, 

these will have an ongoing maintenance cost each year for eduction of silt of $3,000. 

It is recommended that a detailed design for this underground sump option is prepared and 

costed for consideration for funding in the draft 2012/13 Budget. 


The recommendation complies with the various guidelines for disposal of stormwater 

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 estimated cost of the recommended option is $300,000 and is recommended for funding 

in the Draft 2012/13 Budget. 


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". 

For this location, the affected residents have been advised of possible solutions that are 

being considered by the Town. 

The affected residents will be notified of the proposed works prior to commencement of work 

through a letterbox drop. 

SUMMARY: 

The recent storms in May and June 2011 have revealed that the stormwater pipe network 

that drains the low point in Cambridge Street at No. 417 - 422 Cambridge Street cannot cope 

with storms that exceed a 10 year recurrence interval. As a result, these properties are 

prone to flooding with the excess stormwater which is not contained within the road 

easement. 

The long term solution for increasing the capacity of this drainage network, is to disconnect 

the Cambridge Street system from the Selby Street system and provide it with a sump of 420 

cubic metre capacity. The estimated cost of this sump is $300,000 without a detailed 

design. It is recommended that a detailed design is carried out and the works are 

considered for funding in the 2012/13 Budget. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1 Plans of the drainage network at the intersection of Cambridge Street and Selby Street 

and sump option locations. 







That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the GHD report "Wembley Drainage Assessment" for the stormwater drainage at 

No. 417-422 Cambridge Street be noted; 

a detailed design be prepared for an underground sump within the vacant 

property east of Selby Street and south of Cambridge Street. 

Carried 9/0 




CR11.125 PERTH BICYCLE NETWORK - GRANT SUBMISSIONS 2011/2012 AND 

2012/13 


 

 

To endorse two grants offered by Department of Transport as part of the Perth Bicycle 

Network (PBN) Local Government Grants program for bicycle network projects that are 

funded in the current 2011/12 Budget. 

To recommend projects for submission in the 2012/13 program. 

BACKGROUND: 

In September 2010, Council considered report 'Bike Plan 5 Year Program' (Item CR10.3) 

and resolved that:- 

"(i) the Five Year Program for the Bicycle Plan, reviewed annually with budget, be 

endorsed and incorporated into the Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2009; 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

the funding of $500,000 listed in the 2010/11 Budget be used to carry out high priority 

shared paths on Brompton Road, Gregory Street, Lake Monger Drive, and Salvado 

Road; 

the plan be reviewed following preliminary design on specific Blue Sky projects as 

detailed in this report including a path along Brookdale Street, from Alderbury Street to 

Oceanic Drive, and prepared on the basis $500,000 is available in future budgets for 

construction and design; 

the Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2009 be endorsed; 

the design concept for Salvado Road, between Bishop Street and Harborne Street, be 

adopted for development of detailed plans and costings in conjunction with the City of 

Subiaco". 

In February 2011, Council considered report "Empire Avenue - Proposal for Shared Path 

Next to Wembley Golf Course" (Item CR11.2) as this project was listed for the 2011/12 

Budget. Council's decision was for the Administration to prepare a report on implementing 

the blue sky projects, including revised priorities, preliminary plans and an implementation 

schedule. Members did not support early construction of the Empire Avenue project as it is 

not a high priority. The blue sky projects review is programmed for presentation to Council 

in November 2011. 

On 14 February 2011, the Department of Transport advised that applications for their "Perth 

Bicycle Network Local Government Grant for 2011/12" were to be submitted by 25 March 

2011. 

The Department of Transport provided a PDF document in relation to the 2011/12 Perth 

Bicycle Network Grants on its website in February 2011 and a copy is provided as an 

attachment to this report. 




Four of the projects from the approved Five Year Program for the Bicycle Plan 2009 that 

best met the criteria for the Perth Bicycle Network Grants were submitted by the closing 

date. 

These were:- 

1. Southport Street - widen sections of path that are narrower than 2 metres and install 

guardrail near traffic signals. 

2. Underwood Avenue - shared path between Perry Lakes Drive and the Basketball 

Stadium. 

3. Empire Avenue - shared path between The Boulevard and Cromarty Road. 

4. Selby Street - shared path between The Boulevard and Grantham Street. 

Previously, the Town has obtained grants for various projects from this grant program as 

follows:- 

 

 

 

 

 

2006/07 Budget, 3 projects: Selby Street 1, Selby Street 2, Salvado Road. 

2007/08 Budget, 1 project: The Boulevard (Bournville to Selby). 

2008/09 Budget: 4 projects: Powis Street, Oban Road, Durston Road, Bike Plan. 

2009/10 Budget: 0 projects. 

2010/11 Budget: 5 projects: Pearson Street, West Coast Highway, Jon Sanders Drive, 

Legal Signing of all shared paths, and, SJOG Hospital Bicycle Locker. 

There are four project categories local governments can make submissions on. A maximum 

of four projects can be submitted in each project category, except the 'local bike plans' and 

'other projects' categories where only one project can be submitted. 

The funding categories and expected funding portions are:- 

1. Bike Lanes: $200,000 

2. Paths: $600,000 

3. Local Bike Plans: $100,000 - max 1 project 

4. Other Projects: $100,000 - max 1 project 

DETAILS: 

2011/12 Program 

In a letter dated 16 September 2011, the Department of Transport offered the Town grants 

for two of the submitted projects:- 

1. Southport Street - $25,000 grant. The project is for widening the narrow section of the 

existing shared path and installing guardrail near the traffic signals at the Vincent 

Street Off Ramp. This project came to the attention of the Town, Department of 

Transport and Main Roads WA from reports of conflict between pedestrians and 

cyclists on the narrow sections of the path. This path was originally constructed as a 

footpath next to Southport Street by Main Roads WA as part of the development of the 

Mitchell Freeway. The path is constructed in black asphalt and the width between kerb 

and boundary wall varies from 1.6 metres to 3.0 metres. Vehicles that have broken 

down are often pushed up on the path and block pedestrians. A section of guardrail is 

required to protect pedestrians/cyclists from a few vehicles that have mounted the path 

if they are going too fast through the S-bend at the traffic signals after leaving the 

freeway. The path is listed in the Perth Bicycle Network as a shared path since it 




forms an important link in the shared path network. A locality map and photographs of 

this project are provided in an attachment to this report. 

2. Underwood Avenue - $20,000 grant. The project is for construction of a new shared 

path on the south side of Underwood Avenue between Perry Lakes Drive and the new 

Basketball Stadium. This project is already fully funded ($50,000 c/fwd) in the 2011/12 

Budget to complete the missing link between the existing shared paths on the south 

side of Underwood Avenue. The project includes the replacement of the old precast 

kerb in front of the new Rugby Building that was completed in August 2011. A locality 

map of this project is provided in the attachment to this report. 

Three important conditions of these grant offers are that:- 

The grant covers up to 50% of the cost of the works and the Town is obliged to provide 

the balance of the cost of the works. 

The projects must be completed and the grant claimed by 11 May 2012. 

The offered grants must be accepted by the Town by 7 October 2011. 

2012/13 Proposed Program 

The next round of applications for this grant program for the 2012/13 Budget has been 

brought forward in planning and closes on 21 October 2011. It is proposed that one of the 

unsuccessful projects applications is re-submitted for this grant on the basis it qualified for 

grant criteria last year:- 

1. Selby Street - shared path between The Boulevard and Grantham Street, west side. 

This will complete the missing link between the shared paths on Selby Street, The 

Boulevard and Grantham Park. $110,000 total cost. 

It is also proposed an improved path link be submitted for a path along Brookdale Street, 

from Alderbury Street to Oceanic Drive, to connect the shopping centre to the Perry Lakes 

subdivision. Budget to be developed. 

The Empire Avenue shared path between The Boulevard and Cromarty Road, which was 

submitted last year, has been withdrawn pending a review of public liability solutions 

associated with golf balls exiting the golf course. 

Consideration of the Salvado Road path link was made and a submission is not 

recommended as design and financial support from City of Subiaco has not progressed to a 

stage where it can be considered. 

It is proposed investigation be completed on the middle section of Meagher Drive between 

Underwood Avenue and Alderbury Street for submission in 2013/14. 


The development of on-road bicycle facilities and shared paths is in accordance with 

Council’s policy to enhance and encourage bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the 

Town. 


By accepting both grants, the Town is financed $45,000 and two projects listed in the Five 

Year Program for the Bicycle Plan will be completed. 




The matching funding for Project 1 "Southport Street - widen path and guardrail" is not 

specifically funded in the 2011/12 Budget. It is proposed that matching funds of $25,000 are 

obtained from the project "Shared Path Program" that has funding of $500,000 in the current 

Budget. 

The matching funding of $20,000 for Project 2 "Underwood Avenue - shared path between 

Perry Lakes Drive and Basketball Stadium" is already funded in the current 2011/12 Budget 

with an amount of $50,000. If the $20,000 grant funding is added to this project, there will be 

approximately $20,000 under-expenditure on this project overall. This could also be used to 

offset the matching funds of $25,000 that are required for Project 1. 


The recommendation in this report includes elements that will complement the Town's 

strategic direction, namely:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transport choice 

A wide range of quality, accessible recreation facilities 

Services that meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and visitors 

Community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained 

Financial sustainability 

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 and assessed as 

"Inform". 

The “Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2009” was agreed after consultation. 

For each location, the affected residents will be notified of the proposed works prior to 

commencement of work through a letterbox drop. 

SUMMARY: 

In February 2011, the Department of Transport requested applications for their Local 

Government Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grant for 2011/12 to be submitted by 

25 March 2011. The Town submitted four projects that create significant bicycle links and 

best met the criteria of the grant program, and were listed in the approved 2009 Bike Plan. 

Two projects were offered grant funding of $25,000 and $20,000 and these were accepted 

by the required closing date of 7 October 2011. 

The two unsuccessful projects are recommended for submitting for the 2012/2013 grant 

program. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Perth Bicycle Network Application Guidelines 2011/12. 

2. Plan Appendix G - 5 Year Program. 

3 Bike Plan 5 Year Works Program. 







That:- 

(i) 

the grants offered by the Department of Transport in relation to the following 

projects be accepted:- 

Underwood Avenue - new shared path between Perry Lakes Drive and 

Basketball Stadium ($20,000); 

Southport Street - widen shared path and guardrail ($25,000); 

(ii) the projects submitted for the 2012/13 Perth Bicycle Network (PBN) Local 

Government Grants program are to be:- 

 

 

Selby Street - shared path between The Boulevard and Grantham Street, 

west side - $110,000; 

Brookdale Street - shared path between Alderbury Street and Oceanic 

Drive - $TBA. 

Carried 9/0 




CR11.126 ALDERBURY STREET (LICHENDALE STREET TO OCEANIC DRIVE) - 

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 


To obtain approval for the construction of traffic speed reducing measures in the section of 

Alderbury Street from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Perry Lakes Subdivision, managed by Landcorp, has a number of new streets 

connecting to the existing road system. Community concerns regarding the possible safety 

and amenity for nearby residents, from traffic generated from the subdivision, indentified 

following community consultation were addressed at various times and resulted in the partial 

road closures at the intersection with Alderbury Street of Lichendale Street, Arbordale Street 

and Ferndale Street. 

In addition, a blister island was constructed in Alderbury Street approximately 50 metres 

west of Arbordale Street to partially address the vehicle speeds which in this section of road 

exceeded the statutory 50km/hr limit. 

The proposal to construct a similar blister island approximately 100 metres west of 

Lichendale Street was not supported by the adjoining residents in the section of Alderbury 

Street between Lichendale Street and Oceanic Drive. Council decided at the meeting of 23 

February 2010 (Item IC10.8):- 

"That the construction of a blister island adjacent to No. 140 and 142 Alderbury Street not be 

proceeded with due to objections from adjoining residents and the adverse effect on access 

to properties". 

Following this decision, further consultation was undertaken with the residents of Alderbury 

Street, from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive, to determine a mutually acceptable traffic 

management plan to reduce the speed of vehicles in the section of Alderbury Street between 

Lichendale Street and Oceanic Drive. 

DETAILS: 

Following a formal meeting with residents of Alderbury Street, from Lichendale Street to 

Oceanic Drive, two agreed traffic management proposals were developed for further 

discussion and consultation. 

The two proposals consisted of:- 

Option 1 

The creation of a flush median delineated by contrasting coloured bitumen 

together with raised, planted island sections to improve the visual amenity of the 

road. This, together with slightly raised entry plateaus, would indicate a slower 

speed environment for drivers. 

Option 2 The general narrowing of the road to two 3.5 metre wide lanes by the 

construction of parking embayments on the South and West side together with 




slightly raised entry plateaus would again indicate a slower speed environment 

for drivers. 

The proposals in concept form were circulated to the directly affeced residents of Alderbury 

Street, from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive, for comment. A response in the form of a 

multi-signature letter was received which indicated that the preferred proposal was Option 2, 

subject to a number of amendments being implemented. 

A further meeting was then held with two residents representing the majority of residents of 

Alderbury Street, from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive, to clarify their requirements. 

As a result of this meeting, an amended concept plan was prepared and circulated to 

residents. 

A copy of the proposed traffic management options submitted and the response from 

residents is included as an attachment to this report. 

Responses received from the residents indicated general acceptance of the amended 

proposal from the majority. Requests were made for an additional speed plateau to be 

constructed midway between the two shown on the plan and that, following the 

implementation of the works, regular monitoring of traffic speed and volume be undertaken 

to determine the effectiveness of the modifications in reducing vehicle speeds. 

It is recommended that detailed design drawings be prepared on this basis and approval be 

given for construction to be proposed. 


The Town's Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - Road Design Standards indicates that "design and 

construction be compatible with best modern practices and designs". 

