Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes 

28 June 2011

MEETING OF COUNCIL 

28 JUNE 2011 

INDEX OF MINUTES 

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

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

3. Public Question Time ........................................................................................................ 1 

4. Petitions .............................................................................................................................. 6 

5. Deputations ........................................................................................................................ 6 

6. Applications for Leave of Absence .................................................................................. 7 

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

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ........................................................ 7 

9. Committee Reports ............................................................................................................ 7 

Development Committee ................................................................................................... 8 

DV11.46 Lot 11071 (No. 36) Dodd Street, Wembley - Proposed New Health 

Education Facility (including Library, Audiology, Administration, 

(Conference and Training Rooms) at Telethon Speech and Hearing 

Centre 10 

DV11.47 Strata Lot 7 (No. 357) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Proposed Roof Top 

Addition to Small Bar 22 

DV11.48 Lot 4 (No. 7) Station Street, Wembley - Two Storey Office Building 25 

DV11.49 117c Birkdale Street, Floreat - Change of Use from Shop (Cafe) to 

Licensed Restaurant 30 

DV11.50 Lot 344 (No. 3) Bodmin Avenue City Beach - Retrospective Front Fence 34 

DV11.51 Lot 19 (No. 4) Barrett Street, West Leederville - Two (2) Two Storey 

Grouped Dwellings 37 

DV11.52 Lot 31 (No. 23) Hovea Crescent, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling With 

Undercroft Garage 41 

DV11.53 Lot 1056 (No. 191) Gregory Street, Wembley - Two Storey Dwelling 44 

DV11.54 Lot 190 (No. 296) Salvado Road, Floreat - Single Storey Dwelling 49 

DV11.55 Lot 145 (No. 18) Maloney Way, City Beach - Boundary Wall Extension and 

Gazebo 53 

DV11.56 Development and Sustainability - Fees and Charges 2011-2012 58 

DV11.57 Authorisation of Officer - Casual Environmental Health Officer 62 

DV11.58 City to Surf 2011 - Temporary Road Closures, Traffic Management 

Arrangements and Temporary Parking Restrictions 64 

DV11.59 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for May 2011 70 

DV11.60 Building Licences Approved Under Delegated Authority 72 

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

i

COUNCIL MINUTES 

28 JUNE 2011 

Community and Resources Committee ......................................................................... 73 

CR11.55 Wembley Sports Park Development - Master Plan 75 

CR11.56 Holyrood Park Pavilion Upgrade 88 

CR11.57 Parking Restrictions - Wembley Community Centre 92 

CR11.58 Green Waste/Organic Collection Service 98 

CR11.59 Waste Collection and/or Processing Services - Tender T02-11 104 

CR11.60 Waste Management - Fees and Charges Annual Review 113 

CR11.61 Works and Parks Reserves - Fees and Charges Annual Review 119 

CR11.62 Alexander Street - On-Street Parking Adjacent to Rutter Park 125 

CR11.63 Lake Monger Reserve Working Group 128 

CR11.64 Mindarie Regional Council Meeting - 17 March 2011, 28 April 2011 and 30 

May 2011 136 

CR11.65 Review of Fees and Charges - Senior Services 140 

CR11.66 Review of Fees and Charges - Quarry Amphitheatre 144 

CR11.67 Review of Fees and Charges - Bold Park Aquatic Centre 149 

CR11.68 Review of Fees and Charges - The Boulevard Centre 155 

CR11.69 Review of Fees and Charges - Sportsgrounds and Reserves 160 

CR11.70 Review of Fees and Charges - Cambridge Library 164 

CR11.71 Fees and Charges - Cambridge Youth Centre 169 

CR11.72 Review of Fees and Charges - Wembley Community Centre and the 

Leederville Town Hall 171 

CR11.73 Quarry Amphitheatre - Two Year Management Review and Future 

Management Recommendations 176 

CR11.74 Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Minutes - 19 May 2011 181 

CR11.75 2011 Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee - Community Representative 

Nominations 184 

CR11.76 Surf Club and Wembley Golf Course Developments - Progress Report186 

CR11.77 Ocean Gardens Retirement Village - Director Competencies 191 

CR11.78 Constitutional Recognition of Local Government - Request to Reconsider 194 

CR11.79 Payment of Accounts - May 2011 196 

CR11.80 Investment Schedule - May 2011 198 

CR11.81 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - May 2011 203 

CR11.82 Review of Fees and Charges - General Fees and Charges 208 

CR11.83 Community Facilities Lease - Leederville Sporting Club; Perth Netball 

Association; City of Perth Surf Club 211 

CR11.85 Wembley Downs Substation - Western Power Easement 214 

10. Council Report ............................................................................................................... 218 

11. Urgent Business ............................................................................................................ 218 

11.1 Perry Lakes Aquifer Replenishment Project - Funding 218 

12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................... 220 

13. Confidential Reports ...................................................................................................... 220 

13.1 Carpark Licence - Gayton Road Shopping Centre 220 

13.2 Bold Park Agreement (Areas F and G, Mt Claremont) 221 

14. Closure ............................................................................................................................ 226 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\11 MINUTES\June 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 28 JUNE 2011 

1. OPENING 

The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.06 pm. 

2. ATTENDANCE 

Present: 

Mayor: 

Councillors: 

Officers: 

Simon Withers 

Rod Bradley 

Tracey King 

Alan Langer 

Corinne MacRae 

Otto Pelczar 

Hilary Pinerua 

Julie Watson 

Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer 

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability 

Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Stevan Rodic, Manager Development 

Neil Costello, Manager Governance 

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance) 

Apologies: 

Nil 

Leave of Absence: 

Cr Sonia Grinceri 

Adjournments: 

Nil 

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

Written Questions 

Mary Russell, Cambridge Street, Floreat 

Question 1 

What do Council know about the recurring flooding problems affecting properties at the 

intersection of Cambridge Street and Selby Street 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\11 MINUTES\June 2011\A Council Front.docx 1


28 JUNE 2011 

Response 

This intersection is the lowest point in a geographical drainage basin which disposes of 

stormwater into Mabel Talbot Park. 

It is believed that City of Perth previously managed the stormwater using a sump being 

the vacant lot 420 on the north side of Cambridge Street based on drawings dated 1984 

held by the Town. This needs to be verified. If a sump did exist it has been replaced with 

an alternate stormwater management system prior to The Town Cambridge being 

created in 1996 with a piped connection into Mabel Talbot and with underground 

detention storage located within the Selby Street Road reserve adjacent to the flats. 

There are several properties at this intersection that have a building floor constructed at a 

level lower than the road. 

Unit 1 at 419 Cambridge Street is lower than the 3 other units on Lot 419/421 as well as 

the brick paved area in the middle. 

Around 2001, Lots 419 and 421 Cambridge Street reported flooding and the Town raised 

the brick paved crossover to 150mm above the road gutter. 

On 22 March 2010, 40mm of rain fell in 30 minutes and Lots 417 and 419 reported 

flooding of the interior of the house. In this incident flooding was attributed to leaves 

completely blocking the drainage grates as a result of the severe hailstorm. 

In May 2011, a high intensity storm again caused problems for adjacent properties. 

On 24 June 2011 another very high intensity storm estimated to have dropped 40 to 

50mm of rain in less than 60 minutes flooded several properties. 

Question 2 

What is being undertaken to prevent the problem from continuing 

Response 

The drainage catchment needs to be analysed from the outfall at Mabel Talbot to all 

upstream gully pits to identify where the system capacity is inadequate or where hydraulic 

improvements can be made. When doing this attention will be made to model the storm 

events received in 2010 /2011 as these exceed the design storm of 1 in 20 which was 

probably used to complete the current designs. 

Following an initial assessment earlier this year it was considered general maintenance 

was required as the major flooding cause was gully pits blocked with leaves, silt and 

mulch materials. Earlier this year the Town cleaned all drainage pits and pipes, kept the 

leaves off the grates, removed the silt trap in the pits that restricted flow out of the pits. 

Administration officers also met with two owners of Lot 419/421 and recommended 

various improvements that could be made within the property to address the stormwater 

drainage issues. 

In February 2011, arrangements were made for a paving contractor to raise the brick 

paved driveway at 419/421 so that it is 300 mm above the road level at the boundary wall 

set back. This contractor has recently notified the Town that this work will now occur 4 

July. In light of the flooding that was reported on 24 June, the driveways at 417, 418 and 



28 JUNE 2011 

422 should also be raised so that they are higher that the footpath in front of the vacant 

property at 420. 

Contractors will also be engaged to install additional soak wells upstream of all gully 

grates. 

In the short term calculations will be completed to assess if creating a low point within Lot 

420, being the vacant site owned by council, will assist with immediate management of 

the flooding events. 

Question 3 

Are the Council aware that some property owners in that area have been issued empty 

sandbags by the shire to attempt to minimise the impact of flooding (Elderly and unwell 

people are filling and lifting these bags and they have been totally ineffective) 

Response 

In an effort to assist to manage the flooding issues prior major works being identified 

which will reduce the potential for flooding events the town has provided full sandbags for 

use to properties who request them. 

Empty sandbags may have been provided by SES to some properties. 

The Town encourages neighbours to assist other people who might have difficulty with 

flooding. 

During a storm, the Town's outside personnel are usually engaged keeping drainage pits 

clear of leaves to mitigate flooding and keep roads open. Sand bags are not a long term 

solution to flooding on driveways. 

Question 4 

Are the Council aware of the physical, psychological and environmental impact of this 

ongoing issue 

Response 

There is no denying that any flooding of homes and property results in physical and 

psychological loss. 

The Town is responsible for retaining its stormwater and all property owners must also 

retain all their stormwater on their property. 

The Town is limited by the number and size of stormwater outlets available to dispose of 

stormwater. Therefore, it must emphasise the retention of stormwater and infiltration into 

the groundwater aquifer on all private and public property. 

Following the 100 year storm event on 22 March 2010, the Town identified more than 140 

locations where flooding occurred in the Town. Funding of $100,000 was included in the 

2010 Budget and the Draft 2011 Budget to address these locations. The locations have 

been investigated, prioritised and works have commenced on the priority locations. At the 

intersection of Cambridge and Selby the works completed earlier this year were aimed at 

reducing the flood events. It is now evident a detailed design and an increase in the 

design storm recurrence level is required. 



28 JUNE 2011 

The main failure mode in this 2010 event was leaves blocking drainage grates and rainfall 

intensity of 40mm of rain in 30 minutes which exceeded the design storm. 

Property owners have been advised about what works they can do on their own 

properties to manage and dispose of the rain that falls on their properties. This consists 

of raising driveways, installing soak wells, installing low areas of garden to take runoff off 

paved areas. 

Mollie Hechen, 418 Cambridge Street, Floreat 

Question 

There was half a metre of the flood water in our property in 2002 (Reported to the Town 

of Cambridge in that year). Our new house was rebuilt in 2006. 

When we applied to build at a higher level, why did your planning department refuse to let 

us 

Response 

An Application for Planning Approval was submitted on 12 October 2005 by Don Russell 

Homes. The plans that were submitted were approved by the Town on 9 December 2005 

with no changes requested by the Town. There is no evidence on the planning file that 

the applicant requested a level higher than what they submitted. 

Lorraine and Arthur Cunniffe, 1/419 Cambridge Street, Floreat 

Question 1 

Since the real solution to the flooding to Selby Street and Cambridge Street is long term, 

what short term measures will be taken by Council to protect residents' properties and 

when will Council meet with residents to discuss compensation for the stress and 

distress, extra work and financial loss caused by Council's failure to address this 

obligation to control stormwater run off from roads under its control 

Response 

With regard to what measures will be taken, a report will be submitted to Council for 

consideration. Council will also consider its position in relation to compensation. 

Question 2 

Do you still believe it is acceptable for a pensioner couple who live near a Council known 

flood problem area to have to sand bag their entrance to their property every time there is 

a severe weather forecast 

Response 

No, that is not acceptable. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Verbal Questions 

Mary Russell, Cambridge Street, Floreat 

Question 

Can I ask that the residents who have concerns be provided with a timeframe for the 

works to be done to resolve the flooding issues. 

Response 

The issues will need to be assessed and a report be submitted to Council for 

consideration, including budget implications. The timeframe will be depend on what 

works need to be done. A short term solution may be to dig a hole in Lot 422 and make 

that the low point. An assessment of the drainage system will have to be undertaken and 

that will take some time. 