All treatments will require approval from Main Roads WA for traffic signs and lines. 


The 2010/11 Works Budget has a carried forward amount (from 2009/10) of $150,000 from 

the ELA Account for the construction of traffic management treatments within this Budget 

amount for works between Lichendale Street and Brookdale Street. These works have been 

completed by the Landcorp contractor at a contribution from Council of $71,000. On this 

basis, $79,000 is available to fund these works. The estimated cost for all works between 

Oceanic Drive and Lichendale Street is $65,000. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 includes strategies under:- 

Delivering our Services 

Consult with the community on their needs. 

Review the Town's asset management practices and improve transport infrastructure 

(roads, footpaths etc.) 





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 solutions". 

Directly affected residents of Alderbury Street, from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive, 

were given the opportunity to express their view at meetings held to discuss the issues. 

Concept plans were circulated and comments sought. On-site meetings were conducted to 

more clearly view the problems and understand the residents concerns. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan No: E170-10-07 Alderbury Street - Median and Speed Plateaus Concept Plan. 

2. Plan No: E170-10-08 Alderbury Street - Parking Bays and Speed Plateaus Concept 

Plan. 

3. Multi-signature letter from residents. 

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

detailed plans be prepared for the proposed construction of speed reducing 

devices in Alderbury Street, between Lichendale Street and Oceanic Drive, in 

accordance with concept Plan No. E170-10-08; 

construction of traffic management and speed reducing devices be approved to 

proceed in Alderbury Street, from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive; 

(iii) vehicle speed and volume counts be undertaken at regular intervals following 

the implementation of traffic management and speed reducing devices in 

Alderbury Street to determine the effectiveness of the measures. 

During discussion, Cr Langer advised that adjoining residents have requested that an 

additional speed reducing plateau be installed adjacent to No. 136 Alderbury Street. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

That clause (i) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

(i) 

detailed plans be prepared for the construction of speed reducing devices and 

parking provisions in Alderbury Street between Lichendale Street and Oceanic 

Drive. These will be in accordance with concept Plan No. E170-10-08 plus the 

inclusion of an additional speed reducing plateau to be located adjacent to the 

western boundary of property no. 136 Alderbury Street. 


For: 

Against: 

Crs Bradley, Grinceri, Langer, Pelczar and Pinerua 

Mayor Withers, Crs King, MacRae and Watson 





That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

detailed plans be prepared for the construction of speed reducing devices and 

parking provisions in Alderbury Street between Lichendale Street and Oceanic 

Drive. These will be in accordance with concept Plan No. E170-10-08 plus the 

inclusion of an additional speed reducing plateau to be located adjacent to the 

western boundary of property no. 136 Alderbury Street; 

construction of traffic management and speed reducing devices be approved to 

proceed in Alderbury Street, from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive; 

(iii) vehicle speed and volume counts be undertaken at regular intervals following 

the implementation of traffic management and speed reducing devices in 

Alderbury Street to determine the effectiveness of the measures. 

Carried 8/1 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, Grinceri, King, Langer, Pelczar, Pineru and 

Watson 

Cr MacRae 




CR11.127 CAITHNESS ROAD - PROPOSED TRAFFIC ISLAND AT THE BOULEVARD 

INTERSECTION 


To obtain approval for the construction of a seagull island treatment at the intersection of 

Caithness Road and The Boulevard and realignment of kerbing north of Peebles Road. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town's road resurfacing program offers the opportunity to assess works which could be 

carried out concurrently to improve safety and amenity of various locations. 

The current resurfacing schedule contains a section of Caithness Road from The Boulevard 

to Glamis Place. The scope of works includes the resurfacing of the existing pavement and 

reconstruction of the kerbing. 

Previous inspections of the site identified other minor works which could be incorporated 

with the resurfacing. These included the realignment of a short section of kerbing and the 

construction of a traffic island at the intersection with The Boulevard. 

DETAILS: 

The alignment of Caithness Road from Glamis Place to The Boulevard shifts approximately 

5 metres west. This has created a misalignment of the kerbline from the north of Peebles 

Road to the south of Peebles Road. It is proposed to realign the kerbing north of Peebles 

Road to create a smooth transition for drivers travelling south and thus remove the possibility 

of vehicles being directed into the kerb on the south east corner of Peebles Road. 

The intersection of Caithness Road with The Boulevard is at an angle of approximately 40 

degrees. This represents safety issues for drivers turning left from The Boulevard as 

vehicles occasionally drift into the opposite traffic lane. In addition, drivers turning left into 

The Boulevard tend to position their vehicles towards the centre of the road, creating the 

possibility of conflict with left turning vehicles from The Boulevard. 

It is proposed to better delineate the intersection by constructing a 'seagull' traffic island 

which will align turning vehicles correctly and improve safety for pedestrians crossing at this 

location. These proposals are indicated on Plan No: E215-11-01 attached to this report. 


Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - Road Design Standards indicates that "design and construction be 

compatible with best modern practices and designs". 


The 2011/12 Budget contains the amount of $70,000 for the resurfacing and rehabilitation of 

Caithness Road. This amount is sufficient for the implementation of the proposed works. 





The Town's Strategic Plan 2008-2020 under priority area "Delivering our Services" indicates 

strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc.) 


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 directly affected 

residents in Caithness Road, between Peebles Road and The Boulevard, have been 

advised of the proposed works by letterbox drop, giving them the opportunity to comment on 

the proposal to construct the traffic island and to realign the kerbing in that section of road. 

At the time of preparation of this report (26 September 2011), no comments had been 

received. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan No: E215-11.01 - Caithness Road - Glamis Place to The Boulevard - 

channelisation and resurfacing. 




That the proposed channelisation and resurfacing works, as indicated on Plan No: 

E215-11-01, be endorsed for construction. 

Carried 9/0 




CR11.128 DEDICATION OF SECTIONS OF WEST COAST HIGHWAY 


To consider dedication of sections of West Coast Highway in the Town of Cambridge in the 

vicinity of Rochdale Road. 

BACKGROUND: 

Correspondence from Main Roads WA dated 16 June 2011 provides the following details:- 

"To enable land to be dedicated as road reserve it is a requirement of the Land 

Administration Act that the Local Authority give its concurrence to the dedication. 

Sections of West Coast Highway in the City of Nedlands and Town of Cambridge (Rochdale 

Road to Alfred Road) as are depicted on the attached plan extracts and accompanying 

Schedule are held on title to the State of WA and require to be dedicated. 

It would be appreciated if Council consider the matter at its next meeting and provide the 

following statement in its letter of concurrence to satisfy the requirements of the Land 

Division of the Department of Regional Development and Lands:- 

"Council at its meeting of (date) concurred to the dedication of the land as West Coast 

Highway shown as Items 22 & 23 in the attached Schedule and Plans contained within the 

Town of Cambridge, as road under Section 56 of the Land Administration Act". 

To meet Lands Division requirements, a copy of the Council meeting minutes relating to the 

concurrence is also requested to be supplied. 

Main Roads will indemnify Council against all costs and charges relating to this dedication 

action. 

Can you please proceed with providing both the letter of concurrence and a copy of the 

relevant minutes to this office". 

The attachments and plans referred to are included in the report attachment. 

DETAILS: 

The two parcels of land are currently within what is known as West Coast Highway road 

reserve and this request is considered administrative and is supported. 


This request has statutory requirements as provided for under the Land Administration Act 

1997. 





Main Roads WA has indemnified Council against all costs and charges relating to this 

dedication action. 


The recommendation of this report supports the goals of the Town's Strategic Plan 2009- 

2020:- 

Planning for our Community 

- transport choice. 

Delivering Services 

- community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained. 


In accordance with Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation is assessed as "Not Required" 

as this matter is purely administrative and no external impacts are envisaged. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan extracts and accompanying schedule to Main Roads WA letter dated 16 June 

2011. 




That the land known as West Coast Highway shown as items 22 and 23, as detailed in 

the report attachment, within the Town of Cambridge be dedicated as a road under 

Section 56 of the Land Administration Act and Main Roads WA be advised 

accordingly. 

Carried 9/0 




CR11.129 TENDER NO. T23-11 - PANEL OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES PROVIDERS 


To obtain approval for the appointment of a panel of contractors to provide maintenance 

services for the Town's land and property holdings for a period of three years. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town requires the services of specialised contractors to carry out management, 

programmed maintenance (planned), preventative maintenance, breakdown maintenance 

(unplanned) and minor new works to its buildings and land holdings. 

Due to the many specialised areas of expertise required and the often urgent nature of the 

works, it is considered prudent to appoint a panel of contractors as it provides greater 

flexibility in sourcing the appropriate service required from previously assessed contractors. 

DETAILS: 

Tender Development/Advertising: 

The tender was advertised in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday, 13 August 2011. 

The tender documents comprised of:- 

 

 

 

 

 

Principal's Request/Tender Conditions; 

Specifications; 

Tenderer's Offer - Price Schedule; 

Special Conditions of Contract; and 

Annexure: WALGA Conditions of Contract for the Provision of General Services. 

As the amount or type of maintenance work cannot be readily quantified, the tenderers were 

required to present a pricing schedule of hourly rates, travel rates, call-out fees and "other" 

rates for the following:- 

- Carpentry, plumbing, drainage, roofing and painting, painting, cabinet making and 

joinery, brickwork and paving, plastering, concreting and glazing, locksmith services, 

speciality cleaning services, fencing (domestic) and pest control services (a total of 13 

services). 

An option was also given to only submit prices in areas of specific expertise. These areas 

were identified as those dealing with:- 

1. Pest control; 

2. Plumbing; and 

3. Painting. 

Contracts would be offered for a three year period with a yearly price review based on a rise 

and fall formula based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Perth over the previous 12 

months. 




Tender Closure/Tenders Received: 

The tender closed at 2.00pm on Thursday, 1 September 2011 with 36 tenders being 

submitted for consideration. 

Tender Evaluation Process: 

All tenders were evaluated using the WALGA Purchasing and Tender Guide 2005. 

The initial evaluation on "compliance criteria" indicated that 13 of the submitted tenders 

priced all items in the schedule. These were submitted by:- 

- AE Hoskins & Sons 

- Austec Building and Construction 

- KMC Group 

- Shorewater Pty Ltd 

- Integrated Building Maintenance Pty Ltd 

- Workzone Pty Ltd 

- Programmed Facility Management 

- Henlyn Construction 

- Plan Construction Pty Ltd 

- MACS Maintenance and Contracting Services 

- CPD Group 

- Robinson Buildtech Peter Symonds 

- Cdi Group Pty Ltd 

Eleven tenders were not evaluated as they did not fully address the "compliance criteria". 

Tenderers which submitted pricing for their specific areas of expertise were:- 

Pest Control 

- The Pest Guys Pty Ltd 

- Allpest 

- Scientific Pest Management 

- North Districts Pest Control 

Plumbing 

- JCS Plumbing Services 

- Craig Dorrington 

- Zambezi Plumbing and Gas 

Painting 

- Classic Contractors 

- Geoffry Burns 

- Global Decorating Pty Ltd 

- Calibre Coatings 

- Spotless 

These were then evaluated on weighted and non-weighted criteria which identified the 

preferred organisations which would present the best value for money for the Town. 




The confidential attachments to this report details the assessment applied to the tenders 

which satisfied the compliance criteria together with a summary of the prices submitted. 

The result of the evaluation against the tender selection criteria identified four contractors 

recommended to be included in the panel for all services:- 

1. CPD Group 

2. Robinson Buildtech Peter Symonds 

3. AE Hoskins & Sons 

4. KMC Group 

The contractors recommended to be included in the panel for specific trade services are:- 

Pest Control 

1. Scientific Pest Management 

2. North Districts Pest Control 

Plumbing 

1. Craig Dorrington 

2. Zambezi Plumbing and Gas 

Painting 

1. Classic Contractors 

2. Geoffry Burns 

3. Calibre Coatings 


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

The Local Government Act 1995 requires public tenders to be called when the consideration 

value of the contract exceeds $100,000. 


Funding for the tendered services are included in the capital and operational programs in the 

2011/12 Budget that will use the services of this contract. 


The recommendation embraces the following strategies in the Town's Strategic Plan 2009- 

2020:- 

- behave in an honest, ethical and accountable manner. 

- ensure compliance with statutory legislation and enforcement of regulatory 

requirements. 





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. The statutory advertising undertaken for this tender is 

considered sufficient. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Evaluation Matrix (Confidential). 




That:- 

(i) 

tenders submitted by:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

CPD Group; 

Robinson Buildtech Peter Symonds; 

AE Hoskins & Sons; 

KMC Group; 

as detailed on Tender No: T23-11, be accepted as a panel for the provision of 

maintenance services (all services) for a three year term, commencing 1 

November 2011 and expiring 31 October 2014; 

(ii) 


(a) 

(b) 

Craig Dorrington; 

Zambezi Plumbing and Gas; 


maintenance services (plumbing) for a three year term, commencing 1 


(iii) 


(a) 

(b) 

Scientific Pest Management; 

North Districts Pest Control; 


maintenance services (pest control) for a three year term, commencing 1 





(iv) 


(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Classic Contractors; 

Geoffry Burns; 

Calibre Coatings; 


maintenance services (painting) for a three year term, commencing 1 November 

2011 and expiring 31 October 2014. 

Carried 9/0 




CR11.130 NEW MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 


To seek approval for the purchase of a new motor vehicle for the Town's Community 

Facilities service delivery area. 

BACKGROUND: 

The position of Community Facilities Manager was introduced in March 2002 and 

encompassed the management of the Wembley Community Centre, Leederville Town Hall 

and The Boulevard Centre. In October 2004, management of the Quarry Amphitheatre 

contract also became the responsibility of the Community Facilities Manager. 