Lorraine Cunniffe, 1/419, Cambridge Street, Floreat 

Question 

Will Council give consideration to improving its after hours service for emergencies 

Response 

Yes. The Chief Executive Officer apologised for operation of the after hours service on 

Friday 24 June 2011. It was not the intended way the service should operate in an 

emergency. The intention is that if there is an emergency, it is to be dealt with and 

referred on to staff to deal with. Engineering staff did visit the site on Friday evening and 

Saturday morning. The service will be updated for emergencies. 

Toni Rockliff, 417 Cambridge Street, Floreat 

Question 1 

What is Council's opinion as to what has caused the perceived increase in water run off 

being pushed onto our properties from the roads 

Response 

It is a concern that some properties do not provide enough stormwater soakage on their 

property and discharge it onto the road. The system could not cope with the amount of 

rain that fell in a short period of time. The hydraulic capacity of the system needs to be 

increased downstream and will have to be investigated. 

Design measures that were appropriate for many years may not be appropriate now due 

to climate changes. The problem is finding funds to replace infrastructure. 

Question 2 

Why were no real solutions offered following the flood damage of 2010 when these 

issues were first raised with members of Council in 2010 



28 JUNE 2011 

Response 

Works were undertaken earlier this year to improve efficiency of getting water into the 

drainage system, however, consideration should be given to redesigning the system to 

cope with this rare event which has occurred three times in 1 year. 

Susan Sawyer, 36 Halesworth Road, Jolimont 

Question 1 

Has any consideration been given to Halesworth Road, namely our property at No. 36 

which was near flooded last March. Could some consideration be given to the fact that 

we have two drains outside of our driveway, one bordering the neighbour's property and 

one bordering our property. Could we have the crossover widened in the hope that we 

might also incorporate a drain on our property where the crossover and the property 

meet, which could be directed into a stormwater drain on verge to try and accommodate 

the fact that water flows to front door. 

Response 

The question will be taken on notice, however, that site is one of the sites nominated to 

be looked at. 

Question 2 

What consideration has been given to the Netball site that has water sitting on the 

grassed overflow carpark area We feel that there might be some flooding happening in 

that area. 

Response 

Due to the large volume of water in such a short time, water is sitting on that area as it 

could not soak away. The intention in the Master Plan is to still have those grassed 

surfaces as retention soakage bases for the park environs and as the design progresses 

for the new netball courts, how we infiltrate stormwater will be dealt with as part of the 

design process. 

4. PETITIONS 

A petition signed by 33 users of the Wembley Community Centre has been submitted 

suggesting that all senior citizens who use the centre be provided with an identifying card 

or sticker for their car which would enable the Inspector to easily identify any illegal 

parking. 

This matter will be considered at Item CR11.57. 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley 

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

received. 

Carried 8/0 

5. DEPUTATIONS 

Nil 



28 JUNE 2011 

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 24 May 2011 be 

confirmed. 

Carried 8/0 

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION 

The Mayor announced that he had received a certificate for Cr MacRae from the 

President of WALGA in recognition of her recent success in achieving the Diploma in 

Local Government (Elected Member) qualification. 

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS 

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

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

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

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

matter that they may have before the Council. 

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

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

Development: Items DV11.46, 48, 51 and 53 

Community and Resources: Items CR11.55, 56, 57, 76, 77 and 83 

Declarations of Interest: 

Item DV11.46 - Financial Interest - Mr Ian Birch, 

Director Development and Sustainability 

Item CR11.77 - Financial Interest - Mayor 

Withers, Crs Langer and Pinerua 



28 JUNE 2011 

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

The report of the Development Committee meeting held on 21 June 2011 was submitted as 

under:- 

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING 

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

6.05 pm. 

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Present : Time of Time of 

Entering Leaving 

Members: 

Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.05 pm 6.53 pm 

Cr Otto Pelczar 6.05 pm 6.53 pm 

Cr Hilary Pinerua 6.05 pm 6.53 pm 

Cr Julie Watson 6.05 pm 6.53 pm 

Observers: 

Cr Rod Bradley 

Officers: 

Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability 

Stevan Rodic, Manager Development 

Lee Rowley, Manager Compliance 


Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

6.53 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 


Nil 

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Item DV11.46 - Paul Higgentbotham, applicant 

Item DV11.53 - Nigel Jewel, applicant 

Item DV11.55 - Kerry Hardy, neighbour 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\JUNE 2011\B DV.DOCX 8


28 JUNE 2011 


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

May 2011 as contained in the May 2011 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. 

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Item DV11.46 - Mr Ian Birch - Financial Interest 

7. REPORTS 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.46 

LOT 11071 (NO. 36) DODD STREET, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED NEW HEALTH 

EDUCATION FACILITY (INCLUDING LIBRARY, AUDIOLOGY, 

ADMINISTRATION, (CONFERENCE AND TRAINING ROOMS) AT TELETHON 

SPEECH AND HEARING CENTRE 

PURPOSE OF REPORT: 

To consider an application for additions to the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre 

including a library, audiology, administration, conference and training rooms requiring 

assessment under the Town Planning Scheme No.1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme. 

BACKGROUND: 

BA/DA REFERENCE: 

486DA-2010 

LANDOWNER: 

Town of Cambridge 

APPLICANT: 

Denney Building Design 

ZONING: 

MRS: Parks and Recreation 

USE CLASS: 

Educational Establishment 

LAND AREA: 23,298 m 2 

The Council, at its meeting on 22 December 2009 (Item DV09.122), considered an 

application for a Library and Early Learning Centre on the subject site. This application was 

considered to be 'Stage One' of the current application. Council decided to advise the 

Western Australian Planning Commission that it supported the proposal subject to the 

following conditions:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted for the front setback area 

along Dodd Street prior to the issue of a building licence, showing the location and 

type of proposed trees, shrubs and lawns to be approved by the Town. The 

landscaping areas as shown on the approved plan are to be installed by the applicant 

prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained by the applicant to the 

satisfaction of the Town; 

the applicant be advised that the Town's support for the 'Stage One' library building 

does not necessarily indicate support for any future stages of development on the site; 

the Speech and Hearing Centre be advised that separate approval is required from the 

Town, in accordance with the lease agreement. 

DETAILS: 

Development description 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed final stage in development of Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre. 

Proposed two storey building to be constructed in the south-east corner of the site on 

land previously used for parking and temporary administration buildings. 

The building has a pitched colorbond roof and is made up of a number of natural 

materials including timber, stone and rendered walls. 

Proposed new building includes a library, 6 audiology consulting rooms with hearing 

testing booths plus 2 general consulting rooms, administration rooms, a conference 

hall and training room. 

The proposal includes new and redesigned car parking on the site to provide a 

maximum number of 64 on-site car bays (including four drop-off bays). 



28 JUNE 2011 

 

The proposal includes the removal of three ficus trees on the site with new 

landscaping proposed around the front of the boundary to Dodd Street. 

Applicant's submission 

The applicant has provided a full report supporting the proposal. This information is 

available to Elected Members on request and is summarised as follows: 

Current and Future Staffing Levels and Future Site Development 

Speech and Hearing currently employ 60 staff at the Centre. The Centre has the correct 

quantity of staff to deliver current and future planned programmes from the Centre. The 

application does not involve the addition of more staff to the Centre. 

We operate a hot desk policy in some rooms and currently house 12 staff in a transportable 

building. These 12 staff will be accommodated with in the new facility. A very small amount 

of simplistic work will be undertaken to the existing administration building after the new 

extension is completed. This will include the removal of some walls between rooms, as 

current room sizes are too small and do no cater for our needs. A number of rooms will be 

converted to replicate rooms within a dwelling, ie lounge room, kitchen, and bedroom as this 

is recommended within some of our programmes. 

The biggest change will be simply to rename, reallocate and redecorate some rooms in 

order to provide better service. We will allocate more individual personalised space and 

more rooms for confidential discussions between parents and therapists. The more 

personalised space we allocate the more personal and effective our service delivery 

becomes. 

Once the works outlined in this application are completed, there will be no further 

development of the Dodd Street site. 

Car Parking Requirements 

When the new extension is constructed, staff currently housed within the existing facility and 

the transportable will be distributed through the whole of the new facility. 

The facility's core operating hours are 8.30am - 4.30pm Monday to Friday. Due to the staff's 

differing work hours, there are many unused bays on differing days and at differing times of 

the day. For example, on Fridays, only half of the planned 60 bays on site would be in use. 

On Wednesdays, when staff overlap is at a maximum, an absolute maximum of 50 car bays 

are utilised. As a rule, car parking tails off every afternoon. The Centre currently operates a 

strict car parking policy which nominates specific spaces to staff at present. This policy will 

be amended to suit, when the facility is completed. 

3 staff members utilise public transport and do not make use of the car park spaces on site. 

Nevertheless, we have not made these deductions within our summation. 

With this in mind we would suggest that ample on site car parking is available to staff and 

visitors when the facility is complete and car parking outside the boundary will not be 

required. 

Due to the varying programmes on offer, the 'drop off' and 'pick up' of children is an activity 

that occurs frequently. It is for this reason the car park design incorporates drop off and pick 

up bays with separate access and egress points across the site being provided. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Conference Centre Usage 

The conference centre is a facility which will be used in house by staff and children alike. 

When used by the Centre in this capacity during core operating hours, additional car parking 

will not be required as staff will use the on site parking as detailed above. 

We may consider offering the conference centre for external hire. This will only be outside 

normal operating hours of the Centre. This means that the 60 staff parking bays located on 

site would be sufficient to facilitate the needs of the conference centre. 

We would therefore suggest that the planned 60 on site car parking bays, as they will be 

used for dual purpose but at differing times, would be sufficient to service both the daily 

needs of the Speech and Hearing Centre and the out of hours needs of the Conference 

Centre. 

Removal of Ficus Trees 

In order to provide the maximum number of on-site car parking bays as well as configuring a 

drop-off/pick-up point with safe access and egress points, the three ficus at the front of the 

site are proposed to be removed. 

Aside from the need to remove the trees to accommodate parking, the trees currently pose a 

constant problem to the Centre. These problems include falling leaf litter, fruit and sap 

causing damage to cars and attracting vermin and the root systems of the trees breaking up 

the paved surfaces to the car park and footpaths surrounding them. 

The development proposal includes the installation of much native planting around the 

carparks and new building to facilitate a seamless integration between the completed 

Speech and Hearing site and Lake Monger Reserve. 

Aboriginal Heritage 

Telethon Speech and Hearing has previously engaged in a full and comprehensive round of 

consultation with indigenous elders. At the time of the consultation, the Centre explained the 

plan to fully develop the whole of the available site to house expanded services and facilities. 

This included new buildings to accommodate audiology, GP clinics, classrooms, research 

facilities and professional seminar and conference facilities. 

The indigenous elders indicated their strong support for the Centre's plans and future 

developments. The Centre is strongly committed to working with elders and indigenous 

communities. 

Comment 

Land use 

Planning Policy 6.6 (Lake Monger precinct) sets out the development requirements for 

educational facilities within the Parks and Recreation Reserve. The policy requires that any 

expansion of uses be considered in light of future recreation, public open space, parking and 

access requirements. Further development shall be for purposes directly associated with 

the current education functions. 

The policy requires that new development be well set back from all boundaries and 

generously landscaped to extend the parkland theme of the Precinct with all car parking 

being well screened from the view of the parkland and surrounding street. 



28 JUNE 2011 

It is considered that the proposed facilities meet the criterion of being directly associated with 

the current education functions of the Centre. 

As this site is reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) for 'Parks and 

Recreation' approval is required from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). 

The Town is required to make a recommendation to the Commission. 

Building Design 

As stated above, the Planning Policy requires that new development be well set back from 

all boundaries and be generously landscaped. Whether the proposed new building is 'well 

set back' from the southern boundary is questionable. Certainly, it is significantly closer to 

the southern boundary than any existing buildings on the site (which includes the adjoining 

Bold Park Community School buildings). It is noted that the previous 'Stage One' library 

building was set back approximately 11.619 metres from the Southern boundary with an 

open verandah set back 7.2 metres. The proposed new building is setback approximately 

7.8 metres from the southern boundary to Dodd Street. The applicant intends to provide soft 

landscaping and planting and to maximise the use of native planting to integrate fully with 

any future redevelopment of the Dodd Street streetscape. Landscaping is proposed around 

car parking areas to screen them from the street and from the adjoining Lake Monger 

Reserve. It is considered that the proposed building will provide for an improved interface 

with the Dodd Street streetscape and the Lake Monger reserve. 

Car parking 

It is recognised that although the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre began as an 

educational establishment, it has expanded over the years to include a number of incidental 

and complementary uses providing an essential and valuable service to the Western 

Australian community. 

The assessment of carparking for the site is therefore difficult as the proposed uses do not 

comfortably fit within the uses listed in the Town's Off-street parking policy. 

A number of possible scenarios for the calculation of car parking for the Centre are possible. 

Scenario One 

If the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre are considered an 'educational establishment' 

with mostly primary school aged children, the car parking requirement is 1 bay for every staff 

member plus 14 drop off bays per 100 students (may be on-street). On this basis the centre, 

which has 64 on site car bays for staff, and at least 14 to 28 bays on-street would be 

compliant. 

In this scenario the conference centre is deemed to be part of the educational establishment 

and could only be used by the school. 

Use Parking required Parking provided 

Educational Establishment 1 per staff member plus 14 bays 

per 100 students (can be onstreet) 

= 60 car bays plus 14 to 

28 pick-up drop off bays 

64 car bays plus on street 

parking 



28 JUNE 2011 

Scenario Two 

The new building contains a number of uses that are already within the existing buildings or 

are complementary uses to the educational establishment. The conference centre is a 

proposed new use for the Centre and, although the applicant argues that it will be either 

used by existing staff/students or outside of office hours, it may be pertinent to consider the 

possibility of allowing its use at any time. On this basis, the following would be required: 




= 60 bays plus 14 to 28 

pick-up drop off bays 


parking 

Conference Centre 

252 square metres @ 1 bay per 

4.5 square metres floor area = 

56 car bays 

TOTAL 116 car bays 64 car bays 

The application would therefore have a shortfall of 52 car bays on-site. The Council could 

request cash-in-lieu for this car parking shortfall or consider a 50% relaxation on the shortfall 

on the basis that the conference centre would not necessarily be used all of the time and 

therefore would not generate a constant demand for that many additional bays. Requiring 

cash-in-lieu for 26 car bays could also be argued on the basis of these bays also being 

available as the pick-up/drop-off on-street bays required for the educational uses within the 

Centre. 

Scenario Three 

The Council could also consider that the new building generates additional parking over and 

above that generated by the current buildings used as primarily an 'educational 

establishment' with the incorporation of eight consulting rooms. If the Council were to 

require additional parking for these uses in addition to the conference centre, the following 

would be required: 




= 60 bays plus 14 to 28 

pick-up drop off bays 


parking 

Conference Centre 

252 square metres @ 1 bay per 

4.5 square metres floor area = 

56 car bays 

Consulting rooms 4 bays per consulting room @ 8 

rooms = 32 bays 

TOTAL 148 car bays 64 car bays 

This would result in a shortfall of 84 car bays. This scenario is considered onerous for the 

applicant as it duplicates the car parking requirement for the school and consulting room 

uses across the site. Further, it is considered that attempting to impose the policy 

requirements and parking guidelines on this development might be difficult to justify and that 

the Town should instead consider the operations of the Centre and the likely parking 

demand generated from the uses and services provided. The applicant has stated that 60 

staff is employed at the Centre and that this number will not increase with the proposed new 



28 JUNE 2011 

building. The applicant has provided spreadsheets identifying each staff member and their 

hours of employment and the spreadsheet shows that on a Wednesday when the most staff 

is on site at the one time, 50 car bays are required. 

In addition, the applicant has suggested that the conference centre will be utilised by the 

Speech and Hearing staff and students that already attend the site, thereby not generating 

additional car parking demand. The applicant does wish to lease the conference centre to 

external bodies but has stated that this would only occur outside of the normal operating 

hours of the Speech and Hearing Centre so that all on-site staff car parking would be 

available. 

In conclusion as it would be difficult to police the use of the conference centre and because it 

is considered likely that in the future there could well be a demand for the centre to be used 

during business hours and that the centre should have the flexibility to do so, it is considered 

that the proposal should be considered as though the conference centre will be available to 

be leased externally at any time and that a reasonable calculation would be that cash-in-lieu 

should be requested at 50% of the required number of car bays. The cash-in-lieu could be 

used to contribute towards the formalisation of parking within the Dodd Street road reserve. 

These car bays would then also be available for use as the required on-street (drop-off) 

carparking bays for the education facilities within the centre. A 50% cash-in-lieu contribution 

of $7,500 for the 52 car bays shortfall would therefore be $195,000. 

It is noted that the applicant is aware of the Town's plans to improve the streetscape and 

parking within the Dodd Street road reserve and the access/egress points proposed as part 

of the new development have been designed in cognisance of these plans. 

Ficus Trees 

The removal of the three Ficus trees adjacent to the existing car park will have a significant 

impact on the streetscape and amenity of the area. The applicant contends that the trees 

are inappropriate for planting in close proximity to buildings and car parking areas because 

of the amount of leaf/fruit litter involved and due to their invasive root systems. It is noted 

that the trees are within the site boundaries and are not on the street and parks reserve as 

are other ficus trees on Dodd Street. In addition, the trees currently 'swamp' the native 

peppermint trees that are adjacent to them and on the Dodd Street reserve. 

Although the Town does not necessarily encourage the removal of healthy tree specimens, it 

can be seen that, aside from development aims, the Centre has good reason to request their 

removal due to the problems caused within the adjoining carpark and so as to provide a 

better parking and traffic solution for the new development. In supporting their removal, 

however, the Town should require a significant amount of replacement native landscaping to 

'soften' the new development and this should be a condition of approval. 

Aboriginal Heritage and Leasing Issues 

It is noted that the Town, as the management body for the reserve under Management Order 

1389932 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA), is also responsible for ensuring that 

Aboriginal Heritage Approval, pursuant to section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 

(AHA) is obtained for this development if it differs from the purpose described in Schedule 2 

of the Town's Notice of 2 September 2004. The purpose in Schedule 2 was described as 

the development and staged construction of the Bold Park Community School and the 

proposed continuing stages of development of the Speech and Hearing Centre This 

development is in accordance with the purposes described in Schedule 2. As the landlord, 

the Town can impose conditions as part of the lease approval. 



28 JUNE 2011 

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: 

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

against the provisions of 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. 

SUMMARY: 

The proposed library, audiology, administration, training and conference rooms form part of 

the education function of the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre and can be seen as 

ancillary and complementary features. The Centre has submitted that these new facilities 

will allow for the enhancement of the services provided by them. It does not substantially 

change or increase the activities of the school. Whilst closer to the boundary than other 

buildings on the site, is setback enough to allow for it to be appropriately landscaped 

contributing to the parkland theme of the precinct. 

Whilst located on a Metropolitan Region Scheme 'Parks and Recreation' reserve, the 

Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre is well established and has continued to expand its 

service to the community. Whilst not a public park, it does serve a public purpose. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 

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

application for the proposed library, audiology, administration, training and conference rooms 

for Telethon Speech and Hearing at Lot 11071 (No. 36) Dodd Street, Wembley as shown on 

the plans dated 9 May 2011, be referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission 

with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 


along Dodd street prior to the issue of a building licence, showing the location and type 

of proposed trees, shrubs and lawns to be approved by the Town. The landscaping 

areas on the approved plan are to be installed by the applicant prior to the occupation 

of the building, and thereafter maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction of the 

Town; 



28 JUNE 2011 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

no more than 60 staff to be employed by the Centre; 

the payment of $195,000 cash-in-lieu for the provision of car parking within the Dodd 

Street road reserve being provided prior to the issue of a building licence; and 


Town, in accordance with the lease agreement and that the above conditions are likely 

to also be imposed as part of the lease approval. 

Committee Meeting 16 May 2011 

Prior to consideration of this item, Mr Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability, in 

accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial 

interest in this matter. 

During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the adequacy of on site 

parking to cater for the increase in size of the facility and new uses proposed. Members 

agreed that the item be deferred to enable further information to be obtained on:- an analysis 

of the real parking requirements; retention of the ficus trees and cost of providing parking on 

Dodd Street road reserve. 

Council Meeting 24 May 2011 




COUNCIL DECISION: 

(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) 

That the item relating to Lot 11071 (No. 36) Dodd Street, Wembley be deferred to enable 

further information to be obtained. 

FURTHER REPORT: (Post Council Meeting 24 May 2011) 

The application has provided the following modifications to the proposal based on 

discussions with the Mayor as well as to address issues raised at the Committee meeting. 

Car Parking 

In addition to the 64 onsite car bays, TSH are prepared to fund and construct an additional 

100 car parking bays on Dodd Street based upon a mutually agreed design with the Town. 

These bays would be constructed concurrent with the building programme and would 

become the property and responsibility of the Town when complete. Under this proposal 

TSH will have 164 car bays. This is our strongly preferred option. 

The other option is that 52 of the 64 on-site carbays could be made available for use by the 

general public. These bays would be available at all times, free or charge and maintained by 

TSH. In addition to these 52 bays, TSH would make a 50% cash in lieu contribution toward 

the 100 additional bays required on Dodd Street at $3000 per bay. Once again the design 

would be collaborative and constructed in line with our construction programme. We would 

expect to make the cash in lieu contribution when the bays are constructed and available for 

use. This scenario would also provide TSH with access to a total number of 164 car parking 

bays. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Ficus Trees 

Both car parking solutions take into account the existing 3 ficus trees on the basis of them 

remaining in the current location. 

The applicant has indicated that they are looking at up to 200 seats to be accommodated in 

the conference centre. They have offered to contribute towards providing 100 car bays on 

Dodd Street. When the centre is operating during the week, this would allow for one car bay 

per 2.2 seats. Outside the business hours of the Centre, 64 onsite bays would be available 

for users of the conference centre. It is noted that the Town Planning Scheme requires one 

bay per 4.5 square metres of seating area. 

Of the two options presented, Option 1 is considered the most straight foward. Option 2 will 

allow for use of the centres parking area, but, this could cause some conflict and confusion 

at the centre when it is operating. 

A preliminary plan prepared by the Town's Infrastructure services area last month indicates 

that 87 car bays could be provided for in Dodd Street. The applicant's offer of the 100 car 

bays therefore may not be fully met in Dodd Street, however, further design work will be 

required. 

Should Council wish to adopt Option 1, the following recommendation is put forward. 


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

application for the proposed library, audiology, administration, training and conference rooms 

for Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre at Lot 11071 (No. 36) Dodd Street, Wembley as 

shown on the plans dated 9 May 2011, be referred to the Western Australian Planning 

Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 


along Dodd street prior to the issue of a building licence, showing the location and type 

of proposed trees, shrubs and lawns to be approved by the Town. The landscaping 

areas on the approved plan are to be installed by the applicant prior to the occupation 

of the building, and thereafter maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction of the 



the funding and construction of up to 100 car parking bays on Dodd Street based upon 

a mutually agreed design with the Town. The design will have to meet the Town's 

engineering specifications. The bays are to be constructed prior to occupation of the 

new conference centre; 


Town, in accordance with the lease agreement and that the above conditions are likely 

to also be imposed as part of the lease approval; 

the three Ficus trees on the southern side of the front carpark being retained. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Committee Meeting 21 June 2011 




Amendment 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson 

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

Footnote: 

Telethon Speech and Hearing are advised that the parking bays to be provided in Dodd 

Street are for the public and not for exclusive use of the Centre. 

Amendment carried 4/0 

Council Meeting 28 June 2011 




COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: 


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

1, the application for the proposed library, audiology, administration, training and 

conference rooms for Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre at Lot 11071 (No. 36) Dodd 

Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 9 May 2011, be referred to the Western 

Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the 


(i) 

(ii) 

a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted for the front 

setback area along Dodd street prior to the issue of a building licence, showing 

the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs and lawns to be approved by the 

Town. The landscaping areas on the approved plan are to be installed by the 

applicant prior to the occupation of the building, and thereafter maintained by 

the applicant to the satisfaction of the Town; 


(iii) the funding and construction of up to 100 car parking bays on Dodd Street 

based upon a mutually agreed design and construction with the Town. The 

design will have to meet the Town's engineering specifications. The bays are to 

be constructed prior to occupation of the new conference centre; 

(iv) the Speech and Hearing Centre be advised that separate approval is required 

from the Town, in accordance with the lease agreement and that the above 

conditions are likely to also be imposed as part of the lease approval; 



28 JUNE 2011 

(v) 


Footnote: 

Telethon Speech and Hearing are advised that the parking bays to be provided in 

Dodd Street are for the public and not for exclusive use of the Centre. 