A major change to the position occurred when the Town took over the direct management of 

the Quarry Amphitheatre in August 2009. This management change has proven positive in 

relation to both service delivery and financial performance. 

The additional management role at the Quarry Amphitheatre together with the increasing 

usage of the Town's various community facilities has resulted in the requirement for a 

dedicated vehicle for use by the Community Facilities Manager. 

DETAILS: 

It is proposed that the vehicle will be utilised for a number of purposes, including the pick up 

and drop-off of various pieces of equipment at the Wembley Community Centre, Leederville 

Town Hall, The Boulevard Centre and the Quarry Amphitheatre. The vehicle will be allocated 

to the Town's Community Facilities Manager on a commuter use basis and will also be 

available to assist with various festivals/special events provided by the Town. 

The initial cost of a new vehicle is approximately $30,000 and will be funded from The 

Boulevard Reserve which at the end of August 2011 had a balance of over $400,000. 

Ongoing costs for the vehicle will be shared between the Wembley Community Centre, 

Leederville Town Hall, The Boulevard Centre and the Quarry Amphitheatre. Ongoing costs 

will be offset by a saving in mileage being claimed by the Town's Community Facilities 

Manager (approximately $2,700 per annum) and occasional vehicle hire. 


The Council's existing fleet vehicles are replaced at the appropriate time using funds 

sourced from the Light Fleet Replacement Reserve. Each year, the Council delegates 

authority to the CEO to administer the Light Vehicle Fleet Replacement Strategy adopted on 

25 September 2001 and detailed in Policy No. 5.4.3 – Plant and Vehicles – Sale of. This 

enables existing vehicles to be traded when appropriate without the need to refer each 

replacement purchase to the Council for approval. 

In this instance, rather than purchase the vehicle through the Light Fleet Replacement 

Reserve, it is intended to obtain the necessary funds for the purchase from The Boulevard 

Centre Reserve. The Boulevard Centre Reserve is one of the Town's Community Facilities 

Reserve accounts and although there are sufficient funds available to purchase a vehicle 




any unbudgeted expenditure of funds must be referred to Council and approved by an 

absolute majority. 


It is intended that a new vehicle be purchased at a cost of approximately $30,000 from 

available funds in the Boulevard Centre Reserve Fund. This reserve fund has been 

established to provide for the acquisition and development of community facilities and 

presently has a balance of approximately $400,000. 

Ongoing costs of the vehicle will be divided between the Wembley Community Centre, 

Leederville Town Hall, The Boulevard Centre and the Quarry Amphitheatre 


The purchase of a new motor vehicle for the Community Facilities service delivery area 

supports a number of key priority areas of the Town's 2009- 2020 Strategic Plan including: 

 

 

Delivery Our Services; and 

Capacity to Deliver. 


Consultation has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 as "Not Required". 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the purchase of a New Vehicle from the Boulevard Centre Reserve at a cost of 

up to $30,000 for use by the Community Facilities Manager, be approved; 

an amount of up to $30,000 for the purchase of the motor vehicle in (i) above be 

authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted expenditure in 

accordance with section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995. 





CR11.131 2011/2012 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS 


To endorse the disbursement of funds for the 2011/2012 "Financial Assistance to 

Community Organisations" program. 

BACKGROUND: 

The “Financial Assistance to Community Organisations” program is designed to enable not 

for profit and incorporated organisations to apply for financial assistance for the provision of 

worthwhile services, support and programs within the Town. The program provides financial 

assistance for either one-off establishment grants or a grant to assist with service provision 

and/or purchase of minor equipment to organisations that provide support and services for 

the residents of the Town. 

The program was widely advertised with a call for applications delivered to all community 

service, welfare, sporting groups and local schools within the Town. In addition, an 

advertisement was placed in a local newspaper on 13 August 2011. Interested 

organisations were requested to complete an application form detailing the level of financial 

assistance required, organisation details, client and membership details, project details, 

anticipated budget with written quotes and be delivered to the Town by the closing date 

Friday, 16 September 2011. 

In accordance with the grant conditions, all successful applicants are required to provide 

acquittal details and an evaluation of the program. All successful applicants are also 

required to acknowledge the contribution from the Town. 

An amount of $12,000 (GST exclusive) has been allocated in the 2011/2012 financial year 

for the purpose of this funding program. 

The selection criterion is outlined in Attachment 1 and an overview of each application is 

outlined in Attachment 2. A summary of the selection criteria matrix of how each application 

was assessed is included as Attachment 3. 

DETAILS: 

A total of 9 organisations submitted applications for funding with one for the submissions not 

applicable for funding. Of the 8 applications eligible for funding, the total request is 

approximately $14,029.94 (GST exclusive). The requests are as follows: 

Organisation Project Request 

(excl GST) 

1 Lake Monger Recreation Purchase new bowls $1,350 

Club 

2 Ballet Workshop Inc Purchase costumes $2,000 

3 City Beach Netball Club Purchase equipment $1301 

4 City Beach Tee ball Club Purchase a spray line maker $909 




5 Reabold Tennis Club Convert an office into a creche $4,000 

6 City Beach Tennis Club Purchase an automated defibrillator $2,797 

7 Wembley Toy Library Purchase new toys $763 

8 Floreat/Wembley Catholic Purchase new toys $910 

Parish Playgroup 

TOTAL $14,030 


The funding program is administered through Policy No 2.1.15 Community Grants Programs. 


An amount of $12,000 (GST exclusive) has been allocated in the 2011/2012 financial year 

for the purpose of this funding program. As per the Grant guidelines a maximum amount of 

$2,000 (GST exclusive) per application has been allocated. 

After assessing each application in accordance with the selection matrix and allocating a 

maximum amount of $2,000 per application the total funds required is $10,152. 


The Community Grants Program strongly supports a number of the Business Philosophies of 

the Town’s 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, namely:- 

 

 

 

Community Centred; 

Sustainability; and 

Enhanced Services. 

It further supports a number of the Town’s priority areas:- 

 

 

 

Planning for our community; 

Delivery of our services; and 

Capacity to Delivery. 


The Financial Assistance to Community Organisations program has been assessed under 

Policy No. 1.2.11 for which no community consultation is required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Selection Criteria 

2. Overview of Application 

3. Selection Criteria Matrix 







That:- 

(i) financial assistance be approved as detailed in the table below: - 

Organisation Project Request 

(excl GST) 

1 Lake Monger Recreation Purchase new bowls $1,012 

Club 

2 Ballet Workshop Inc Purchase costumes $2,000 

3 City Beach Netball Club Purchase equipment $976 

4 City Beach Tee Ball Club Purchase a spray line maker $682 

5 Reabold Tennis Club Convert an office into a crèche $2,000 

6 City Beach Tennis Club Purchase an automated defibrillator $2,000 

7 Wembley Toy Library Purchase new toys $572 

8 Floreat / Wembley Catholic Purchase new toys $910 

Parish Playgroup 

TOTAL $10,152 

(ii) 

(iii 

applicants be advised of the details of the funding of the 2011/2012 Financial 

Assistance to Community Organisations Program as indicated in the table 

above; 

applicants be advised that the financial assistance is subject to the 

acknowledgement of Council’s contribution within the community; 

(iv) applicants be advised that an evaluation and acquittal of the granted funds be 

submitted to the Town no later than 12 weeks after the completion of the project; 

(v) 

successful applicants are to comply with the grant recipient information in the 

grant information package. 

Carried 9/0 




CR11.132 2012/2013 CSRFF ANNUAL GRANT APPLICATION 


To make recommendations for the prioritisation of the Community Sporting and Recreation 

Facilities Fund (CSRFF) applications from the Town's sporting groups prior to them being 

forwarded to the Department of Sport and Recreations (DSR). The applications relate to the 

2012/2013 Annual funding round. 

BACKGROUND: 

The State Government, through DSR, has recently called for Annual and Forward Planning 

grant applications for the CSRFF. The closing date for the 2012/2013 applications was 

Friday 9 July 2011. Applications need to be forwarded to DSR by the end of October 2011 

for consideration. The outcome of the grants will be known by the end of March 2012. 

Priority Rating of Applications 

The purpose of the CSRFF program is to provide financial assistance to community groups 

and Local Government Authorities to develop basic infrastructure for sport and recreation. 

The program aims to increase participation in sport and recreation with an emphasis on 

physical activity, through rational development of good quality, well-designed and wellutilised 

facilities. 

The Town's role in the provision for CSRFF funding is to call for applications and assess 

them in priority order, rating each application according to the following guidelines: 

Well planned and needed by Municipality 

Well planned and needed by applicant 

Needed by Municipality, more planning required 

Needed by applicant, more planning required 

Idea has merit, more preliminary work needed 

Not recommended 

(A) 

(B) 

(C) 

(D) 

(E) 

(F) 

All applications are then forwarded to the DSR for assessment on a state wide basis. There 

are two grant categories available, namely:- 

1. Annual Grants 

The value of the grant is between $50,001 - $166,666 for projects with a planning and 

construction process that will be complete within 12 months. The total project cost for Annual 

Grants is between $150,001-$500,001 (GST exclusive). Grants given in this category must 

be claimed in the financial year following the date of approval. 

Examples of Annual Grants projects are: 

 

 

 

 

Upgrades to clubrooms/pavilions, 

Large floodlighting project, 

Court or bowling green construction, 

Reticulation system for a grassed playing field. 




2. Forward Planning Grants 

The value of the grant is between $166,667 - $4,000,000 (GST exclusive) and will be 

allocated to large scale projects where the total project cost exceeds $500,000 and may 

require an implementation period of between one and three years. Grants given in this 

category may be allocated in one or a combination of the years in the triennium. 

Examples of Forward Planning Grants are: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multipurpose leisure/recreation centre, 

Swimming pool - new or major upgrade including heating to allow increased use, 

Construction or large synthetic fields, 

Playing field construction, 

Clubroom - new or major upgrade, 

Large ablution block/change rooms. 

The maximum CSRFF grant approved will be no greater than one-third of the total estimated 

cost of the applicant’s project. Furthermore, the Western Australian State Government’s 

contribution must be at least matched by the applicant’s own cash contribution, with the 

balance of funds required being sourced by the applicant. Variations will occur for Special 

Assistance Grants. 

There is no obligation on the local government authority to make any contribution to a 

community group project. 

Application for Financial Assistance 

In addition to CSRFF assistance, organisations often apply to Council for financial 

assistance towards the project. Council has a Community Grant Program (Policy No. 2.1.15) 

which declares Council’s willingness to consider funding allocations for facilities and services 

to sporting, welfare, cultural, musical, and educational or other community organisations. 

A specific category within this program - Financial Assistance for Community Facilities 

purpose aims to provide financial assistance to organisations to enhance the provisions of 

facilities within the Town (such as new facilities, building extensions, provision or 

replacement of sporting/community facilities).The Community Grants Program policy also 

specifies the terms and conditions on which such assistance may be forthcoming. 

This year, the Town received one CSRFF Annual Grant application from the Cambridge 

Bowling and Recreation Club (CBRC) for the construction of one synthetic bowling green. 

The grant application has been considered and assessed. 

DETAILS: 

1. Cambridge Bowling and Recreation Club (CBRC) - Construction of one synthetic 

bowling green. 

Project Details 

The CBRC was established in 2005 and is a result of the amalgamation of the City Beach 

Bowling Club and the Floreat Park Bowling Club and is one of the largest clubs in the 

metropolitan area. CBRC currently has three grass bowling greens and two synthetic 

bowling greens. 




In 2010, CBRC developed a strategic plan that identified the need for a third synthetic 

bowling green and to close down the existing grass green. The new synthetic green will 

potentially reduce costs in maintaining the green and enhance the longevity of the playing 

surface. The elimination of one grass green and replace it with a new synthetic green will 

also assist the financial viability of the club as it will decrease the club's operating costs. 

The CBRC has previously applied for a CSRFF Annual Grant in 2010 to construct a third 

synthetic bowling surface. However, the Club was unsuccessful. DSR informed CBRC that 

they were unsuccessful because only one Annual Grant in that category was awarded to one 

metro Local Government Authority and at that time CBRC was a lower priority. The DSR 

encouraged CBRC to apply for the Annual Grant once again this year. 

Project Cost 

The breakdown of the project cost is outlined below: 

Funding Sources 

a. Local Government (LGA) contribution 

Cost 

exclusive 

of GST 

GST 

applicable 

Cost 

inclusive 

of GST 

$82,947 $8,295 $91,242 

b. Applicant cash $82,947 $8,294 $91,241 

c. Voluntary labour 

d. Donated materials 

e. Other State Government contributions 

f. Other - Bank Loan 

g. CSRFF Grant Requested $82,946 $8,295 $91,241 

Total Project Cost $248,840 $24,883 $273,724 

CBRC has requested financial assistance of $82,947 (GST exclusive) from the Town’s 

Community Organisations Facilities Assistance program. The relevant application form has 

been submitted and completed satisfactorily with all the questions answered. 

The funding conditions for Policy 2.1.15 and specifically Category 1 - Financial Assistance 

for Community Facilities (b) states that “Financial Assistance will be on a dollar for dollar 

basis after deducting any other grants from the total project costs.” 

In relation to the proposed new synthetic bowling green to be installed at Cambridge Bowling 

and Recreation Club, the overall cost is $248,840 (GST exclusive). After deducting the 

potential CSRFF grant of $82,946, the Town would contribute $82,947 on the dollar for dollar 

contribution and the CBRC would contribute the remaining cost of $82,947. 

Summary 

It is recommended that this project be given a 'B' rating (well planned and needed by 

applicant) as per the DSR rating chart. 

Constructing one new synthetic bowling green will reduce the operating cost of the Club and 

make the club more sustainable in the future. It is therefore recommended that the Town 

supports its 2012/2013 CSRFF application and provides financial assistance through the 

Town's Community Organisations Facilities Assistance program. 