Amendment 


That clause (iii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

(iii) 

the provision of road resurfacing and construction of up to 100 car parking bays 

on Dodd Street, based on mutually agreed design, construction and cost sharing 

arrangements with the Town. Regarding cost sharing, the Town will accept 

materials and construction costs for the carriageway between the parking bays 

on either side of the road. The design will have to meet the Town's engineering 

specifications. All construction works are to be completed prior to occupation 

of the new conference centre. 


Amendment 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That clause (v) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

(v) 

should any of the three ficus trees be removed, then a replacement tree be 

planted which is a suitable native tree for the location. 

Amendment lost 2/6 

For: 

Against: 

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

Crs Bradley and Pelczar 



1, the application for the proposed library, audiology, administration, training and 

conference rooms for Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre at Lot 11071 (No. 36) Dodd 

Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 9 May 2011, be referred to the Western 

Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the 


(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted for the front 

setback area along Dodd street prior to the issue of a building licence, showing 

the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs and lawns to be approved by the 

Town. The landscaping areas on the approved plan are to be installed by the 

applicant prior to the occupation of the building, and thereafter maintained by 

the applicant to the satisfaction of the Town; 


the provision of road resurfacing and construction of up to 100 car parking bays 

on Dodd Street, based on mutually agreed design, construction and cost sharing 



28 JUNE 2011 

arrangements with the Town. Regarding cost sharing, the Town will accept 

materials and construction costs for the carriageway between the parking bays 

on either side of the road. The design will have to meet the Town's engineering 

specifications. All construction works are to be completed prior to occupation 

of the new conference centre; 

(iv) the Speech and Hearing Centre be advised that separate approval is required 

from the Town, in accordance with the lease agreement and that the above 

conditions are likely to also be imposed as part of the lease approval; 

(v) 


Footnote: 

Telethon Speech and Hearing are advised that the parking bays to be provided in 

Dodd Street are for the public and not for exclusive use of the Centre. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.47 

STRATA LOT 7 (NO. 357) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED 

ROOF TOP ADDITION TO SMALL BAR 


To consider an application for an addition to the small bar requiring assessment under Town 

Planning Scheme No. 1. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

APPLICANT: 

ZONING: 

USE CLASS: 

LAND AREA: 

156DA-2011 

Therese Brand 

Stanfield Holdings Pty Ltd 

Local Centre 

Use Not Listed (Small Bar) 

254 m 2 (subject strata lot) 

The Council considered an application for a change of use from office (bank) to a use not 

listed (small bar) at its meeting on 22 March 2011 (Item DV11.12). The application was 

approved subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu contribution of $45,000 to the Council to be held in 

reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity of the subject site; 

the maximum number of patrons permitted within the 'small bar' not to exceed 120 at 

any one time; 

hours of operation are from 11am to midnight Monday to Saturday and from 10am to 

10pm Sunday; 

no live amplified music is to be played at the premises; 

food being available to patrons of the small bar at all times during trading hours; 

the sale of liquor for consumption off site is not permitted; 

(vii) a Staff and Patron Travel Mode Management Plan is to be submitted and approved by 

the Town, which shall identify all modes of private and public travel available to staff 

and patrons, in order to limit car parking demand, (including walking, cycling, bus, 

train, taxis and car pooling) and shall specify how those modes and services will be 

promoted to staff and patrons to encourage and facilitate the utilisation of those modes 

(including methods such as annotated menus/wine lists, leaflets, timetables, free taxicalls, 

travel vouchers and loyalty rewards discounts or other incentives); 

(viii) a detailed management plan being submitted to and approved by the Town prior to the 

issue of a Building Licence. The Plan is to include the following:- 

 

 

Public Interests Assessment (as required by the Department of Racing, Gaming 

and Liquor in any Liquor Licensing Application); 

Trading hours; 



28 JUNE 2011 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patron Numbers; 

Patron Control (including staff training); 

Queue management; 

Sale of alcohol (no shots, jugs or offered drink promotions to be served); 

Type of entertainment; 

Impact on nearby residents and other members of the community (such as noise 

and other impacts caused by patrons accessing and exiting the premises); 

Noise management; 

Pubic Safety; 

Security; 

Car parking (signage etc); 

Complaint and reporting procedures; and 

Access to taxi rank, complementary taxi calling service and public transport 

services. 

Rubbish collection. 

(ix) 

(x) 

(xi) 

the premises being provided with a suitable enclosure for the storage and cleaning of 

commercial and Council provided refuse receptacles, as per the requirements of the 

Town of Cambridge Health local Law 2001; 

the premises to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) 

Regulations 1997, and in particular, the noise created by the emptying of bottles into 

rubbish receptacles is to be addressed within the Management Plan; 

the applicant to ensure that the alfresco area is open to Cambridge Street. 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

New application proposes the addition of a roof top bar only. 

Patron numbers, hours of operation and all other conditions of the original planning 

approval remain the same. 

An acoustic report has been provided demonstrating that noise levels to surrounding 

residential properties are within acceptable limits. 


Please note that this is not a request for an increase in patron numbers. It is a planning 

application for the addition of a roof top bar at the small venue recently approved. Opening 

times and patron numbers for the rooftop bar and ground floor bar of the small bar remain 

the same. 

The roof of the tenancy will be upgraded and will provide for an improved interface with the 

Cambridge Street frontage through the use of glass balustrading. 

Comment 

The applicant proposes to construct two stairwells and reinforce the roof of the existing shop 

tenancy to allow for the provision of a roof top bar. 



28 JUNE 2011 

The bar will provide additional seating area for the small bar as well as a covered kitchen 

area with a pizza oven which will enable the small bar to provide food as per the conditions 

of their planning approval. 

Acoustic screening walls which range in height from 2.0 metres to 2.6 metres are to be 

placed on the western, eastern and southern sides of the roof. This will ensure that noise 

level emissions such that compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 

1997 is achieved at all times. A copy of the Acoustic report is available to Elected Members 

on request. 

It is considered that the proposed additional floor space does not change the proposed 

operation of the small bar as all conditions of the original approval including patron numbers 

and hours of operation remain the same. The incorporation of a rooftop bar will add activity 

and ambience in the Wembley town centre. 


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

assessed against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. 









Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 


(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 



1, Council APPROVES the application for a roof top bar addition to the small bar 

submitted by Stanfield Holdings at Strata Lot 7 (No. 357) Cambridge Street, Wembley 

as shown on the plans dated 19 May 2011 subject to all the conditions of the original 

planning approval for the small bar dated 24 March 2011. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.48 LOT 4 (NO. 7) STATION STREET, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY OFFICE 

BUILDING 


To consider an application for an office building requiring assessment under Town Planning 

Scheme No. 1. 

BACKGROUND: 


181DA-2011 

LANDOWNER: 

E Stamatiou 

APPLICANT: 

McDonald Jones Architects 

ZONING: 

Residential/Commercial 

USE CLASS: 

Office - 'AA' 

(use not permitted unless Council grants approval) 

LAND AREA: 739 m 2 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Existing residential dwelling on the site which has been used for office purposes since 

1999. 

Proposal is for a two storey office complex with car parking to the front of the building 

and undercover parking at the rear of the site. 

520 square metres of office space is provided. 

Twenty car parking bays are provided. 

Access from Houlahan Lane which is on the north side of the property. 

No residential component. 


 

 

 

The neighbouring lots to the north are zoned special use (medical) and the lots to the 

south are zoned residential/commercial and are currently occupied by SKG Radiology 

and Perth Radiation Oncology. 

The proposed development is for 520 square metres of quality commercial office 

space over two levels. 

We consider the propel is an appropriate response for this part of the precinct, and 

consider it to be consistent with orderly and proper planning of the locality in 

consideration of the existing neighbouring buildings and the zoning of adjacent 

properties. 

Comment 

Land use 

The property falls within the West Leederville Planning Precinct (P5) and forms part of the 

Residential/Commercial zone within this precinct. The Statement of Intent for the 

Residential/Commercial zone is this precinct states: 



28 JUNE 2011 

 

 

 

Combined residential and commercial development will be permitted within this area. 

Commercial development cannot occur independently of residential development. 

Buildings will be low scale and setback from all boundaries in landscaped gardens. 

Control will be maintained over the design of new buildings to minimise potential 

conflict with combined and adjacent residential development. 

Car parking should be screened from view, well landscaped and designed in a manner 

that avoids conflict between residential and non-residential parking. 

The original intent for the precinct was that development would either be purely residential or 

a combination of residential/commercial. The proposal is, however, for 100% commercial. 

Notwithstanding this, for reasons outlined in this report, it is considered that there is an 

argument in this case to consider a departure from this statement of intent. 

The applicant proposes to use the site for the purpose of an office which is an 'AA' use within 

the Residential/Commercial zone. The classification as an 'AA' use ensures that issues 

such as the appropriateness of the activity and other issues such as adequacy of access 

and car parking can be addressed in an application for planning approval. 

The general statement of intent for the West Leederville Planning Precinct indicates, in part, 

that 'medical and medical support services will be grouped around the St John of God 

Hospital rather than expanding in an ad hoc manner along main roads and further eroding 

established residential areas'. The subject land is located in close proximity to the St John 

of God Hospital being on the opposite (western) side of Station Street. There are three other 

lots on this side of the street. The two on the south are used for medical purposes 

(Oncology and Radiology). The property to the north was recently rezoned to 'Medical' 

zone. There is an argument that there is already a continuation of commercial and medical 

support services surrounding St John of God Hospital on Station Street and that the 

requirement for a residential component to a development is no longer required or 

appropriate. 

It is noted that during the development of the Oncology Centre on the corner of Salvado 

Road and Station Street, property owners expressed a desire for commercial development 

to be allowed on all properties on the western side of Station Street due to the poor 

residential amenity of the locality with commercial development on all sides. 

The use of the site for 'office' is considered to be consistent with the orderly and proper 

planning of the locality. 

Plot Ratio 

The development standards for the precinct specify a maximum plot ratio for the site of 0.5 

(notwithstanding the policy provision that only 33% of this should be allocated to the nonresidential 

component of the development). The proposal shows a plot ratio of 0.7. The 

ground floor has an area of 115 square metres and the upper floor an area of 405 square 

metres. 

It is considered that the two storey building bulk from the streetscape is not detrimental to 

the amenity of the area due to the number of non-residential and two storey buildings 

already present in the vicinity. Further, the proposal provides the required car parking for the 

amount of floor space proposed. 



28 JUNE 2011 

The Town has recently required developer contributions for public art for buildings which 

exceed plot ratio requirements. It is considered, in this instance, one car bay in front of the 

building adjacent to the pedestrian access to the building can be to be deleted and 

developed into a landscaped area with an entry statement or piece of public part in order for 

the building to provide a better interface with the streetscape. 

Car parking 

The amount of floor space proposed requires the provision of 18 car parking bays on the 

basis of one bay per 30 square metres for office space. The proposed development 

provides 20 on-site carbays, ten at the front of the site and ten at the rear, undercover (19 

bays if one is removed as per the above recommendation). The carbays will all be accessed 

via the ROW to the north of the site (Houlahan Lane). 

It is noted that the Town would not generally support the provision of so many bays in front 

of the building so that the business has a better interface with the street. However, the two 

commercial premises to the south have significant front setbacks with carparking in front of 

the buildings so that the current proposal is consistent with the existing streetscape. 












Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 


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

Council APPROVES the application for a two storey office building submitted by McDonald 

Jones Architects at Lot 4 (No. 7) Station Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 26 

May 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

the provision of a 2.0 metre by 2.0 metre truncation on the northwest corner where 

Station Street intersects with the Right of Way (Houlahan Lane); 



28 JUNE 2011 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted prior to the issue of a 

building licence, showing the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs and lawns to 

be approved by the Town. The landscaping areas as shown on the approved plan are 

to be installed by the applicant prior to the occupation of the building, and thereafter 

maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Town; 

vehicle parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved plan 

being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the Town, and the nineteen parking 

spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair; 

the applicant to delete one car bay in the front setback area and instead provide an 

improved landscaped and featured entry statement for the purpose of providing some 

public art in the front of the proposed building to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive 

Officer; 

the preparation and submission of a Construction Management Plan detailing how the 

construction of the development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the 

surrounding area, tenants and shoppers. The plan will need to ensure that adequate 

space is provided within the subject site for the parking of construction vehicles and for 

the storage of building materials so as to minimise the need to utilise the surrounding 

road network. The construction management plan is to be submitted and approved by 

the Town prior to the issue of a building licence. 


Amendment 

Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr Watson 

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

Footnote: 

The applicant is advised that this approval relates to an office use only and any change in 

use from this would require a separate planning approval. 



During discussion, a question was raised in relation to the operation of the security gates 

and whether this might cause traffic congestion in the laneway. In response, the 

Administration indicated that this matter would be discussed with the applicant. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey office building submitted by 

McDonald Jones Architects at Lot 4 (No. 7) Station Street, Wembley as shown on the 

plans dated 26 May 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 



28 JUNE 2011 

(i) 

(ii) 

the provision of a 2.0 metre by 2.0 metre truncation on the northwest corner 

where Station Street intersects with the Right of Way (Houlahan Lane); 

a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted prior to the issue of 

a building licence, showing the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs and 

lawns to be approved by the Town. The landscaping areas as shown on the 

approved plan are to be installed by the applicant prior to the occupation of the 

building, and thereafter maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction of the 


(iii) vehicle parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved 

plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the Town, and the nineteen 

parking spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair; 

(iv) 

(v) 

the applicant to delete one car bay in the front setback area and instead provide 

an improved landscaped and featured entry statement for the purpose of 

providing some public art in the front of the proposed building to the 

satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer; 

the preparation and submission of a Construction Management Plan detailing 

how the construction of the development will be managed in order to limit the 

impact on the surrounding area, tenants and shoppers. The plan will need to 

ensure that adequate space is provided within the subject site for the parking of 

construction vehicles and for the storage of building materials so as to minimise 

the need to utilise the surrounding road network. The construction management 

plan is to be submitted and approved by the Town prior to the issue of a building 

licence. 

Footnote: 

The applicant is advised that this approval relates to an office use only and any 

change in use from this would require a separate planning approval. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.49 117C BIRKDALE STREET, FLOREAT - CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP 

(CAFE) TO LICENSED RESTAURANT 


To consider an application for a change of use from shop (café) to licensed restaurant 

requiring assessment under Town Planning Scheme No. 1. 

BACKGROUND: 


106DA-2010 

LANDOWNER: 

Anastasia Stamatiou 

APPLICANT: 

Michael Donovan 

ZONING: 

Local Centre 

USE CLASS: 

Licensed Restaurant - 'AA' 

(use not permitted unless Council grants approval) 


An application for a fit out to an existing patisserie was approved on 11 August 2008 subject 

to a maximum number of 20 seats being provided. 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

Premises currently operate as 'Donovans Café' with a day time operation. 

Proposal is to change the use to a licensed restaurant to enable the sale of alcohol 

with meals. 

The beverage list will comprise a selection of premium bottled beers and a wine list. 

There will be small range of spirits on offer to suit the older clientele. 


 

 

 

The café is relatively small with the patron capacity stated at 65 persons. It is a quality 

venue that will be a low impact low risk licensed premises. The intimate café 

atmosphere that has made Donovans so popular will be retained and it will continue to 

be a welcoming meeting place for locals and their families and friends. Donovans 

wish to extend their service by being able to serve their patrons a choice of beverages 

to have and share with their meal. 

The proposed hours of operation for the café would e Monday to Saturday 7.00am to 

3.00pm, Wednesday to Sunday 6.30pm to 10.30pm and Sunday 8am to midday. 

The service, décor, ambience, food and beverage selection at Donovans Café is 

tailored to make our local customers feel very much at home. 

Comment 

Land Use 

The 'licensed restaurant' classification is an 'AA' use in the Local Centre Zoning in Town 

Planning Scheme No. 1 being a use that is not permitted unless Council grants planning 

approval. 



28 JUNE 2011 

The Birkdale Street Local Centre policy seeks to consolidate the existing range of local 

shopping and community facilities to serve the day to day needs of the local residents. 

Careful control is also required to be exercised over the nature of any uses proposed and 

their design and site layout to ensure minimal impact on any adjacent residential 

development. 

It is noted that there are already at least two restaurants within the Birkdale Street Local 

Centre that operate in the evening. The current proposal seeks to allow an existing café 

within the Local Centre to operate in the evening and to serve alcohol with meals. 

Car Parking 

Use Requirement Provided 

Take Away Food 

Outlet - existing 

Licensed Restaurant - 

Proposed 

1 bay per 4.5 square metres of seating 

area (13.75 square metres) plus 1 bay 

for every 2.5 square metres of 

counter/queiung area (7.25 square 

metres) = 6 car bays 

1 bay per 4.5 square metres of seating 

area (50 square metres) = 11 car bays 

4 dedicated car bays plus 7 other 

onsite car bays plus on-street 

parking. 

4 dedicated car bays plus 7 other 

onsite car bays plus on-street 

parking plus access to 7 car 

bays on adjoining child care 

centre site (after business hours) 

The café currently has 4 dedicated car bays at the rear of the building and utilises street 

parking along Birkdale Street. 

The premises were originally used as a shop (Howard's patisserie) which required 7 bays 

based on its floor area of 101 square metres. 

The café that currently operates from the premises was approved with car parking calculated 

as a take away food outlet with 6 car bays required (based on a seating area of 13.75 

square metres and a queuing area of 7.25 square metres). The café was approved subject 

to seating for no more than 20 persons being provided for the premises. 

The planning policy requires one car bay for every 4.5 square metres of seating area of a 

restaurant. Based on the seating area within the premises of 50 square metres, 11 car bays 

are required. 

The difference between the parking that would have been required for the 'take-away food 

outlet' use of the premises versus the requirement for a restaurant is 5 car parking bays. 

The premises are owned by the same owners of the adjoining child care centre to the north. 

A condition of planning approval for the child care centre required that: 

"The rear parking area at the child care centre to be made available for parking by the 

general public after business hours". 

The child care centre approval also required a cash-in-lieu contribution of $40,000 towards 

parking improvements in the area. A plan for new carparking on Birkdale Street between 

Cambridge Street and Newry Street was adopted for implementation and funding in the 

2011/12 budget at the 22 February 2011 Council meeting (Item CR11.3). This plan 

increases the on street car parking bays from 17 to 24 bays. 



28 JUNE 2011 

There are eight car bays available on the child care centre which could be utilised by the 

licensed restaurant outside of the child care centre hours (i.e. for the evening hours which 

are not the current hours for the existing café). 

The owner of the subject site and the adjoining site to the north has provided a written 

statement that the child care centre bays can be used by the proposed licensed restaurant 

outside the business hours of the child care centre. 

Council could request the applicant to pay cash in lieu for the 5 bay shortfall which could be 

used towards the Birkdale Street carparking upgrade. It is, however, considered that the 

child care centre parking and existing parking in the locality would be sufficient for any 

additional car parking generated by the change of use from café to licensed restaurant. 

Noise and Amenity Issues 

The applicant stresses that the premises will continue to provide a similar service to the 

community but with extended trading hours and with the option of purchasing an alcoholic 

beverage. 

It is not considered that the proposed restaurant will result in any additional noise or amenity 

issues for the local centre which already has restaurants in the same locality that operate 

with minimal impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding locality. 












Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



28 JUNE 2011 





1, Council APPROVES the application for a change of use from take away food outlet 

to licensed restaurant submitted by Michael Donovan at Lot 3 (No. 117c) Birkdale 

Street, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 31 March 2011 subject to: 

(i) 

the hours of operation for the proposed licensed restaurant being limited to 

Monday to Saturday 7.00am to 3.00pm, Wednesday to Sunday 6.30pm to 

10.30pm and Sunday 8am to midday. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.50 

LOT 344 (NO. 3) BODMIN AVENUE CITY BEACH - RETROSPECTIVE FRONT 

FENCE 


To consider an application for a retrospective approval of a front fence requiring assessment 

under the performance criteria of the Town's Streetscape Policy in respect of Street Walls 

and Fences. 

BACKGROUND: 

BA/DA REFERENCE: 0162DA-2011 

LANDOWNER: 

E J Reeves and D R S Reeves 

APPLICANT: 

E J Reeves and D R S Reeves 

ZONING: Residential R12.5 

USE CLASS: 

Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted) 

LAND AREA: 1050m 2 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

The front fence is constructed on approximately 34% of the front boundary; 

It consists of 'piers' to a maximum 1.5 metres wide and infill horizontal panels; 

The maximum wall height is 1.5 metres with a solid wall height below the infill panels 

of 0.65 metres; and 

The fence is to be modified so that the infill panels consist of a minimum open to solid 

ration of 1:1 in accordance with the Town's Policy. 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the fencing variations :- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We would be willing to remove every second cross-piece in the front infill panels. This 

would mean that the infill panel surface would have an open to solid ration of more 

than 1:1. The only remaining point of non-compliance would be the width of the pillars; 

We have over 50% of our front setback area unfenced; 

Our fence blends into the streetscape and is in fact far more compliant than our 

neighbour's fence; 

The fence is lower than the allowable; 

The fence breaks up what would otherwise be an imposing and stark front retaining 

wall that would be unsightly; 

Due to the fall of the block the house can be clearly viewed from the street, as per the 

stated aim of the streetscape policy, regardless of any front fence. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Assessment against the performance criteria 

Street Walls and Fences 

Proposed 

Acceptable development provision 

Maximum Pier Width 0.6 - 1.5 metres 0.45 metres 

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 where there is no alternative outdoor living area to the front 

setback; or 

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

The front fence is built along 34% of the front boundary, and while the pier widths do exceed 

the maximum width allowable, the remainder of the front boundary is open, therefore 

providing an open streetscape. The removal of every second horizontal infill slat will provide 

a clear view to the two storey home behind, and will reduce the bulk of the fence, and also 

disguise the large retaining wall below the existing dwelling. 

The front fence is a maximum height of 1.5 metres, when a maximum height of 2.0 metres to 

piers and 1.8 metres to the infill panels is permissible. This reduces the overall impact of the 

fence on the streetscape, and acts as a feature of the home rather than a barrier. 

Having regard to the above it is considered that the front fence meets the performance 

criteria for the following reason:- 

 

achieves desired open streetscape. 



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

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









Scheme. 



28 JUNE 2011 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for a front fence submitted by E Reeves and D 

Reeves at Lot 344 (No. 3) Bodmin Avenue, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 3 

May 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

every second infill panel being removed to achieve an open to solid ratio of no 

less than 1:1. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.51 

LOT 19 (NO. 4) BARRETT STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO (2) TWO 

STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS 


To consider an application for two x two storey grouped dwellings requiring assessment 

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

buildings on the boundary. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Nicholas Menchetti 

APPLICANT: 

Finespun Architecture 

ZONING: 

Residential R30 

USE CLASS: 

Dwelling (grouped) - 'AA' (Council approval required) 


An application for two x two storey grouped dwellings with undercroft garages was approved 

on 21 July 2010. The applicant has subsequently submitted amended plans which have 

redesigned the dwellings to remove the undercroft garages and incorporated additional land 

from the adjoining property to the east. 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

Two side by side two storey grouped dwellings 

109 square metres of land is proposed to be amalgamated from the adjoining property 

to the east which allows for a more usable building envelope and rear garden spaces. 

The dwelling on the western side proposes a nil setback to the garage. 

The garage wall has a length of 6.66 metres and a height of 2.7 to 3.0 metres from 

natural ground level. 

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 landscaping in the 

front setback area, roof pitch and wall height. The roof pitch is 22 degrees which is 

compatible with the Wembley style of housing in the street (the street does, however, fall 

within the West Leederville planning precinct which requires a roof pitch of between 30 and 

40 degrees). There is a minor wall height variation on the front eastern corner of the 

proposed dwellings. No objection to this variation has been received from the adjoining 

landowner to the east. 

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

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



28 JUNE 2011 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed dwellings: 

 

 

 

 

The location of the garage makes effective use of space given the zoning of the area 

and narrowness of the lot. 

It enhances privacy for both land owners by providing a visual and acoustic separation. 