Subject to funding, works will commence in September 2012. 




POLICY IMPLICATIONS: 

Policy No. 2.1.15 - Financial Assistance for Community Facilities will apply as financial 

assistance is requested from the CBRC. 


An amount of $83,000 (GST exclusive) will be required to be included in the 2012/2013 

Budget to assist in the costs associated with the construction of a new synthetic bowling 

green at the CBRC. 


In accordance with the assessment criteria, the CBRC application was rated at 'Consult', for 

which the community will be kept informed, listened to and their concerns acknowledged. 


The CSRFF program strongly supports a number of the Business Philosophies of the Town's 

2009-2020 Strategic Plan, namely: 

 

 

Community Centred; 

Sustainability and enhanced services; 

It further supports a number of the Town's priority areas: 

 

 

 

Planning for our community; 

Delivering our services; and, 

Financially sustainable. 

SUMMARY: 

A summary of the applicant's project information and recommendations are illustrated below: 

Priority Applicant Project Priority 

Rating 

1 Cambridge 

Bowling and 

Recreation Club 

Construction of 

one synthetic 

bowling green 

B 

Project 

Cost 

(GST ex) 

CSRFF 

Contribution 

(GST ex) 

Council 

Contribution 

(GST ex) 

$248,840 $82,946 $82,947 

The prioritisation of applications has been based on the following criteria: 

 

 

 

 

 

The planning and need for the project; 

The benefits to the community; 

The number of participants the project will benefit; 

The benefit to the Council; 

Recent funding is being provided. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 







That:- 

(i) 

the Department of Sport and Recreation be advised of the following priority and 

rating awarded to the CSRFF application:- 

Priority Applicant Project Priority 

Rating 

1 

Cambridge 

Bowling and 

Recreation 

Club 

Construction of 

one synthetic 

bowling green 

Project 

Cost 

(GST ex) 

CSRFF 

Contribution 

(GST ex) 

Council 

Contribution 

(GST ex) 

B $248,840 $82,946 $82,947 

(ii) 

all supporting documentation, including the completed application forms, be 

forwarded to the Department of Sport and Recreation; 

(iii) the applicants be advised of the priorities together with the ratings awarded by 

Council; 

(iv) subject to the CSRFF application by Cambridge Bowling and Recreation Club 

being successful, the Town's contribution of $82,947 (GST exclusive) be funded 

from the 2012/2013 Budget. 

Carried 9/0 




CR11.133 DOCUMENTS SEALED 


To advise Council of documents that have been affixed with the Town of Cambridge 

Common Seal. 

DETAILS: 

There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of the 

Municipality to be placed on documents, however, Council Policy directs the type of 

documentation to which the seal may be affixed, and requires a subsequent report to 

Council. 

A schedule of documents affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge is 

included as an attachment to this report. 


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


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. 


Sealing of Council documents is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 priority 

area of Capacity to Deliver and goal of open and transparent governance. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. 

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. Schedule of documents that have been affixed with the Town of Cambridge Common 

Seal. 







That it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to 

the documents as listed in the schedule attached to this report. 

Carried 9/0 




CR11.134 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - ANNUAL 

REVIEW 


To submit the Schedule of Authorities delegated to the Chief Executive Officer to the Council 

for consideration. 

BACKGROUND: 

Section 5.46 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that delegations from the Council to 

the Chief Executive Officer are to be reviewed by the Council at least once every financial 

year. The previous review was considered by the Council at its meeting held on 26 October 

2010. 

DETAILS: 

The purpose of delegating authority to the Chief Executive Officer is to provide for the 

efficient and orderly administration of the day to day functions of local government. The 

Chief Executive Officer exercises the delegated authority in accordance with the provisions of 

the Local Government Act and the Council’s policies. It is necessary to use the delegated 

authority process to expedite business and avoid unnecessary and repetitious reference to 

Council. Delegations to Chief Executive Officers are used extensively by all local 

governments to ensure the Council can respond to defined matters in a timely manner. 

A local government may delegate to the CEO the exercise of any of its powers or the 

discharge of any of its duties under the Act other than those such as any decision requiring 

an absolute majority, accepting major tenders, appointing an auditor or borrowing money. A 

full listing of the exceptions can be found at Section 5.43 of the Local Government Act 1995. 

The CEO may also delegate to any employee of the local government the exercise of any of 

the CEO’s powers or the discharge of any of the CEO’s duties under this Act other than the 

power of delegation. 

The attached schedule presents delegations which may be made by the Council to the CEO 

under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995. Also listed are those sections of the 

Act where power cannot be delegated. The relevant sections of the Act have been colour 

coded to reflect their delegation "status" as follows:- 

Red 

Where a power cannot be delegated, such as where an absolute majority is 

required or the Act specifically prohibits it, the entry is denoted in red. 

Green Powers detailed in green are those powers or duties delegated by the Council to the 

CEO (and some given directly to the CEO by the Act) to make decisions on its 

behalf in relation to the day to day administrative conduct of Council business. 

These are the powers that the Council is approving in accepting the 

recommendations of this report. 

Yellow Those duties coded yellow are designated as "acting through". In addition to 

covering delegations, the Local Government Act introduces the concept of “acting 




through”. Section 5.45 of the Act states that in relation to delegations, nothing 

prevents a “local government from performing any of its functions by acting through 

a person other than the CEO” or “a CEO from performing any of his or her functions 

by acting through another person”. 

The Act does not specifically define the meaning of the term “acting through”. 

However, the key difference between a delegation and “acting through” is that a 

delegate exercises the delegated decision making function in his or her own right ie 

they have some level of discretionary "power". Where a person has no discretion in 

carrying out a function, such as decision making in accordance with a Councilapproved 

policy, then that function may be undertaken through the “acting through” 

concept. 

There are several advantages in using “acting through” rather than delegation which 

include: 

 

 

 

 

it will better suit particular operational processes; 

it may decrease bureaucratic arrangements; 

it will reduce additional recording; and 

it will reduce reporting requirements placed on employees who are given 

delegated authority. 

The majority of delegations exercised by Council staff on a daily basis are those associated 

with the day-to-day operations of the Council. A schedule of specific delegations exercised 

by the CEO during the past 12 months, also circulated, reveals that the majority relate to the 

provision of replacement vehicles in accordance with the Light Vehicle Fleet Replacement 

Strategy, waiving of venue hire fees for ratepayer groups, venue licensing issues for local 

sporting/recreation clubs and reallocation of funds within existing cost centres to meet 

unanticipated expenditure. 


There is a direct relationship between Council policies and delegated authority, as the Chief 

Executive Officer will be guided by Council policy when exercising any delegated authority. 

Relevant powers and duties are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with 

section 5.42 of the Local Government Act, subject to the limitations specified in section 5.43. 

Section 5.46 provides that the Chief Executive Officer is to maintain a register of delegations 

made. 


Any financial implications related to this report are controlled by the Schedule of Delegations 

attached. 


The delegation process streamlines the day to day operations of the Town’s Administration 

by authorising the Chief Executive Officer to approve certain matters that have received the 

blanket approval of the Council. Annual reporting complies with the provisions of the 

Strategic Plan relating to open and transparent governance. 





This matter has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is 

required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Schedule of Delegations available 

2. Schedule of CEO Delegations exercised. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Council 

APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the delegation of the exercise of those 

of its powers and duties contained in the Local Government Act 1995 as detailed 

in the attached Schedule of Delegations, to the Chief Executive Officer; 

each of the delegations in (i) above be reviewed by October 2012 to reconsider 

their currency, ongoing relevance and applicability. 





CR11.135 ANNUAL REPORT TEXT 2010-2011 


To submit the 2010/2011 Annual Report text for acceptance by the Council and presentation 

to the Annual General Meeting of Electors. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Local Government Act 1995 requires the Town to prepare an Annual Report for each 

financial year. Section 5.53 outlines that the annual report is to contain - 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a report from the Mayor; 

a report from the Chief Executive Officer; 

an overview of the plan for the future of the district made in accordance with section 

5.56, including major initiatives that are proposed to commence or to continue in the 

next financial year; 

the financial report for the financial year; 

such information as may be prescribed in relation to the payments made to 

employees; 

the auditor’s report for the financial year; 

a matter on which a report must be made under section 29(2) of the Disability Services 

Act 1993; 

details of entries made under section 5.121 (Elected Member Minor Breaches) during 

the financial year in the register of complaints, including:- 

the number of complaints recorded in the register of complaints; 

how the recorded complaints were dealt with; and 

any other details that the regulations may require; and 

such other information as may be prescribed. 

DETAILS: 

It is a requirement to present the Annual Report for adoption at the Annual General Meeting 

of Electors, scheduled to be held at 7.00 pm on Thursday, 8 December 2011. 

The Town's financial audit is currently in progress and will not be finalised until late October 

2011, therefore the auditor's report and financial report will be presented for consideration to 

the November Council meeting. The Audit report will be incorporated into the final Annual 

Report document. 

The attached text for the annual report 2010/2011 is in draft format and following Council 

acceptance, arrangements will be made for the formal production of the report to ensure its 

availability prior to the Annual Electors’ meeting. The draft report may require some minor 

amendments prior to finalisation and it is recommended that the Chief Executive Officer be 

authorised to make any appropriate minor amendments. 


The Local Government Act 1995 requires the Town to prepare an Annual Report for each 

financial year. Section 5.53 outlines that annual report is to contain information as detailed 

above. 




"5.54 Acceptance of annual reports 

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the annual report for a financial year is to be accepted 

by the local government no later than 31 December after that financial year. 

(2) If the auditor's report is not available in time for the annual report for a financial 

year to be accepted by 31 December after that financial year, the annual report is 

to be accepted by the local government no later than 2 months after the auditor's 

report becomes available. 

5.55 Notice of annual reports 

The CEO is to give local public notice of the availability of the annual report as soon as 

practicable after the report has been accepted by the local government." 


The Annual Report includes details of the Council’s financial performance for the 2010/2011 

financial year. Budget provision has been made for the production of limited copies of the 

Annual Report document, as demand for the hard copy version has diminished in recent 

years due to online availability. 


One of the Town's goals in the Strategic Plan is for open and transparent governance. The 

production of the Annual Report supports this in addition to meeting statutory obligations. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance 

with the assessment criteria, no community consultation is required. In accordance with the 

relevant legislation, public availability of the Annual Report is advertised in local newspapers 

prior to the Annual General Meeting. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Draft Annual Report 2010/2011 text (To follow) 


(COMMITTEE ANDADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 


That the 2010/2011 Annual Report, as attached, be accepted by an ABSOLUTE 

MAJORITY and submitted for adoption to the Annual General Meeting of Electors to 

be held on 8 December 2011, subject to the Chief Executive Officer making any minor 

amendments to the text as necessary. 





CR11.136 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 18 AUGUST 2011 


To report on items considered at the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) Ordinary 

Meeting held on 18 August 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:- 

 

 

 

 

to develop and improve the value of the land; 

to maximise within prudent risk parameters, the financial return to the participants; 

to balance economic, social and environmental issues; and 

to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban design and 

development practice. 

DETAILS: 

In July 2011, the report to Council on the activities of the TPRC advised of the indicative 

sales program, the marketing plan and an independent review of the project cashflow. 

To recap, the sales program was proposed to commence in October 2011 with the release 

of 63 lots and a group housing site, and the release of 42 display village lots. A further 35 

lots was planned for release in August 2012. Overall, there are 2,310 lots proposed within 

the development, which would yield approximately 2,600 dwellings. 

At its Ordinary Meeting in August 2011, the TPRC considered a revised project cashflow as 

a result of the independent review and revised marketing program. The independent review 

resulted in more conservative sales estimates and lower marketing and settlement costs. A 

deferral of the program of two months was also factored in. 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’. 

Further details of the project cashflow are available for Elected Members, but remain 

confidential. 

The construction program recently commenced, the TPRC having awarded the bulk 

earthworks tender back in June 2011 and the City of Wanneroo more recently approving the 

development application. Construction will continue throughout the duration of the project, 

as lots are progressively developed and brought onto the market. 

Other items of business considered include:- 

Item 9.2 Statement of Financial Activity for the month of August 2010 

Item 9.3 List of Monthly Accounts submitted for the month of August 2010 

Item 9.4 Coastal Conservation Committee 

Item 9.5 TPRC Structure Plan Status Update 

Item 9.6 Structure Plan Referral Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 

Item 9.8 Development Management Agreement - Key People 

Item 9.9 Alternative Marketing Plan 

Item 9.10 TPRC Draft Budget 

Item 9.11 Delegation of Authority 

Of note, the meeting was advised that both the structure plan (item 9.5) and environmental 

approvals (item 9.6) had finally been obtained, with some minor changes to the structure 

plan. Item 9.8 also advised that Mr Nigel Satterley was personally assuming the key role of 

Marketing Consultant. 

Power of Attorney 

Further to the above report for information, 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. 




Legal advice has been obtained by the TPRC confirming that the respective local 

government’s may enter into such arrangements. As such, the report recommendation also 

includes a recommendation to appoint the TPRC as Attorney to sell and deal with any part of 

the land by virtue of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 and Strata Titles Act 1985. 


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: 

1. Draft Power of Attorney Instrument. 


COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 


That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the report relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meeting of the Tamala 

Park Regional Council held on 18 August 2011 be received; 

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. 

Carried 9/0 




AUDIT COMMITTEE 

The report of the Audit Committee meeting held on 6 September 2011 was submitted as under: 


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Audit Committee open at 4.05 pm. 