It does not adversely effect on the amenity of the adjoining property as the garage is 

located away from outdoor living areas, towards the street frontage and is situated 

significantly lower (1.6 metres) than the floor level of the adjoining house, maintaining 

visual sightlines. 

It does not overshadow due to the north-south axis of the lots. 

Neighbour submission 

Comments were received from owners of the adjoining property to the west (No. 6 Barrett 

Street) concerning the boundary wall for the garage and are summarised below: 

The R Codes require a minimum setback of 1.0 metre from the boundary, in which the 

plans do not comply. 

The garage wall as per the plan will impact strongly on our street outlook and views of 

the city. 

The 1.0 metre setback reduces the possibility of damage due to the build on Lot 19 

and reduces any future disputes over boundaries and fence lines between us and the 

developer. 

We would also raise our concerns on the undercroft garages and the level of earth 

works required, this is especially after the damage sustained to neighbouring houses 

on the 30 Barrett Street build. 


Buildings on boundary 

Proposed 


Side setback Nil. Minimum 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 current plan does not propose undercroft garages for the development (although the 

original plan did). This proposal is for two, side by side, grouped dwellings. The western 

side dwelling proposes a garage with a nil setback to the western boundary. This garage is 

6.66 metres long and ranges from 3.7 metres to a maximum of 3.0 metres in height from 

natural ground level. 



28 JUNE 2011 

The proposed garage wall is on the eastern side of the adjoining site and is forward of its 

building line and abutting its driveway so that there is no loss of direct sun to major openings 

to habitable rooms or outdoor living areas. As the proposed dwellings are further forward on 

the lot than the dwelling on the adjoining site, any development (regardless of whether it is 

on the boundary or not) would have the same impact on the outlook to the street. 

Overall, it is considered that the nil setback of the garage from the western side boundary 

meets the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

makes effective use of space and enhances the amenity of the development. 

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

and ensures direct sun to major openings and outdoor living areas is not restricted. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 


During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to dominance of the proposed 

driveways in the front setback area and it was suggested that the width of the driveways 

could be reduced. The Administration was requested to prepare a condition in relation to the 

driveway widths, including the crossover, prior to the next meeting of Council. 



28 JUNE 2011 

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 



1, Council APPROVES the amended plans for two x two storey grouped dwellings 

submitted by Finespun Architecture at Lot 19 (No. 4) Barrett Street, Wembley as 

shown on the amended plans dated 6 May 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

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

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

the proposed subdivision/amalgamation of the subject lot with the adjoining lot 

to the east being endorsed on a deposited plan prior to the issue of a building 

licence. 

Amendment 


That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- 

(iii) a maximum crossover width of 4.5 metres is permitted for each dwelling. The 

driveways are to be tapered in to meet the crossover; 

(iv) a street tree being planted on the eastern side of the property adjacent to the 

crossover to Unit 1 (right hand side dwelling) as indicated in red on the 

approved plan. This will be carried out by the Town at the applicant's cost. 




1, Council APPROVES the amended plans for two x two storey grouped dwellings 

submitted by Finespun Architecture at Lot 19 (No. 4) Barrett Street, Wembley as 

shown on the amended plans dated 6 May 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

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

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

the proposed subdivision/amalgamation of the subject lot with the adjoining lot 

to the east being endorsed on a deposited plan prior to the issue of a building 

licence; 

(iii) a maximum crossover width of 4.5 metres is permitted for each dwelling. The 

driveways are to be tapered in to meet the crossover; 

(iv) a street tree being planted on the eastern side of the property adjacent to the 

crossover to Unit 1 (right hand side dwelling) as indicated in red on the 

approved plan. This will be carried out by the Town at the applicant's cost. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.52 LOT 31 (NO. 23) HOVEA CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY 

DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE 


To consider an application for a Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft Garage requiring 

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

respect to buildings on the boundary. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Ms Kim A Ferreira & Mr Jens U Henschel 

APPLICANT: 

Peter Malone Westgrove Enterprises Pty Ltd 

ZONING: 


USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


 

 

 

Two storey dwelling with undercroft garage. 

Site slopes upwards from the front (north-west) to the rear south-east) by 

approximately 1.5 metres and slopes upwards from the right (south-west) side to left 

(north-east) by approximately 1.5 metres. 

Proposed boundary wall to alfresco (9.5 metres in length and 2.608 metres in height) 

located on the left (north-east) side boundary. 





There are variations to the acceptable development provisions regarding wall height and site 

works. The wall height on the south west corner of the dwelling is 7.1 metres in lieu of 

6.5metres. 




The applicant has provided the following justification for the side setback variation:- 

 

The client's design brief required an energy efficient design with the maximum amount 

of north facing glass. By separating the alfresco building from the main building, we 

allow significant winter sunshine into the heart of the home. The angle of the shadow 

cast by the alfresco requires that it is placed hard over to the left hand boundary, to 

allow maximum sunlight into the living area. 



28 JUNE 2011 

 

The "zero lot" situation proposed in (1) only abuts a service type are of the adjoining 

property and will not adversely the enjoyment of that property. It is also significantly 

lower than the adjoining property, therefore having less of an effect upon it. 


Comments were received from owners of 21 Hovea Cresent and are summarised below: 

Submission one (21 Hovea Cresent) 

 

 

Request that as per council requirements the 1.0 metre setback be enforced in the 

alfresco area of the proposed dwelling at Lot 31 (23) Hovea Crescent. 

Concern that water run-off from the roof of the dwelling will flow over into my property. 



Side setback 


Proposed 

1.0 metre to the north-east 

boundary 


Nil 


to: 





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

adjoining properties is not restricted. 

The proposed location of the alfresco is considered to make effective use of space on the 

site abutting an existing high brick wall on the north-eastern common boundary 

(approximately 1.2 metres lower). As viewed from the neighbour's side the alfresco would 

have a height of approximately 1.41 metres which is lower than the existing boundary fence 

on the neighbours property. The alfresco will not have an effect on the north-eastern 

adjoining property in terms of privacy with the finished floor level of the alfresco significantly 

lower than the adjoining property. The alfresco is located on the south-western side of the 

adjoining property and therefore will not restrict access of northern light to the adjoining 

properties habitable rooms and outdoor living areas. 

Overall, it is considered that the nil setback of the dwelling from the left (south-west) side 

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

 

 

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

and 

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

adjoining property are not restricted. 



28 JUNE 2011 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for a Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft 

submitted by Westgrove Enterprises Pty Ltd at Lot 31 (No. 23) Hovea Cresent, City 

Beach as shown on the plans dated 28 February 2011 subject to the following 

conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

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

the landscaping areas, as indicated in red 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; 

(iii) the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the north - 

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

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.53 LOT 1056 (NO. 191) GREGORY STREET, WEMBLEY - 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 of roof pitch, wall height and privacy setbacks. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Rick Phan 

APPLICANT: 

Home Builders Advantage 

ZONING: 


USE CLASS: 


LAND AREA: 670.741m 2 

DETAILS: 


Proposed two storey dwelling with swimming pool, vehicular access from garage off 

Mcleod Lane at the rear of the site. 

The site slopes upwards from the front (east) to the rear (west) by approximately 2.8 

metres. 

Proposed dwelling has a roof pitch of 15 degrees which is non-compliant with the 

Town's policy relating to roof pitch within Wembley. 





There are variations to the acceptable development provisions regarding wall height (front 

feature wall), privacy setbacks, open space, landscaping and street walls and fences. These 

are considered to meet the relevant performance criteria. 




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

 

 

A variation is sought to the required 22 degrees roof pitch, to achieve the visual 

aesthetics of the proposed design. 

It is at a pitch low enough not to be seen within 100 metres to create a linear look on 

page 5 of the plans. 



28 JUNE 2011 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A number of other homes in the street that have a lower pitch including one newly 

constructed. 

The building wall height of 6.378 metres is restricted to the living room front north side 

corner only. 

The level of the house has been chosen to best suit the topography of the site 

including a reduction of over 600mm along the entire south boundary. 

The levels follow over 70% of the north side boundary. Reducing the level even further 

would simply bury the home even deeper into the site. 

Other neighbouring homes in each direction have an elevated ground floor of over 

500mm. 

The stipulated levels merely follow the streetscape where all homes have been 

elevated to achieve park & lake views. 

The privacy setbacks from the balcony & upper floor living are as a result to achieving 

views. 

The north side living window overlooks the neighbour's driveway only with no line of 

sight into habitable rooms or outdoor living areas. 

Neighbours submission 

Comments were received from owners of No.193 Gregory Street, Wembley and are 

summarised below:- 

Submission one (No. 193 Gregory Street, Wembley) 

 

 

 

The required roof pitch within the Wembley area is between 22-35 degrees however 

the proposed roof pitch of the new residence is 15 degrees. We object to this as it is 

not in keeping with other houses in the area. 

We strongly object to any increase in height from the standard permitted wall height of 

6.0 metres. The maximum permitted wall height is 6.0 metres from the natural ground 

level to under the eaves. The plans provided show a wall height of 6.378 metres and a 

feature wall height of 7.1 metres. 

We object to the proposed setback on the plans which shows 3.0 metres as the 

minimum required privacy setback for the windows is 6.0 metres. We object 

particularly to the upstairs study which looks like it is 2.6 metres from the boundary 

with a window overlooking our backyard. The view from the new residences upstairs 

void area overlooks our backyard and we object to our privacy being compromised. 


Roof Pitch 

Proposed 

Acceptable Development Provision 

Roof Pitch Wembley 15 degrees Primary roofs of a dwelling that are 

visible from the street are hipped 

and/or gabled with a pitch of 22 – 35 

degrees 

Performance Criteria: 

 

 

 

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. 



28 JUNE 2011 

The applicant proposes a roof pitch of 15 degrees in lieu of the requirement within Wembley 

of between 22 and 35 degrees. Roof pitches of between 22 and 35 degrees reflect the 

architectural style of the existing residential stock in the locality with most of the dwellings 

along Gregory Street also sharing this characteristic. 

The applicant has provided several examples of dwellings with roof pitches of less than 22 

degrees on Gregory Street, however, these examples were approved under previous 

policies relating to roof pitch and do not set a precedent for any new dwellings to be 

approved by the Town with similar low roof pitches. The justification provided that the 

proposed roof pitch is to achieve visual aesthetics with a pitch low enough to be seen within 

100 metres creating a linear look is not considered to be valid. The proposed dwelling would 

appear as a flat roof when viewed from street level, which is not considered to respect the 

existing and desired architectural style or character of dwellings within the immediate 

locality. It should be pointed out that Council has consistently applied the roof pitch 

requirements in Wembley and West Leederville. 

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

criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

the roof form does not respect the architectural styles which characterise the 

immediate locality. 

Visual Privacy 

Visual Privacy 

Performance Criteria: 

Proposed 

3.0 metres from 

windows to living 

room on the upper 

floor on the east 

elevation to the right 

(north) side. 

Acceptable Development Provision 

7.5 metres 

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. 

The proposed privacy setback variation is not considered to have an adverse impact on the 

amenity of the adjoining property to the north with overlooking occurring primarily into the 

front setback area of the neighbouring dwelling. No habitable spaces or outdoor living areas 

will be overlooked from the proposed living room windows which face east looking out 

towards Lake Monger. In any case any overlooking would be indirect. 

The adjoining landowner to the north makes reference to the potential overlooking from the 

windows to the study on the upper floor on the northern elevation into their backyard. These 

windows are highlight windows with a sil height of over 1.6 metres and therefore not subject 

to privacy requirements. The windows to the void area were also included as a privacy 



28 JUNE 2011 

concern for the adjoining landowner to the north in their submission. These windows are also 

not classified as major openings as a void are is not considered to be a habitable room. In 

any case, the setback from the subject windows to the northern side boundary is 6.9 metres, 

which would be a complaint privacy setback if the windows were to a habitable room such as 

a living room or bedroom. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed variation to the windows to the living room 

complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

direct overlooking of active habitable spaces or outdoor living areas of the adjoining 

dwelling has been minimised by building layout and design of major openings. 

Building height 

Proposed 


Wall height 6.378 metres (north side) 6.0 metres 


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

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

adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; 

adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and 

access to views of significance. 

The proposed variation to the wall height is not considered to have an adverse impact on the 

streetscape or surrounding amenity as the wall height variation only occurs in the front northeastern 

corner of the dwelling where the land slopes down. There a numerous two storey 

dwellings along Gregory street of similar scale. The proposed dwelling is compliant with the 

overall height requirements to the top of the pitched roof. The amenity of the adjoining 

property to the north will be protected in terms of the access to northern light as the shadow 

of the proposed dwelling will be cast on the adjoining property to the south. 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed wall height variation complies with the 

performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

adequate direct sun available to buildings and appurtenant open spaces of adjoining 

properties; and 

adequate daylight available to major openings to habitable rooms of adjoining 

properties. 









28 JUNE 2011 







Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council REFUSES the application for a two storey dwelling with swimming pool 

submitted by Home Builders Advantage at Lot 1056 (No. 191) Gregory Street, 

Wembley as shown on the plans dated 29 April 2011 for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposal does not meet the performance criteria of Clause 6.2.7 Roof Pitch 

of Policy 3.1, Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual; and 

the proposal does not respect the roof pitches of existing houses in the street 

and immediate locality. 

Carried 6/2 

For: 

Against: 





28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.54 

LOT 190 (NO. 296) SALVADO ROAD, FLOREAT - 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 of setback of 

buildings generally. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Nicholas & Angela Duncan 

APPLICANT: 

Nicholas Duncan 

ZONING: 


USE CLASS: 


LAND AREA: 1214m 2 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

The proposal is for a single storey dwelling and swimming pool with a triple garage. 

The site slopes downwards from the front (south) boundary to the rear (north) 

boundary by approximately 1 metre. 

The proposed garage encroaches into the 6.0 metre primary street setback area by 

1.5metres. 

The garage is parallel to the street alignment. 





There are variations to the acceptable development provisions regarding landscaping and 

street walls and fences. These are considered to meet the relevant performance criteria. 




The applicant has provided the following justification for the street setback variation:- 

 

 

The garage is located positioned behind 2 existing approximately 7.0 metre high verge 

trees which contribute to the attractive streetscape. 

A new open style brick fence, with electric gate is proposed in front of the garage to 

soften the garage wall and to ensure the garage does not detract from the streetscape. 



28 JUNE 2011 

 

 

 

 

The proposed level of the garage is 0.6 metre below the existing footpath level. This 

has been done to reduce the building bulk of the garage wall to the front streetscape 

and results in a clean form being the only part visible from the street. 

As the roof is the largest form of the building that is visible from the street it would not 

matter if the vehicle structure was a garage or carport as minimal brickwork is visible. 

The garage is designed to parallel to the street, so no garage doors are visible from 

the street. 

Under the local Town Planning Scheme, a front setback to a carport is allowed to be 

1.0 metre, so it isn't uncommon for a roof structure to be even closer to the front street 

as what is proposed. 


Setback of buildings generally 

Front setback 


Proposed 

4.5 metres from garage to 

front lot boundary. 


6.0 metres 

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

contribute to the desired streetscape 

provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and 

allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. 

The proposed portion of wall encroaching into the allowable street setback area is single 

storey with a maximum of 2.7 metres in height and 7.7 metres in length with the remaining 

main part of the dwelling being setback 15 metres. The proposed garage is 0.6 metre lower 

than the street level. The visual impact of the portion of wall is somewhat reduced by the 

height difference when viewed from the street with the roof line being the main element of 

the dwelling when viewed from Salvado Road. The garage has been designed to be parallel 

to the street with the garage door facing west and therefore not directly visible from the 

street. 

There are two existing street trees of approximately 7 metres in height in the road reserve 

directly in line with the proposed garage. These street trees combined with vegetative 

screening located at the front boundary of the property adjacent to the open style front fence 

will act as a screen to the portion of wall to the garage encroaching into the front setback 

area. 

The adjoining landowner's to the east have been consulted regarding the proposed variation 

and not expressed any objection. 

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

with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

will not have an adverse impact on the streetscape. 



28 JUNE 2011 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling submitted by Nicholas 

Duncan at Lot 190 (No. 196) Salvado Road, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 16 June 

2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the roof material not being zincalume or off-white (“Surfmist”) colorbond; 

the landscaping areas to be installed and reticulated prior to the occupation of the 

building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town; and 

the trees located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained. 


During discussion, Members agreed that the paving in the front setback should be reduced 

and further landscape be provided to soften the impact of the garages. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Watson, seconded by Cr Pinerua 

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

(iv) 

the paving in the front setback being reduced and further landscape being provided to 

soften the impact of the garage. Details of the landscaping to be provided at building 

licence stage to the satisfaction of the Town. 






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

Nicholas Duncan at Lot 190 (No. 196) Salvado Road, Floreat as shown on the plans 

dated 16 June 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the roof material not being zincalume or off-white (“Surfmist”) colorbond; 

the landscaping areas to be installed and reticulated prior to the occupation of 

the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town; and 

the trees located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained. 

(iv) the paving in the front setback being reduced and further landscape being 

provided to soften the impact of the garage. Details of the landscaping to be 

provided at building licence stage to the satisfaction of the Town. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.55 LOT 145 (NO. 18) MALONEY WAY, CITY BEACH - BOUNDARY WALL 

EXTENSION AND GAZEBO 


To consider an application for a additions and alterations to an existing dwelling (boundary 

wall extension and new gazebo) requiring assessment under the performance criteria of the 

Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to setbacks. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

Stephen and Mary Tombides 

APPLICANT: 

Hospitality Total Services 

ZONING: Residential R12.5 

USE CLASS: 



DETAILS: 


 

 

 

A 12.0 metre length of the side (northern) boundary wall proposed to be extended in 

height to 2.49 metres 

A 12.62 metre length of the rear (eastern) boundary wall proposed to be extended in 

height to 2.0 metres. 

A gazebo with a skillion roof and a maximum height of 2.6 metres proposed in the 

south-eastern corner of the lot with nil setbacks and a height of 2.0 metres to the side 

and rear boundaries. 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposal: 

The primary purpose of the application is to increase privacy for both the applicant and 

surrounding neighbours by way of extending the height of the existing boundary 

fencing. The existing boundary fencing is currently at a height of 1.65 metres. 

It is proposed to increase its height to 2.49 metres along the side boundary and 3.1 

metres along the rear boundary only along the portion of fencing that is exposed to 

each other and will further allow each party to utilise their private outdoor areas as they 

so choose without feeling that their privacy is being invaded. 

The applicant and the adjoining landowner have agreed to extend the existing brick 

rendered wall in a matching cream colour along the side boundary. The applicant has 

proposed the use of contemporary slats on the rear boundary to ensure there is no 

negative impact on the views and natural light to the rear of the property. 

The applicant is proposing to bear the full cost of the privacy fencing on the north and 

east boundary walls. 

The proposal utilises unused space within the property to create a gazebo structure 

without inhibiting the views of surrounding properties. 



28 JUNE 2011 


Comments were received from owners of No. 10 Maloney Way (to the rear), No. 20 Maloney 

Way (to the north) and No. 14 Maloney Way (to the south) and are summarised below: 

Submission one (No. 10 Maloney Way) - east/rear boundary 

 

 

 

 

We wish to register our strong objection to raise the height of any part of the boundary 

wall as it will further accentuate the bulk of the building. 

The wall on our side is already 3.1 metres in height and only 1.7 metres from our 

building line. The proposed increased wall height will be 4.6 metres tall in total and will 

adversely impact on the amenity of our property, blocking light and views of the sky 

from our master bedroom. Regardless of the material uses, raising the wall height will 

create a claustrophobic feeling with a very tall structure towering over our property at 

extremely close quarters. 

We believe there are other solutions including waiting for the mature trees which we 

have already planted along the boundary to grow taller and which will provide a 'green' 

privacy solution within 12 months. Or the applicant could plant some trees on their 

side of the wall further enhancing the natural screen option. The applicant could also 

consider erecting a partial screen around the new patio area without further reduction 

to the setback from our property. 

We also object to the proposal to construct a gazebo with a nil setback. It will again 

increase the height of the wall in that part or the garden, blocking light in an area we 

are redesigning for greater recreational use. It will further increase the bulk of the 

building at No. 18 Maloney and further infringe on our privacy and property rights by 

being on the boundary of our property. 

Submission two (No. 20 Maloney Way) - north/side boundary 

 

The right/south wall of our property is the subject of the proposed wall extension. We 

support the application to extend the wall from a height of 1.5 metres to a height of 

2.49 metres as proposed. 

Submission three (No. 14 Maloney Way) - south/side boundary 

We do not wish to have a construction higher than the existing boundary wall that has a nil 

setback. Such a building will further limit the aspect from our property. 

Amended plans received 10 June 2011 

As a result of the submissions received and the concerns raised by the adjoining 

landowners, the applicant amended the plan on 10 June 2011 as follows:- 

 

 

The wall height on the north east boundary be reduced from 3.1 metres to 2.0 metres 

and be the same material as the existing fence. 

The wall height where the gazebo is to be located at the south east boundary has 

been reduced from 2.4 metres to 2.0 metres. Further, the roof will be at the 2.0 metre 

height and not become a skillion (higher) roof closer than 1.0 metre to the south and 

eastern boundaries. 



28 JUNE 2011 



Proposed 


Side setback Nil 1.0 metre 



to: 





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

properties is not restricted. 

It is now proposed to increase the height of the screen fence along the rear boundary to a 

maximum of 2.0 metres in height. Due to the difference in levels between the subject 

property and the property to the rear, the screen fence will read as approximately 3.45 

metres in height (currently 3.1 metres in height). The 2.0 metres now proposed is only 

marginally higher than the height of standard dividing fence and is considered appropriate to 

provide a level of screening to the property without any significant adverse effect on the 

amenity of the adjoining property. There is no objection to the additional height to the fence 

on the north side boundary and, as it is on the south side of the adjoining landowner, there 

are no issues with regard to access to direct sun. 

In terms of the proposed gazebo, on the amended plans it now has a maximum height of 2.0 

metres where it abuts the south and eastern boundary walls. The raised skillion is set back 

1.0 metre from both boundaries and rises to a maximum height of 2.6 metres. This reduces 

its bulk and potential to overshadow adjoining properties. 

Overall, it is considered that the setback from the rear and southern boundaries for both the 

screen fence and gazebo meet the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

 

enhances privacy; 

do not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining properties; 

and 

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

of adjoining properties is not restricted. 









28 JUNE 2011 







Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



Council APPROVES the application for the boundary wall extension and new gazebo 

submitted by Hospitality Total Services at Lot 145 (No. 18) Maloney Way, City Beach as 

shown on the amended plans dated 10 June 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

the proposed additions to the screen wall to the side (northern) and rear (eastern) 

boundaries being finished with brick and render to match the existing walls. 


During discussion, Members agreed that, in response to the concerns raised by the 

neighbour to the south, the height of the existing southern boundary wall not be increased. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Watson, seconded by Cr Pinerua 


(ii) 

the height of the existing southern boundary wall not to be increased. 






1, Council APPROVES the application for the boundary wall extension and new 

gazebo submitted by Hospitality Total Services at Lot 145 (No. 18) Maloney Way, City 

Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 10 June 2011 subject to the following 

conditions:- 



28 JUNE 2011 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed additions to the screen wall to the side (northern) and rear 

(eastern) boundaries being finished with brick and render to match the existing 

walls; 

the height of the existing southern boundary wall not to be increased. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.56 DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY - FEES AND CHARGES 2011-2012 


To adopt fees for the regulatory and administration function of the Council in Development 

and Sustainability Services. 

BACKGROUND: 

Each financial year, the Council must review and establish the fees and charges to be 

levied. The most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget, 

so that the new fees and charges can be reflected in the budget. 

DETAILS: 

This report addresses the fees and charges levied for the administrative and regulatory 

functions in Development and Sustainability. A copy of proposed schedule of fees and 

charges for the financial period 2011-2012 is attached. 

Many of these fees and charges are statutory charges set under other legislation such as 

Town Planning and Development Act, Health Act, Food Act or subsidiary legislation such as 

the Building Regulations. Statutory charges cannot be increased by the Council but are 

included in this report and fee schedule, so that an overall perspective of the fees and 

charges levied can be obtained. 

A review of all fees and charges has been undertaken for the following sections:- 

1. Planning Services, 

2. Building Services, 

3. Environmental Health Services, 

4. Ranger Services, 

5. Planning, Building, Environmental Health and Ranger Information Charges. 

1. Planning Services 

Planning fees for development applications and other planning services are statutory 

charges that are subject to periodic review and increase. 