Members: 

Mayor Simon Withers (Presiding Member) 4.05 pm 5.10 pm 

Cr Rod Bradley 4.05 pm 5.10 pm 

Cr Alan Langer 4.05 pm 5.10 pm 

Cr Otto Pelczar 4.05 pm 5.10 pm 

Mr Stephen Briehl 4.10 pm 5.10 pm 

Observers: 

Nil 

Officers: 

Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic 

Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance 

Also in attendance: 

Tony Macri and Terry Tan - Macri & Partners - External Auditor (Out at 4.20pm) 

Santo Casilli - Santo Casilli and Associates - Internal Auditor 

Adjournments: 


Nil 

5.10 pm 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 112




That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Audit Committee held on 21 December 

2010 as contained in the December 2010 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. 


Nil 

7. REPORTS 




AU11.1 INTERIM REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2011 


To consider the auditor’s interim audit report for the year ended 30 June 2011. 

BACKGROUND: 

As part of the annual audit program, the Town’s auditors conduct an interim audit each year 

and provide a management report on any issues identified. The Town has received the 

management report including the comments from the Town’s representatives in relation to the 

matters identified during the conduct of the interim audit. 

A copy of this Interim Audit Management Report is included as an attachment to this report. 

DETAILS: 

The interim audit covered a review of the accounting and internal control procedures in 

operation, as well as testing of transactions in the following areas:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rate receipts and rate debtors 

Receipts and sundry debtors 

Bank reconciliations 

Purchase of goods and services 

Payments and creditors 

Payroll 

General accounting and information system controls 

Investments 

Registers (Tender Register and Register of Financial Interests) 

The review also examined some compliance matters under local government statutory 

provisions. 

In conclusion, the Auditors reported that their review indicates that the controls in place were 

operating satisfactorily. Representatives from Macri Partners will be in attendance at the Audit 

Committee meeting to discuss the results of the interim audit and to answer any questions. 

In order to assist in improving internal controls, the following items have been brought to the 

Town’s attention, as follows:- 

Purchasing and Payments - it was noted that a number of purchase orders were outstanding 

for long periods and that management review the outstanding orders report periodically and 

purge unwanted and fulfilled purchase orders from the report. 

Management Comments: 

The finance officer (purchasing) issues outstanding purchase order reports to managers on a 

monthly basis for review. Managers review their respective outstanding orders and provide 

feedback as to which orders are no loner current. 

A comprehensive review of all outstanding orders is also conducted in June each year to 

determine outstanding orders and commitments to be carried forward into the new financial 

year. All purchase orders no longer required or closed were deleted after discussion with the 

relevant officers. 




We have reviewed the latest "Orders Pending Receipt Analysis" report which only has orders 

for 2010 and 2011. All orders prior to this have been deleted. 

Specifically, the 2008 purchase order related to the development assessments for Ocean Mia 

Seaside lots sold, which was contracted out and has occurred over a number of years. The 

order has since been cancelled and a current order issued for the remaining lots. 

Receipting - combination numbers for access to the safe at the Council's main premises have 

not been changed with sufficient frequency to ensure previous staff do not have access to the 

safe. Recommend combinations be changed with sufficient regularity and a list of staff with 

safe access be maintained. 


A list of staff with access to the safe has been prepared. The combination to the safe is now 

changed on a regular basis, once every six months or when a staff member with access 

resigns, whichever occurs first. 

Payroll – a review of the "Employee Accruals Entitlement" report highlighted that there were 

twenty six employees (14% of the total FTE) with outstanding annual leave entitlements in 

excess of eight weeks. 


The Town's Executive has directed that employees with annual leave greater than 300 hours (8 

weeks) submit leave plans to reduce the outstanding balance. This will be monitored and 

reported back to the Audit Committee at a subsequent meeting. 

Information Technology Controls - it was noted that there is no formal process to review 

users' access rights to data and information services at regular intervals. Recommend a formal 

process be implemented to review users' access rights and module responsibility structures at 

regular intervals to ensure only persons with authorised module access can process 

transactions to the system. 


The area of user access rights has being reviewed as part of a Security & Storage model policy 

and design review project. This project is pending implementation this year. In addition 

improvements have been made with respect to staff exiting the Town so their user rights can be 

terminated in a timely manner. 

The comments concerning formal regular reviews of user access rights has merit and will be 

considered for incorporating it within the new security model procedures. 

Information Technology Operations Room - it was noted that the UPS (Uninterrupted Power 

Supply) and server room has no fire detection and prevention devices other than a temperature 

monitor and two air conditioners in the room. The presence of carpets and shelving in the room 

are an added risk; and the smoke detector in the room may not have been tested to date to 

check if functioning properly. 


The server room has a smoke alarm detector which is regularly checked as part of the Town's 

preventative maintenance programme. A fire extinguisher is located immediately outside the 

entrance to the server room for easy access should a fire occur. 

With respect to the carpet and shelving, this has been recognised as being a risk and funds for 

upgrading the room and removing these items have been included in the 2011/12 budget. 




Investment of Funds – it was noted that whilst there are well defined controls in practice for 

management of investments which include the separation of functions for approved authority, 

execution of transactions and reporting, there appear to be no documented internal control 

procedures. Recommend a formal internal control procedural document be created to support 

management's activities. 


The Town's established internal procedures for controlling investment of funds have now been 

documented. 

Tender Register – it was noted that there was one copy of notice of invitation to tender (a copy 

of newspaper advertisement) not filed in the tenders register from sample selected. It is 

recommended that the tender register be updated to fully comply with regulations. 


The filing of this document in the tender register has been updated. No other filing omissions 

were noted. The Town also maintains a separate register of all advertisements, notices and 

newspaper articles with respect to the Town. 

Financial Activity Statement Report - it was noted that Council has not adopted a percentage 

for reporting material variances in the Statements of Financial Activity reports. 


It is recognised that for the 2010/2011 financial year, whilst there was an adoption of a value, 

there was no adoption of a percentage in accordance with Financial Management Regulation 

34(5). This has been addressed for the 2011/12 financial year and included as part of the 

adoption process of the Town's annual budget to ensure this omission will not re occur in the 

future. 


Internal controls are administered in accordance with administration policies and procedures. 

The Town’s accounts and annual financial report are required to be audited each financial year 

in accordance with Section 7.2 of the Local Government Act 1995. 

The Town’s Annual Report is to contain the Independent Audit Report as required by Section 

5.32(2)(h) of the Local Government Act 1995. 


This report is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan’s priority area of Capacity Deliver with 

the corresponding goal of open and transparent governance. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Interim Audit Report (Macri Partners) (Confidential) 



Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Langer 

That the interim audit report and responses to the recommendations be noted. 

Carried 9/0 




AU11.2 

INTERNAL AUDIT STAGE 2 PURCHASING/CONTRACTS, PAYROLL/HUMAN 

RESOURCES AND CASH AUDIT, COMPLIANCE RETURN AUDIT AND 

WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS AUDIT 


To consider the internal audit which, in accordance with the Audit Plan, covered:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the identification of all areas where cash is being received on behalf of the Town by 

external parties and to assess controls, accountability and proper recording of 

transactions; 

a follow up audit to determine whether audit matters raised in the December 2010 audit 

on the review of the administration procedures for the day to day operations of the 

Wembley Golf Course operations have been addressed; 

the review of the Town's purchasing process and procurement contracts for the 

purchases of goods and services that have been contracted via a public tender and/or a 

formal quotation process. 

a review of the administration and management of the Town's payroll process. 

a review of the Town's human resources function processes. 

a review of the process in completing the 2010 Legislative Compliance Return and 

ensure the information in the return reflects the Town's compliance status. 

BACKGROUND: 

In order to satisfy this requirement, an internal audit process has been established based on a 

three year program to cover all the areas of the Town’s financial management systems. The 

audit program is now in its second year with the following audits presented for consideration:- 

1. Purchasing & Contracts 

2. Payroll 

3. Human Resources 

4. Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 

5. Compliance Return Audit 

6. Wembley Golf Course Operations - Year End Audit 

The Town engaged the services of auditors, Santo Casilli Accounting and Auditing Services to 

undertake the Internal Audit Program and their reports are included as an attachment to this 

report. 

DETAILS: 

A summary of the findings is provided below. Management comments are shown in italics:- 

Purchasing 

The Audit concluded that the Town has in place satisfactory processes to manage its 

procurements and ensure that such procurements are undertaken in accordance with the 

Town's procurement policy and guidelines and were properly authorised in line with financial 

delegated authority levels. 




However, it was recommended that the Town’s existing processes be improved by 

incorporating the following: 

1. The Town’s existing procurement procedures be updated to take into account the tender 

evaluation process and include the establishment of an evaluation panel, responsibility of 

the evaluation panel members; and conflict of interest declarations 

Procurement procedures - the Town's procurement manual is currently being updated to 

include the processes for evaluation. 

2. The Town may not be receiving best value for money from its procurements as some 

services which are considered to be ongoing type services are being procured 

individually via the obtaining of quotations rather than being pooled and tested via an 

open public tender process. 

In obtaining best value for money for ongoing type services, the Town is currently in the 

process of going through a public tender process for general maintenance and repair services 

and going through a request for quote process for gardening services. 

3. Town officers who are required to form part of an evaluation panel in order to assess 

public tender submissions should complete a “Conflict of Interest” declaration before the 

evaluation is performed and that a formal “Conflict of Interest” declaration be included 

within the existing “Declaration of Confidentiality and Interest Form’. 

Specific "Conflict of Interest" declaration forms and specific "Declaration of Confidentiality" 

forms are now in place. These are formally signed by each panel member before the 

evaluation process is commenced. 

4. The Town currently has in place a “Contracts Register” which is maintained by the 

Contracts Officer. The “Contracts Register” provides information on all public tender 

contracts (RTFs) and formal quotation contracts (RFQs). We found that in some 

instances (RFQs) are not always communicated to the Contracts Officer for inclusion in 

the “Contracts Register”. Therefore there is no guarantee that the “Contracts Register” is 

kept up to date. 

Only Directors and the CEO have authority to approve purchases over $40,000, which is the 

minimum limit for issuing an RFQ. The process for issuing RFQs will be amended such that an 

RFQ number must be obtained first, before commencing the acquisition and the Executive as 

authorising officers will monitor that process 

5. According to Town procurement policy, all procurements between $40,000 and $100,000 

are required to be procured via formal quotation process. We found three instances 

where procurement exceeded $40,000 and no RFQ was initiated. 

Electronic procurement will be fully implemented by the end of September and officers are 

currently investigating whether a workflow can be incorporated to prompt issuing an RFQ. See 

also the above response. 

6. There is no process by which contract managers assess the performance of the 

contractor/supplier as per the contract and no formal post contract performance review. 

The Town will consider developing a process for contract evaluation and supplier performance 

evaluation during the life cycle of a contract, for key contracts. 




7. Consideration be given to possibly eliminating the need for the use of purchase orders for 

small $ value procurements say under $500.00. 

Agree with the recommendation and established processes for issuing a cheque request or 

EFT request can accommodate the authorising of such payments. This will be implemented. 

Payroll 

Based on our audit work, we found that management control over payroll processing was found 

to be generally satisfactory. However some control processes could be improved and these 

have been included in this report for management attention and appropriate action. 

8. No formal written policies and procedures/guidelines exist for the payroll process. 

Although some payroll procedures are available (Tech-One system based procedures), 

they are not sufficiently detailed to enable Town staff to follow all parts of the payroll 

process. 

Formal payroll procedures have now been documented. 

9. The process for checking the accuracy of the payroll is undertaken by 4 Town staff. 

Internal Audit believes that this checking process is over controlled, is inefficient and can 

slow down the processing of employee pays. 

The procedures for payroll verification have now been amended to involve only two Town staff 

for checking of accuracy of the payroll as to previously four Town staff which will increase 

efficiency. The later to officers (Director of Corporate & Strategic and the CEO) still review 

aspects of the payroll data, but do not authorise. 

10. Some casual employees’ time sheets which were found to be properly authorised by their 

supervisors, were not necessarily signed by the casual employees. 

Managers and supervisors have been informed to ensure that casual employee time sheets are 

appropriately signed before being submitted to payroll for processing. 

11. Payroll staff have the ability to create new employees onto the Payroll. The Manager 

Finance currently reviews all new and terminated employees via a manually produced 

payroll report. 

A request has been lodged with Technology One, the Town's software supplier, to produce a 

system-generated fortnightly payroll report that shows employees commenced and employees 

terminated during the pay fortnight to give more control. 

An automated change to payrate report also identifies new or terminated employees which is 

reviewed by the Manager Finance. 

Human Resources 

Although adequate policies and procedures are currently in place within the Town of 

Cambridge, management monitoring controls to ensure ongoing compliance with these policies 

and procedures requires improvement. 

12. Although proper policies and procedures are in place with respect to staff performance 

evaluations it was noted that not all Town employees are completing an annual 

performance evaluation and submitting the completed evaluation to Human Resources. 




Recommend that the Manager Human Resources stringently monitor and follow up non 

compliance with the relevant managers and staff. 

Management / HR is able to identify performance reviews not completed. The development of 

the HR Information Systems (included in this years budget) will facilitate ease of reporting and 

development of 'management' alerts. A non-compliance report will be generated for the 

CEO/Director's attention 

13. Although proper policies and procedures are in place with respect to recruitment of staff, 

we were unable to provide an opinion that the Town is properly complying with these 

policies and procedures as some of the “Recruitment Vacancy” files selected for testing 

did not have all relevant documentation attached. It is recommended that the Manager 

Human Resources develop a quality control checklist to be placed inside each 

“Recruitment Vacancy” file detailing all the relevant steps that need to be followed and 

documentation required to be placed on the file. 

The Manager Human Resources has commenced implementation of a checklist based on 

Recruitment policy requirements. Records associated with recruitment will not be maintained 

on the employees file due to confidentiality of information provided in recruitment reports and 

reference checks 

14. Although induction of employees is being undertaken and there is evidence on the 

employee's file to support this, there was one instance where an induction was 

undertaken but the form was not sent to Human Resources to be placed on the 

employee's file, raising concern that not all relevant documentation is on an employee's 

file. It is recommended that the Manager Human Resources develop a quality control 

checklist to be placed inside each “Employee Personal” file detailing all documentation 

that needs to be placed on the file. 

The Manager Human Resources has commenced implementation of a checklist for compulsory 

documents based on relevant recruitment policy and essential selection criteria requirements. 

15. Some policies and procedures in relation to the Human Resources function and 

employee related activities have not been reviewed for some time to ensure such policies 

are still appropriate and applicable within the workplace. Recommend that the Manager 

Human Resources put in place a process by which all policies and procedures are 

subjected to a review at least once every three years to ensure they remain up to date 

and relevant. 

Policies have been generally reviewed depending on changes to relevant legislation, precedent 

at law and critical incidents. However a total policy review will now be undertaken every three 

years. 

16. A number of casual employees have been employed more than three months. The 

existing Recruitment and Selection Policy and Guideline is not clear as to the term that a 

casual employee should be employed. Some casual employees have no employment 

end date and are accruing long service leave in the payroll system as a result of this. 

(Note the accrual is not necessarily an entitlement and is not transferred to the balance 

sheet). It is recommended that casual employees have an employment end date and the 

legality of accruing long service leave be investigated. 

The list of the 61 casual employees currently employed by the Town has been reviewed. 

A casual employee may be considered permanent where their engagement is regular and 

systematic and there is a reasonable expectation that they will continue to be engaged on an 

on-going basis. 




Interviews have been conducted with the Supervisors and managers of these employees to 

confirm the irregularity of their employment. Further analysis has demonstrated that there have 

been breaks in employment, further evidencing the casual basis of employment. Two longer 

term casual employees will be analysed in further detail. 

The development of an internal information / training session with respect to employment of 

casual employees for managers and employees who have authority to authorise the 

recruitment of staff will occur. 

Further, a management alert, either an employment end date or other system based alert, to be 

installed to prompt a review of the employment status. Investigation as to which what is the 

most appropriate mechanism to do this will be undertaken and implemented. 

With respect to the legality of the long service leave, an employee must have continuous 

service and a break of two weeks or more would constitute a break in the continuous service. 

This has been confirmed by the Towns Industrial Relations Advisors. There is one long term 

casual employee that requires further investigation. 

17. A significant number of employees currently hold accumulated annual leave balances of 

more than six weeks although under Town's leave policy staff encouraged not to 

accumulate more than six weeks. It is recommended that this be followed up with those 

employees who currently have excessive accumulation of leave to encourage them to 

take leave and comply with Town policy. 

There are currently 26 employees with accrued leave greater than 300 hours. Employees with 

excessive leave have been asked to submit leave plans to reduce their accruals, which will be 

reviewed by the Town's Executive. The Town's Leave Policy will be reviewed with possible 

amendments to provide a more descriptive process to manage excessive leave balances. 

It is proposed that annual leave accrual balances will be included as a performance outcome 

for all employees with supervisory capacity or any responsibility for the endorsement of annual 

leave requests. 

The leave accrual will be reported back to the Audit Committee at subsequent Audit Committee 

meetings as an action item. 

Quarterly Cash Verification 

18. The audit concluded that satisfactory controls are in place over cash receipting and 

proper procedures are being followed to safeguard cash. 

19. The cash verification process included auditing Bold Park Aquatic Centre, Administration 

Centre, Wembley Golf Course professional shop and tavern operations, The Boulevard 

Centre, Quarry Amphitheatre and Wembley Community Centre. 

20. Minor discrepancies were noted at the Wembley Golf Course professional shop and 

tavern operations and Bold Park Aquatic Centre, where daily bank receipts reported by 

the cash register did not match the cash collected. These occurrences fall within the 

acceptable tolerance for variations and are not of a material amount. 

These variations were followed up by the Manager Finance with respective managers at the 

Wembley Golf Course and Bold Park Aquatic Centre. The variations were simply put down to 

human error. The cash handling procedures have been reinforced with staff to minimise errors 

and encourage staff to be more diligent. Staff are being informed of variances, so they can be 

followed up in a timely manner. 




Compliance Return 

In Audit’s opinion, the 2010 Legislative Compliance Return information was satisfactorily 

compiled and there were no areas of non-compliance reported. 

21. Only one outstanding issue noted in that the CEO and relevant employees have not yet 

signed off on the Town’s delegated authority listings. 

The delegated authority listings have now been finalised. 

Wembley Golf Course Operations 

In October 2010, an audit was conducted on the administrative and operational practices being 

followed for the day to day operations of the Wembley Golf Course. The audit was finalised in 

December 2010 and a final audit report issued. 

A number of matters were highlighted in the audit report requiring management attention. 

A follow up audit has now been conducted to determine whether those audit matters raised in 

the December 2010 audit report have been addressed and to also determine whether there are 

any other audit matters that still require attention. This report presents the findings of the follow 

up audit conducted in June 2011. 

22. Purchase orders were not being created and raised on a timely basis. This issue is now 

resolved. 

23. There are currently no clear instructions to staff as to when stock orders received are to 

be updated in RMS. Delays in updating stock receipts in RMS may cause unexplained 

discrepancies to occur when undertaking monthly stock takes. Not satisfactorily resolved, 

items taking four to five days to enter into RMS. It is recommended that all stock received 

be input into RMS within 24 hours of being received. 

Current stock ordering process has been reviewed which will include a 24 hour time frame for 

receipting of goods. 

24. Stock Aging reports and Gross Profit analysis reports are available in ClubLinks which 

identifies slow moving stocks for all ranges of stock, however these reports were not 

being accessed by the MRCO to enable better decision making. 

The General Manager Wembley Golf Course now has control over the slow moving stocks and 

slow moving stock reports are being satisfactorily generated. Targets are being set to ensure 

aged stock is managed and does not sit on the floor. The General Manager Wembley Golf 

Course is meeting with the Manger Retail to review the stock reports on a regular basis. 

25. There were no formal procedures in place to enable the MRCO to regularly identify all 

slow/non moving stocks and offer promotions to dispose them immediately. This matter 

has now been resolved. Slow moving stocks are now being identified by the General 

Manager on a regular basis and action to move these stocks is in progress. 

26. The physical stock take verification process was carried out by staff who are also 

engaged in the day to day ordering and selling of the inventory. This matter has now 

been resolved. Monthly stock counts are being undertaken by the Manager Retail and 

Course Operations and variances are being communicated to the General Manager 

Wembley Golf Course for appropriate action. 




27. Details of variances identified by physical stock take was adjusted in RMS without 

detailed explanation and authorisation. Also not communicated to General Manager for 

investigation. Provide ongoing training to sales staff to ensure all sales are properly 

processed in RMS on a timely basis. 

Monthly stock takes are being conducted and variances being communicated to the General 

Manager. Stock is being held in a more secure environment. Variances between physical 

stock count and RMS still ongoing and could be due to incorrect sales processing. 

Recommend ongoing training of sales staff. 

28. The Manager Retail and Course Operations was able to perform all of the duties relating 

to the purchasing and control over merchandise. This matter has now been resolved. 

Proper segregation of duties now exists in relation to ordering, receipting and stock count 

processes. 

29. The Mi Club booking system is not able to be linked to the RMS system and the Town is 

unable to reconcile daily bookings to RMS to ensure all bookings are paid for. 

This matter is still being investigated by the General Manager with Clublinks to identify whether 

other systems can be linked to RMS point of sale system. 

30. Golf Car Rental Hire Agreements and motorised cart booking sheet not properly 

completed. This matter has now been resolved. 

31. Pro Shop does not always request proof in the form of the original receipt from the 

customer, prior to giving refunds. Recommend that the General Manager establish a 

“Refund Policy” which requires proof of purchase to be produced and that the “Refund 

Policy” be clearly displayed on the sales counter to inform clients of the refund policy 

requirements 

This matter has not yet been addressed, the Retail Manager of Course Operations advised that 

a Refund Policy is yet to be implemented. . 

32. No procedure was in place to govern equipment hire and return of hired equipment. This 

matter has now been resolved. 

33. Minor discrepancies of stock on hand quantities were found between Clublinks Great 

Plains accounting system and RMS. Variances still ongoing. 

Clublinks have advised that variances could be due to reports being run at different times 

between the two systems and resulting in a timing variance. Also on occasions stock 

purchases are not being processed at the same time in both systems resulting in timing 

variances. Reports will be run monthly at the same time and stock be processed in a more 

timely manner into the RMS system as mentioned previously in this report. 

The internal audit review of the golf course operations will be ongoing with another audit due in 

December 2011. 





Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 

1996, “The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake review of the appropriateness and 

effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government 

regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report to the Local Government 

the results of those reviews". 

Internal controls are administered in accordance with administration policies and procedures. 


This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s priority area of ‘Capacity to Delivery’ and 

corresponding goal of ‘Open and Transparent Governance’. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Purchasing/Contracts Audit (Confidential) 

2. Human Resources Audit (Confidential) 

3. Payroll Audit (Confidential) 

4. Quarterly Cash Verification Audit (Confidential) 

5. Compliance Return Audit (Confidential) 

6. Wembley Golf Course Operations Audit (Confidential) 


That the Internal Audit Reports - Stage 2 of the Internal Audit Program and additional audits 

relating to:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purchasing/Contracts 


Payroll 

Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 

Compliance Return Audit 


be noted and endorsed. 

Committee Meeting 6 September 2011 

The Committee discussed particular aspects of the Human Resource Audit and the Wembley 

Golf Course Audit. Specifically, in relation to stock, they enquired into the dollar value of the 

stock variances and the percentage of stock over 90 days. The Director Corporate and 

Strategic advised that stock levels had reduced from over $300,000 to just under $250,000, 

and the aim is to operate around $225,000. 




Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Bradley 

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

(ii) 

further reports be prepared on: 

(a) 

(b) 

the current levels of aged stock and stock variances; 

how the outstanding stock issues and the integration of the on-line booking system 

with the Retail Management System will be resolved. 




Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Langer 

That:- 

(i) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the Internal Audit Reports - Stage 2 of the Internal Audit Program and additional 

audits relating to:- 

Purchasing/Contracts 


Payroll 

Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 

Compliance Return Audit 


be noted and endorsed; 

(ii) 

further reports be prepared on: 

(a) 

(b) 

the current levels of aged stock and stock variances; 

how the outstanding stock issues and the integration of the on-line booking 

system with the Retail Management System will be resolved. 

Carried 9/0 




10. COUNCIL REPORTS 

10.1 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - SEPTEMBER 2011 


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 period September 2011. 


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 


(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pinerua 

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: 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 126



(i) 

CHEQUE PAYMENTS 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Municipal Fund 01-September-2011 02-September-2011 41207 - 41265 $116,502.16 



Municipal Fund 20-September-2011 23-September-2011 41436 - 41497 $1,036,338.94 



Golf Course 01-September-2011 22-September-2011 00146 - 00150 $814.63 

Golf Course 22-September-2011 22-September-2011 00251 - 00253 $1,338.33 

Total Cheque Payments $1,760,052.06 

(ii) 

ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S) 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Investments 01-September-2011 30-September-2011 Inv 352 - Inv 364 $12,579,484.76 

Direct Bank Charges 01-September-2011 30-September-2011 Sup 131 - Sup 132 $21,935.92 

Accounts Payable 01-September-2011 08-September-2011 E 5101 - E 5148 $293,276.23 





Accunts Payable 30-September-2011 30-September-2011 E 5293 - E 5294 $45,928.77 

Golf Course 01-September-2011 15-September-2011 E 0085 -E 0086 $68,559.64 

Payroll 01-September-2011 30-September-2011 Pay 352 to Pay 360 971,403.94 

Total EFT Payments $14,809,574.31 

TOTAL PAYMENTS $16,569,626.37 

Carried 9/0 




10.2 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - SEPTEMBER 2011 


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 October 2011 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate at 

4.75%. 

Conditions in global financial markets continue to be unsettled with uncertainty increasing in 

resolving the sovereign debt and banking problems being experienced in Europe and a 

softening of economic activity in the United States. Economic activity in China and other parts 

of Asia continue to expand. 

On the domestic economy, overall economic growth is not forecasted to be as strong as 

expected due to the ongoing global financial turmoil and its impact on business confidence. 

The current two tier economy, with strong investment growth in the mining sector and moderate 

to weak growth in other sectors of the economy continues to present challenges for the 

Reserve Bank. Employment growth has softened with households beginning to become 

concerned about the possibility of unemployment and continuing to be cautious with spending 

and borrowing. The Reserve Bank will continue to monitor the outlook for the economy's 

growth and inflation. 

In terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term of 

two to three months are declining and are around 5.6% and 5.7%. Securities for periods greater 

than six months have also decreased given the uncertainty in global financial markets and are 

currently close to 5.7% per cent with the major Australian banks. 

The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day 

period) was 4.81% for September 2011. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure 

of future interest rates) was 4.92% at 30 September 2011. As the Council’s investment 

portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 4.75% for September 2011 

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 5.91%. The weighted average investment period 

of 142 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates (with the 

major Australian banks) for this period which were an average of 5.7%. 




Changes to Government Deposit Guarantee 

There have been recent changes to the $1 million Government Deposit Guarantee scheme 

which was introduced during the Global Financial Crisis. The guarantee will reduce from $1 

million to $250,000 from February 2012. The Town has in the past taken advantage of the 

guarantee scheme by investing amounts of up to $1 million with financial institutions with a 

short term credit rating of A2 such as the Bank of Queensland, which offer higher interest rates. 

This investment strategy was approved by Council back in September 2010 and the investment 

policy was amended accordingly to allow up to 40% of funds being invested with an A2 credit 

rated financial institution. A copy of the investment policy is attached to this report. 

With the guarantee set to reduce next year to $250,000, it is recommended that the investment 

policy be changed to exclude any new A2 short term credit risk rated investments and allow 

only future investments in financial institutions rated A1- or higher. The Town currently has 

one short term A2 rated investment for $715K with the Bank of Queensland which will mature 

on 24 November 2011. It should be noted that in the current financial climate, A2 short term 

rated institutions are currently offering slightly higher interest rates, an additional 0.2% to 0.3% 

depending on investment terms, compared to A1 rated institutions.\ 

Investment Portfolio Performance for September 2011 

The graph below shows the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 

12 month period September 2010 to September 2011. 

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 September 2010 to September 2011 

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 September 2008. 

Interest Rates 

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance 

For September 2008 to September 2011 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Mar-10 Jun-10 Sep-10 Dec-10 Mar-11 Jun-11 Sep-11 

Weighted Avg Interest 

90 UBS Bank Bill Index 




The total investment at the end of September 2011 is $27.6 million which consists of Municipal 

Funds of $16 million, Reserve Funds of $2 million and Endowment Lands Funds of $9.6 million. 

The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from September 2010 to 

September 2011. 

Millions 

30 

Investment Portfolio 

28 

26 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Sep 10 Oct 10 Nov 10 Dec 10 Jan 11 Feb 11 Mar 11 Apr 11 May 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 

Reserves Endowment Municipal 


COUNCIL 


The investment performance as at the end of September 2011 is as follows: 

Current 

Interest 

Rate 

September 

2011 

Income 

Total 

Amount 

Invested 

% of 

Funds 

Invested 

Term 

(Days) Rating 

Floating Rate Notes . 

ANZ Subordinated Debt "AA-" 5.07% $2,083 $501,110 1.82% 

Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 5.24% $4,076 $951,372 3.45% 

Sub-total $6,159 $1,452,483 5.26% 

Term Deposits and Bank 

Bills 

ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 6.18% $5,079 $1,029,122 3.73% 

ING - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 6.00% $658 $1,000,658 3.62% 

ING - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 6.00% $329 $500,329 1.81% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit "A1+" 0.00% $842 0 0.00% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 5.80% $4,129 $1,043,614 3.78% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 6.10% $2,543 $516,931 1.87% 




BANKWEST - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 5.85% $383 $80,739 0.29% 



BANKWEST - Term Deposit 155 "A1+" 5.80% $795 $1,000,795 3.63% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 169 "A1+" 5.80% $795 $1,000,795 3.63% 

NAB - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 6.12% $11,072 $2,249,058 8.15% 

NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 6.13% $4,031 $813,839 2.95% 

NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 6.12% $2,630 $532,497 1.93% 

NAB - Term Deposit 90 "A1+" 5.87% $3,216 $2,003,216 7.26% 

NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.79% $793 $1,000,793 3.63% 

NAB - Term Deposit 99 "A1+" 5.79% $793 $1,000,793 3.63% 

BOQ - Term Deposit 184 "A2" 6.25% $3,596 $715,582 2.59% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 5.95% $9,781 $2,053,468 7.44% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 6.00% $4,274 $1,004,274 3.64% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.75% $1,229 $781,229 2.83% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit 186 "A1+" 6.07% $2,034 $417,863 1.51% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 6.18% $11,175 $2,251,032 8.15% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 5.91% $1,471 $304,449 1.10% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit "A1+" 0.00% $870 0 0.00% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 5.83% $4,792 $1,005,750 3.64% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit "A1" 0.00% $1,690 0 0.00% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 153 "A1" 5.75% $788 $500,788 1.81% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit "A1" 0.00% $2,235 0 0.00% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 29 "A1" 5.55% $228 $500,228 1.81% 

Sub-total $95,108 $26,154,344 94.74% 

73.87% 

Total Investments $101,267 $27,606,827 100.00% 

Weighted Average 142 5.91% 


COUNCIL 



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: 

Actual as 

at Sept 

2010 % 

Actual as 

at Sept 

2011 % 

Budget 

2010/2011 

Budget 

2011/2012 

General * $544,500 $111,522 20.5% $600,000 $92,670 15.3% 

Reserves $304,200 $88,757 29.2% $160,000 $20,819 13.0% 

Endowment Lands $576,400 $153,322 26.6% $419,900 $91,909 21.9% 

Total Investments $1,425,100 $353,601 24.8% $1,179,900 $205,399 17.3% 

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $22,077 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 - September 2011 

2. Investment Policy 


COUNCIL 




Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Watson 

That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Investment Schedule as at 30 September 2011 forming part of the Notice Paper 

be received; 

the investment policy be amended to exclude A2 credit risk rated investments with 

the Government Deposit Guarantee reducing from $1 million to $250,000 in 

February 2011. 

Carried 9/0 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr MacRae 

That Item 10.2 be reconsidered. 

Carried 9/0 

During discussion, Mayor Withers suggested that a number of amendments to section 7(a) of 

the Investment Policy be considered by the Administration and a further report be submitted. 

Motion to Refer Back 


That the item relating to the Investment Schedule - September 2011 be referred back to 

the Community and Resources Committee for further consideration. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


10.3 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - SEPTEMBER 

2011 


To review the financial position for the period ended 30 September 2011 and to comment on 

both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on 

financial results. 

BACKGROUND: 

The financial statements for the period ending 30 September 2011 have been produced. A list 

of detailed explanations has been provided for budget line items where permanent variations 

are $30,000 or more and timing variances are $100,000 or more. 

DETAILS: 

A table of key financial indicators is provided below comparing year to date actual figures 

against the year to date budget. 

Details 

Amended 

Budget 

2011/2012 

($000's) 

YTD 

Budget 

30 Sep 11 

($000's) 

YTD 

Actual 

30 Sep11 

($000's) 

Balance Sheet 

Current Asset 44,200 

Current Liabilities (8,609) 

Net Current Assets (Working Capital) 35,591 

Investments: 

General 16,028 

Reserves 2,010 

Endowment Lands 9,568 

27,606 

Capital Expenditure 22,556 5,848 1,306 

Financial Operations 

Revenue 39,740 24,388 24,563 

Expenditure 36,483 9,386 8,021 

Operating Profit/(Loss) 3,257 15,002 16,542 

Other 

Overall Surplus (from rate setting statement) (25) 15,886 19,739 

Transfers from/(to) Reserves 1,191 525 366 

Transfers from/(to) Endowment Lands 8,802 1,799 860 


COUNCIL 


I. The Balance Sheet 

The following observations are made: 

 

Cash assets at 30 September 2011 are $29 million up from $19 million at the end of 

August 2011. Rates were due on 23 September 2011 and the inflow of rates 

monies has boosted investments. 

II. 

Current receivables at end of September are $9.6 million down from $21.2 million at 

the end of August 2011 as expected with $11.6 million rates received to date. 

. 

Financial Operations 

Net Result from Operations 

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 

Reviewing the operating statement for the period ended 30 September 2011 the following 

key points are made: 

Revenue 

Total revenue is 100% of the year to date budget with $24.6 million actual revenue 

against a year to date budget of $24.4 million. 

Permanent Differences for Revenue 

There are no permanent variances for revenue above $30,000 as at 30 September 2011. 

Timing Differences for Revenue 

There is one timing variance for revenue being the waste fee revenue of $1.65 million 

against budget of $1.4 million. The variance is due to the anticipated downsizing on bins 

yet to occur. The processing will not occur until the end of the calendar year, once the bin 

roll outs and bin audits are complete. As such we will be adjusting the year to date budget 

to reflect this credit later on in the year. 


COUNCIL 


Expenditure 

The expenditure for the period ended 30 September 2011 was below the year to date 

budget with actual expenditure being $8 million against budget of $9.4 million, a variance 

of $1.4 million or 15%. The majority of this variance represents materials and contracts 

expenditure not spent with a number of maintenance programmes and projects yet to be 

commenced, and with invoicing lagging (works completed during the month not yet 

invoiced). Material and contract expenses as at 30 September are $2.4 million against 

year to date budget of $3.6 million. 

Permanent Differences for Expenditure 

There are no new permanent variances above $30,000 to report on: 

Timing Differences for Expenditure 

There no timing differences over $100,000 to report on as at 30 September 2011. 

Overall Cash Surplus from the Rate Setting Statement 

The surplus as at 30 September 2011 is $19.7 million and above year to date budget of 

$15.9 million. A contributing factor has been capital expenditure below year to date 

budget, in particular building capital works, such as the surf club redevelopment. Again 

year to date budgets will be reviewed to match the revised building program. This surplus 

will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and the 

carrying out of budgeted capital works. 

Cash Surplus 

20 

Millions 

16 

12 

8 

4 

0 

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 

Budget 

Actual 


COUNCIL 


III. 

Capital Works Programs 

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period 

ended 30 September 2011 is $1.3 million against budget of $5.8 million, a variance of 

$4.5 million. 

A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows buildings $0.3 million 

against year to date budget of $3.1 million with the City Beach Surf Clubrooms and 

Commercial facilities being reason for the variance (refer previous explanation). Parks 

and Reserves expenditure is $0.2 million against year to date budget of $0.4 million, 

roads and lanes $0.3 million against year to date budget of $1.1 million and footpaths 

$0.14 million against year to date budget of $0.44 million. 

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 - September 2011 

2. Extract of Management Financial Statements - 30 September 2011 


COUNCIL 



(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 


That the report on the Financial Statements as at 30 September 2011 be received and the 

variances to the budget be noted. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


10.4 SURF CLUB BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT: TENDER 

T20-11 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 


To advise Council of preferred course of action resultant from the Tender T20-11 Architectural 

Services for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities Development. 

BACKGROUND: 

Expressions of Interest (EOI) were sought in May 2011 from architectural firms to undertake 

design of the hospitality development proposed for Surf Club. Twenty nine firms submitted their 

details, from which four firms were invited to provide a tender for the works. The selection of 

these four firms came from an exhaustive review of submissions made in the EOI process and 

subsequent interviews of 11 firms forming an initial short list. This process also identified the 

four architects to be selected for the Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development project. 

Tenders closed on 2 September 2011, after which the assessment panel convened to assess 

each tender. Tenders were received from: 

 

 

 

 

Christou Design Group 

Donaldson+Warn 

Fratelle 

Woods Bagot 

DETAILS: 

Basis of Works 

This project is anticipated to have two distinct phases - the first being development of a 

business case which determines the scale of the project and then the second phase being the 

detail design and construction of the works. The second phase of the project is dependent on 

the business case developed and Council decision to proceed. 

The tender is structured such that pricing is certain for both phases of work, however, the Town 

is not bound to commit to the second phase of the project. 

Tender Submissions 

The selection of the most appropriate architect for this project is largely based on an 

assessment of their ability, creative design thinking, hospitality experience and ability to work 

within the team to be set up for this project. Price was considered in terms of value for money 

outcomes rather than as the sole determinant for selection. 

The four firms invited to tender were required to provide an initial design response against a 

fixed construction budget and design brief. This was not intended to become the brief for the 

project in itself, but a clear indicator to the Town as to the type of design expected from each 

firm. The final design moving to construction will largely rest on the determination of the 

suitable hospitality size and mix coming from the Business Case development phase. 

The four designs were ranked by the assessment panel after a presentation of the designs to 

the Elected Members Forum on 28 September 2011. Once the designs were assessed, the 

pricing submissions were opened. 


COUNCIL 


Office of the Government Architect 

The Office of the Government Architect is a State Government agency to provide, in part, 

support for Local Government Authorities undertaking projects of significance. The Office of 

the Government Architect provided the services of one of their key architectural professionals 

who assisted the assessment panel with design reports of each tender. The report assessed 

each tender against criteria of overall design quality (incorporating distinctiveness and 

performance capabilities) and passive Environmentally Sustainable Design strategies. 

Tender Evaluation 

The tenders were assessed firstly on a compliance basis (for conformance to tender conditions 

and tender requirements), then a qualitative and finally a quantitative assessment basis. 

The input of the Office of the Government Architect into the assessment process was greatly 

appreciated by the Town and it added significant value to the design assessment process. 

It was evident from evaluation of the tenders that design responses fell into two distinct themes 

- two firms that aggregated the surf club and commercial facilities in one building and two firms 

who proposed separation of the facilities into free standing separate buildings. It was also 

evident from analysis of each tender that there was a much stronger response from one team 

over the other in each grouping. This identified a preferred Architect for each theme. 

The Confidential Attachments provide details of the assessment outcomes and key relevant 

information. 

Discussion 

The Administration considers that the unique questions posed by adopting one design 

philosophy over another cannot be reasonably decided upon by the Elected Members without 

further input from the two preferred Architectural responses to each theme. The matters raised 

cannot be determined by appointing a preferred firm and then resolving these in the design 

phase, given that they are fundamental planning issues. 

The assessment panel's review and feedback from the Elected Member's Forum of September 

2011 both aligned to a preferred architect for each distinct theme - Christou Design Group for 

the separation of facilities and Donaldson+Warn for the aggregation of facilities. The remaining 

submissions were ranked behind these designs not to warrant further consideration. 

The design philosophies adopted by Christou and Donaldson+Warn have specific issues which 

need to be better understood. It is recommended that the following process be adopted: 

Christou and Donaldson+Warn separately present to Council the basic tenets of their 

designs and the key features 

Council provides feedback to each team as to the matters that they require further 

consideration and/or information 

 

 

The architects take this feedback on board and update their design proposals 

The architects then present revised outcomes to Council at which time a decision may be 

able to be formed. 

The Administration considers that it is reasonable to provide the two firms with a further 

$10,000 payment each to undertake further refinement of their tender proposals. 


COUNCIL 



Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations Part 4 Section 18 Clause (4a) 

provides: 

"to assist the local government in deciding which tender would be the most advantageous to it 

to accept, a tenderer may be requested to clarify the information provided in the tender." 

It is viewed that this process is consistent with this Regulation. 


The opportunity for development of the Surf Club site supports the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic 

Plan vision of Delivering Our Services. It is an action in response to our strategy of maintaining 

quality community and civic buildings. 

The project, once completed, also contributes to other Strategic Outcomes notably: 

Planning for Our Community 

Capacity to Deliver - (Financial Sustainability) 





SUMMARY: 

Four tenders were received for architectural services for the Surf Club Building and Commercial 

Facilities Development project. 

Two distinct themes were provided by tenderers, with two tenderers proposing separate Surf 

Club and Hospitality buildings and two proposing having these facilities aggregated in one 

building. 

The assessment process of these tenders was aided by valuable input from the Office of the 

Government Architect. The assessment process identified one clear superior design from each 

of the two distinct themes. 

It was felt that selection of one Tender requires further consideration by Council before a 

decision can be made. A series of further actions are recommended in this regard. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Assessment Report (Confidential) 

2. Office of the Government Architect Report (Confidential) 

3. Key image of each tender (Confidential) 


COUNCIL 


Council Meeting 11 October 2011 

Prior to consideration of the item, Members agreed that the item be discussed behind closed 

doors due to the confidential nature of the supporting material. 

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That the following matter be discussed behind closed doors in accordance with Section 

5.23(2)(c) and (e) of the Local Government Act 1995. 

Carried 9/0 

At 6.55pm, the Mayor requested that all persons other than Elected Members and Council 

Officers to leave the Council Chamber. 


Moved by Bradley, seconded by Cr Pinerua 

That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the Christou Design Group and Donaldson+Warn Architects present their designs 

to Council, and further develop their design responses for the Surf Club Building 

and Commercial Facilities Development project and other tenders not be 

considered further; 

Christou Design Group and Donaldson+Warn be reimbursed up to $10,000 plus 

GST for their updated works in this regard; 

a further report be presented to Council at the completion of this process; and 

(iv) the Office of the Government Architect be formally thanked for its support in this 

assessment process. 

Suspension of Standing Orders 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That in accordance with the provisions of Clause 10.1(h) of the Standing Orders, the 

operation of Clause 8.13 of the Standing Orders (Limitation of Number of Addresses) be 

suspended to allow open discussion. 

Carried 9/0 

The operation of Clause 8.13 of the Standing Orders was suspended at 6.56 pm. 

Discussion ensued in relation to the design options presented by the Architects. 

Cr MacRae left the meeting at 7.42 pm and returned at 7.45 pm. 


COUNCIL 


Amendment 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pinerua 

That the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Christou Design Group and Donaldson+Warn Architects further develop their 

design responses for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities 

Development project and present their revised designs to the Council; 

the other tenders not be considered further; 

(iii) Christou Design Group and Donaldson+Warn be reimbursed up to $10,000 plus 


(iv) 

(v) 


the Office of the Government Architect be formally thanked for its support in this 




That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Christou Design Group and Donaldson+Warn Architects further develop their 

design responses for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities 

Development project and present their revised designs to the Council; 

the other tenders not be considered further; 

(iii) Christou Design Group and Donaldson+Warn be reimbursed up to $10,000 plus 


(iv) 

(v) 




Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


10.5 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT: TENDER T21-11 

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES 


To select a preferred Architect for the Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development project. 

BACKGROUND: 

Expressions of Interest (EOI) were sought in May 2011 from architectural firms to undertake 

design of the hospitality development proposed for Wembley Golf Course. Twenty nine firms 

submitted their details, from which 4 firms were invited to provide a tender for the works. The 

selection of these four firms came from an exhaustive review of submissions made in the EOI 

process and subsequent interviews of 11 firms forming an initial short list. 

Tenders closed on 2 September 2011, after which the assessment panel convened to assess 

each tender. Tenders were received from: 

 

 

 

 

Archadia 

Bollig 

Gresley Abas 

Woodhead 

DETAILS: 

Basis of Works 

This project is anticipated to have two distinct phases - the first being development of a 

business case which determines the scale of the project and then the second phase being the 

detail design and construction of the works. The second phase of the project is dependent on 

the business case developed and Council decision to proceed. 

The tender is structured such that pricing is certain for both phases of work, however, the Town 

is not bound to commit to the second phase of the project. 

Tender Submissions 

The selection of the most appropriate architect for this project is largely based on an 

assessment of their design ability, creative design thinking, ability to understand and respond to 

operational needs, capability to work within defined budgets, hospitality experience and ability 

to work within the team to be set up for this project. Price was considered in terms of value for 

money outcomes rather than as the sole determinant for selection. 

The four firms invited to tender were required to provide an initial design response against a 

fixed construction budget and design brief. This was not intended to become the brief for the 

project in itself, but a clear indicator to the Town as to the type of design that the Town would 

expect from each firm. The final design moving to construction will largely rest on the 

determination of the suitable hospitality size and mix coming from the Business Case 

development phase. 


COUNCIL 


The four designs were ranked by the assessment panel after a presentation of the designs to 

an Elected Members Forum on 28 September 2011. Once the designs were ranked, the 

pricing submissions were opened and the highest ranked design offering the best value for 

money was seen as the preferred design. 

Tender Evaluation 

The tenders were assessed firstly on a compliance basis (for conformance to tender conditions 

and tender requirements), then a qualitative and finally a quantitative assessment basis. 

As is normal with tenders of this type, the proposed fees for the detail design and construction 

phase were generally provided as a % of the approved construction budget. As the approved 

construction budget would not be known until the completion of the business case, the 

assessment panel used an indicative budget and undertook sensitivity analysis around a range 

of budget sums to determine the likely contract sum. 

Confidential Attachment 1 details the assessment panel report. 

Gresley Abas was ranked the highest on the qualitative assessment process and their fee 

submission was suitable in terms of the quantitative process. 

Office of the Government Architect 

The Office of the Government Architect is a State Government agency to provide, in part, 

support for Local Government Authorities undertaking projects of significance. The Office of 

the Government Architect provided the services of one of its key architectural professionals 

who assisted the assessment panel with design reports of each tender. The report assessed 

each tender against criteria of overall design quality (incorporating distinctiveness and 

performance capabilities) and passive Environmentally Sustainable Design strategies. 

The input of the Office of the Government Architect into the assessment process was greatly 

appreciated by the Town and added value to the overall assessment process. 


There are no Policy Implications related to this report. Public tenders are required where the 

provision of goods and services exceeds $100,000. 


The opportunity for development of the Wembley Golf Course site supports the Town's 2009- 

2020 Strategic Plan. It is within the actions supporting our strategy 4.3.3 to "Increase the 

Town's self-generating funding and decrease the reliance on external funding sources" which is 

part of Action 4.3 Financial Sustainability in Outcome 4 Capacity to Deliver. 

The project, once completed, also contributes to other Strategic Outcomes notably: 

Planning for Our Community 

Delivering Our Services 


COUNCIL 






SUMMARY: 

The tender was aimed at identifying the architectural firm that the Town considers best meets 

its needs for Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development project through assessment of 

their creative thinking, ability to meet functional and hospitality needs, capacity to design within 

budget and overall appeal of their design. 

Four select tenders were received and ranked according to qualitative assessment criteria set 

out in the Tender documents. 

The highest ranked tender with the best value for money proposition was Gresley Abas. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

4. Assessment Report (Confidential) 

5. Office of the Government Architect report (Confidential) 

6. Key image of each tender (Confidential) 

Council Meeting 11 October 2011 

Members agreed that the meeting remain behind closed doors due to the confidential nature of 

the supporting material. 


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Watson 

That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

Tender T21-11 for architectural services at Wembley Golf Course Hospitality 

Development be awarded to Gresley Abas at an indicative cost of $285,000; 



Amendment 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

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

(ii) 

the contract with Gresley Abas be structured such that they are engaged for the 

initial business case works (at an indicative cost of $72,000) and that subsequent 

works are subject to Council approval. 



COUNCIL 



That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

Tender T21-11 for architectural services at Wembley Golf Course Hospitality 

Development be awarded to Gresley Abas at an indicative cost of $285,000; 

the contract with Gresley Abas be structured such that they are engaged for the 

initial business case works (at an indicative cost of $72,000) and that subsequent 

works are subject to Council approval; 

(iiI) the Office of the Government Architect be formally thanked for its support in this 


Carried 9/0 

Moved by Cr Watson, seconded by Cr Langer 

That the meeting be open to the public. 

Carried 9/0 

The doors were opened to members of the public at 7.57 pm. 

Resumption of Standing Orders 

Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr MacRae 

That the operation of Clause 8.13 of the Standing Orders be resumed. 

Carried 9/0 

The operation of Clause 8.13 of the Standing Orders was resumed at 7.58 pm. 


COUNCIL 


11. URGENT BUSINESS 

Nil 

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 

12.1 UNDERGROUND POWER IN FLOREAT 

Submission by Cr Bradley 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the CEO acts, without delay, to fulfill the instructions given by Council on 22 December 

2009 [GC09.97 clauses (ii) and (iii) refers] and to survey the Cambridge Ratepayers in 

Floreat regarding their views on the provision of Underground Power in their suburb, and, 

to report the results of the survey to Council no later than the December 2011 meeting of 

Council. 

the survey form be amended to be entitled ‘Town of Cambridge 2011 Underground Power 

Survey’ 

BACKGROUND: 

Council, at its meeting held on 22 December 2009, considered funding options and round five 

applications to the State Underground Power Program and decided as follows:- 

"That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the most westerly and central portion of Floreat, as attached, be submitted as a project 

for Round Five of the State Underground Power Program, with the area bounded by and 

including properties on Bold Park Drive, The Boulevard, Lissadell Street, Cambridge 

Street and Oceanic Drive (as denoted in yellow); 

the proposed residents survey be endorsed, as amended above, entitled ‘Town of 

Cambridge 2010 Underground Power Survey’; 

the survey be carried out once the Minister for Energy has announced those projects 

which have been approved in stage one of the State Underground Power Project 

Submission process." 

A copy of report GC09.97 is attached for your information. 

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: 

Following the December 2009 decision of Council, an application under Round Five of the 

Underground Power Program was submitted, with the results of those Local Governments that 

were unsuccessful in their application being announced by the Office of Energy in July 2010. 

Elected Members were subsequently advised by memorandum that the Town was 

unsuccessful in its application, and that the survey the ratepayers in those areas without 

underground power would now be progressed. However, following the 2010/11 budget 

adoption, a number of other significant projects took priority and the underground power survey 

was placed on hold. 


COUNCIL 


Notwithstanding the above, the Town contributed to a submission on the Underground Power 

Program, following the announcement by the Minister for Energy that a review of the 

cost/benefits would be undertaken by the Economic Regulation Authority. The submission 

period closed in August 2010 and the draft report was released this year in July 2011. The final 

report is due to be submitted to the Government this month and be tabled in Parliament. 

Of note, the report suggests that the benefit to the ratepayer in terms of increased house prices 

is $9,962 (the average/mean value). It also makes some commentary on the ratepayers 

propensity to pay, citing both this State's experiences and also a study undertaken in Canberra 

last year, which concluded that the willingness to pay is at least $6,838. The report also 

suggests that the benefit to Western Power is far less than their contributions. The ERA are 

currently recommending (in the draft report) a contribution model consistent with the following 

table: 

LGA/Ratepayers Western Power State Government 

Existing funding shares 50% 50% 50% 

Proposed funding 

shares 

75-90% 5-15% 5-10% 

Further, in the State Government's 2010 budget, $10 million was allocated over the two 

financial years 2011/2012 to 2012/2013. This year, the 2011 budget removed $5 million in 

2013. Thus, round five of the program only has $5 million allocated (anticipating project costs of 

$20 million) and there is no provision for future programs. 

It is possible to reprioritise current projects to advance the survey, if Council wishes the survey 

to be completed within the next few months. Alternatively it can wait for the State Government 

to establish its position on the future of the underground power program, in its response to the 

cost/benefit report from the ERA. 

References: 

http://www.erawa.com.au/1/940/46/inquiry_into_the_costs_and_benefits_of_the_state_u.pm 

http://www.treasury.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/State_Budget/Budget_2011_12/01_part_12_ 

office_of_energy.pdf 

http://www.treasury.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/State_Budget/Budget_2009_2010/2009- 

10_bp2_Vol3.pdf 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That:- 

(i) the CEO acts, without delay, to fulfill the instructions given by Council on 22 

December 2009 [GC09.97 clauses (ii) and (iii) refers] and to survey the Cambridge 

Ratepayers in Floreat regarding their views on the provision of Underground Power 

in their suburb, and, to report the results of the survey to Council no later than the 

December 2011 meeting of Council. 

(ii) 

the survey form be amended to be entitled ‘Town of Cambridge 2011 Underground 

Power Survey’. 


COUNCIL 


During discussion, Mayor Withers suggested the survey should be undertaken when economic 

conditions are more favourable. The Mayor foreshadowed that should the motion currently 

before Council be lost, he intended to move that the survey be reconsidered by the Council in 

the first quarter of 2012. 

Lost 2/7 

For: 

Against: 

Crs Bradley and Pelczar 

Mayor Withers, Crs Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pinerua and Watson 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr MacRae 

That the Town of Cambridge Underground Power Survey be reconsidered by the Council 

in the first quarter of 2012. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 


13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 

Nil 

14. CLOSURE 

There being no further business, the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance 

and declared the meeting closed at 8.20 pm.

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?