Local Government Planning Charges 

Planning fees for development applications and other planning services are set by the 

Planning and Development Regulations 2009 made under the Planning and Development 

Act. The Department of Planning reviews these fees and charges annually and increases 

are made in line with general cost escalation. 

Council, at its meeting held on 22 June 2010 (Item DV10.55), adopted the fees and charges 

for the 2010/11 financial year. 

In April 2011, the WAPC advised of amendments to the fees for local government planning 

services. The amended fees prescribed in the Planning and Development Regulations 2009 

have been increased by the Consumer Price Index rate of 3.0 per cent and will be effective 

from 1 July 2011. The amended fees for 2011/12 are outlined in the attached schedule. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Development Assessment Panel (DAP) Fees 

A separate DAP fee is required to be paid under the Planning and Development 

(Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011 (DAP Regulations). The amended fee 

schedule for 2011/12 includes the current DAP fees, which are required to be remitted to the 

Department of Planning. 

Local governments will be reimbursed $50 (plus GST) for each DAP application it receives to 

cover transaction costs in remitting the DAP application fee to the DAP Secretariat. 

In addition to the abovementioned DAP fee, the Planning and Development Regulations 

2009 were amended to allow for local governments to charge a fee for planning services in 

respect of a DAP application. The standard development application fee based on the 

estimated cost of development (see attached schedule) would be applicable. 

Therefore, in the case of a DAP application, two fees are payable. 

2. Building Services 

All fees relating to building applications carried out by Building Services are statutory 

charges specified in Regulation 24 of the Building Regulations 1989. These fees are based 

on a percentage of the building contract value. No changes are proposed this year. 

The Builders Registration Board (BRB) have advised that the BRB licence fee has increased 

from $40.50 to $41.50 as from 1 July 2011, pursuant to section 4B (1) of the Builders 

Registration Act 1939. 

Local Law and Administration fees have been reviewed and two changes are proposed. 

Swimming Pool Inspection Fee 

The next four yearly round of Private Swimming Pool Inspections are due to be undertaken 

and will commence in the 2011-2012 financial year. There are approximately 2950 

properties within the Town that have either swimming pools or spas. Cost estimates were 

sought from the relevant agency to form the basis of a cost neutral budget for this program. 

It recommended that a swimming pool inspection fee of $47.50 (excl GST), be levied for 

each property with a private swimming pool or spa. 

Permit to Deposit Materials on Verge 

The current fee for a permit to deposit and store construction material on the verge adjacent 

to a construction site is $50 per month, regardless of the area of the verge being utilised. 

The permit provides builders with a convenient and sometimes large significant storage 

facility during the construction period at a very cheap rate. 

It has been the Administration's experience that a significant administration resources are 

required to dealing with the numerous complaints received about sub-standard or dangerous 

construction site verges. It has become clear that numerous builders have abused this 

permit process and have used residential verges to their maximum extent with little 

management of the materials stored on the verges, nor observation of permit conditions, 

resulting in risks to the community, material spillage on streets and poor visual amenity. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that the Verge Permit fee be increased to $5 per square 

metre per month, with a permit being limited to no more than 70 square metres of verge. 



28 JUNE 2011 

3. Environmental Health Services 

Some Environmental Health Services fees are statutory and are subject to annual CPI 

changes. 

No changes are considered necessary to the Food Act fees adopted by the Council in 

November 2009 and April 2010. 

Local Law and Administration fees have been reviewed and no changes are proposed. 

4. Ranger Services 

Statutory fees levied by the Fines Enforcement Registry and the Department of Transport 

are normally increased prior to the end of the financial year. 

The parking fees have been reviewed and one new fee is recommended. Other Local Law 

and Administration fees have been reviewed and no changes are proposed. 

Local Business Parking Permit Fee (West Leederville Town Hall Car park L20) 

The Administration had been trialling the issue of a limited number of parking permits to local 

businesses at a discounted rate to enable their employees to park their cars at car park L20, 

West Leederville Town Hall. The trial was limited to 25 permits until the end of June 2011. 

The system offered parking permits at a discounted rate of $5 per vehicle/day (normally $8 

per day) provided that a minimum of 4 permits were pre-purchased for a minimum of three 

months. The permits are valid from 8am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays; and includes parking 

on Saturdays to midday, as a bonus. 

The trial has been quite successful with 26 permits having been issued to date. Initially, 4 

permits were issued in November, followed by a further 14 permits in January 2011, and 9 in 

April 2011. To-date, this trail has generated $12,485 for pre-paid parking, income that is 

unlikely to have been realised if not for this trial. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that a new parking permit system and fee be adopted, 

namely "Local Business Parking Permits" for use at the West Leederville Town Hall car park 

L20. The permit rate is recommended at $5 per vehicle per day provided that a minimum of 

4 parking permits are pre-purchased by a local business for a minimum period of three 

months. 

5. Planning, Building, Environmental Health and Rangers Services Information 

Charges. 

The schedule of administrative charges for information services have been have been 

reviewed and no changes are proposed. 


Sections 6.16 and 6.17 of the Local Government Act 1995 apply; there are no policy 

implications related to this report. 


There are financial implications related to this report in terms of proposed income generated 

for Development and Sustainability Services. 



28 JUNE 2011 


The proposed fees are consistent wit the Town's Strategic Plan which requires the review of 

servicing delivery methods by assessing the costs and benefits of service delivery 

(Economic Management). 


This matter has been considered under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as 

'Inform'. Fees and charges are determined and amended by the Council in accordance with 

the Local Government Act and the budget will be advertised for public comment prior to 

adoption. All Fee and Charge Schedules are available to the public and are published on 

the Town's web site, once adopted. 

SUMMARY: 

In accordance with sections 6.16 and 6.17 of the Local Government Act 1995, it is 

recommended that the attached Schedule of Fees and Charges for Development and 

Sustainability Services be adopted. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Development and Sustainability Services Schedule of Fees and Charges, 2011- 2012. 




That:- 

(i) 

the Private Swimming Pool Inspection Fee be $47.50 per property (excl GST); 

(ii) the fee for a "Permit to Deposit or Store Materials on Verge" be increased to $5 

per square metre per month, with a permit being limited to no more than 70 

square metres of verge; 

(iii) 

(iv) 

the fee for "Local Business Parking Permits" at the West Leederville Town Hall 

car park L20, be $5 per vehicle per day provided that a minimum of 4 parking 

permits are pre-purchased for a minimum period of three months; 

the Development and Sustainability Services Schedule of Fees and Charges for 

the 2011- 2012 financial year, as detailed in the attached schedule, be adopted 

with effect from 1 July 2011. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.57 AUTHORISATION OF OFFICER - CASUAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 

OFFICER 


To authorise the recently employed casual Environmental Health Officer under various 

statutes. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town of Cambridge is responsible for the enforcement of various Acts, Regulations and 

Local Laws. These include Health, Food, Local Government, Environmental Protection and 

subsidiary legislation. 

It is essential that Officers employed by the Town be authorised to enable them to perform 

their duties. Authorisations in terms of other Acts provides the Administration with the 

flexibility of using multi-skilled Officers capable to deal with various enforcement matters 

when they arise. 

DETAILS: 

Mrs Camille Gibson has been employed as a part-time casual Environmental Health Officer. 

The main objective of this position is to undertake a public buildings inspection program. 

The initial part of this program is anticipated to take about 20 working days; with follow-up 

inspections taking place in two batches of two monthly intervals thereafter. She will also 

assist by undertaking food business assessments; and investigation of noise complaints. 

In accordance with the requirements of Section 28 of the Health Act, the Executive Director, 

Public Health has approved the appointment of Mrs Gibson as an Environmental Health 

Officer of the Town. 


Authorisations in terms of various regulations and the Town’s local laws permit Officers to 

take enforcement action and issue infringement notices, as well as process various 

applications for approval. 


There are no financial implications related to this report, as the costs will be managed within 

the budget. 


Authorisation of Officers satisfies the Strategic Direction of capable and committed staff and 

services that meet resident and ratepayer needs by improving delivery and quality of 

services. 



28 JUNE 2011 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as “Not required” 

as the matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

Mrs Camille Gibson, whilst employed by the Town, be appointed and authorised 

as an Environmental Health Officer from 7 June 2011; 

Mrs Camille Gibson, whilst employed by the Town, be an authorised officer, 

from 7 June 2011, in terms of the following legislation:- 

(a) Health Act 1911 and all subsidiary legislation; 

(b) Environmental Protection Act 1986 and all subsidiary legislation; 

(c) for the purposes Section 122(1)(b) of the Food Act 2008; 

(d) be designated as 'Designated Officers' under provisions of Section 126(13) 

of the Food Act 2008 for the express purpose of issuing Infringement 

Notices; 

(e) Local Government Act 1995, Sections 9.10, 9.15 and 9.16 for the purposes 

of enforcing any provisions of the Act and all Local Laws made under the 

Act, the issue of Notices and the issue of Infringement Notices; 

(f) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960, Section 420 for the 

purpose of entering and inspecting land and buildings; and 

(g) all of the Town of Cambridge Local Laws. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.58 

CITY TO SURF 2011 - TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURES, TRAFFIC 

MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND TEMPORARY PARKING 

RESTRICTIONS 


To approve temporary road closures, approve temporary traffic management arrangements, 

approve temporary parking restrictions and approve the temporary closure of the beach car 

parks so as to facilitate public and traffic safety for the duration of City to Surf 2011. 

To adopt parking restrictions on The Boulevard median strip between Templetonia Avenue 

and West Coast Highway 

BACKGROUND: 

The City to Surf 2011 event will include a half marathon, a 12 kilometre run, a 12 kilometre 

walk, a 11 kilometre wheelchair course, a 4 kilometre walk/run plus a full 42.2 kilometre 

marathon. 

There were 38700 registrations for the 2010 City to Surf, with 32,200 persons actually 

crossing the finish line. There is an average reduction of 10% every year between the 

numbers of registrations compared to the actual number of event participants. Event 

management estimate that 40,000 registrations will be received for the 2011 event and 

anticipate 36,000 entrants will cross the finishing line. 

In order to manage the expected increase in participants; to manage traffic; to ensure that 

event participants and the general public do not park their vehicles on verges, block 

driveways or cause a build up of traffic in the vicinity of City Beach Oval; it is necessary to 

approve the temporary closure of numerous roads with the Town. 

In addition, the temporary closure of beach car parks and the establishment of temporary 

parking restrictions are required for 2011 City to Surf Event. Management have not 

arranged for any designated temporary parking facilities close to City Beach oval for the 

2011 event. 

DETAILS: 

For the 2011 City to Surf event, Corporate Sports Australia again propose that no parking be 

provided or made available close to City Beach Oval. Instead, they are encouraging all 

participants to use public transport and they have arranged for the provision for a significant 

number of busses to convey participants from City Beach oval to the City, where adequate 

vehicle parking is available. As in previous years, free public transportation is included with 

every entry. 

The temporary closure of numerous roads within the Town is required in order to manage 

and ensure public safety during the event; to prevent conflict between event participants and 

vehicles; and to minimize illegal parking in residential streets. 

In order to manage the expected increase in traffic, minimise traffic congestion in City Beach 

and to encourage event participants and the public not to park their vehicles on nearby 

streets and property verges, temporary road closures and temporary parking restrictions are 



28 JUNE 2011 

required to prevent the public from parking in streets and verges close to City Beach Oval 

and McLean Park. 

As approved for the 2010 event, it is again proposed that the beach car parks off Challenger 

Parade be closed to the public until 1.30 pm. 

Road Closures 

As in past years, temporary road closures are required along the route of the event within 

the Town of Cambridge (Hay Street, Underwood Avenue, Rochdale Road, Perry Lakes Drive 

and Oceanic Drive) for up to 6.5 hours, commencing from 7:00am on 28 August 2011. The 

schedule of the temporary road closures within the Town is attached. 

Due to construction works in and around the Perry Lakes Stadium site, the start of the 4km 

walk has been re-located to McLean Park. Therefore, additional short term road closures 

will be required in The Boulevard, Ulster Road, Howtree Place, and Chandler Avenue West 

to accommodate this particular part of the event. Residents will be able to access the area 

from Thurles Avenue. 

The Main Roads Department has agreed to the temporary closure of the section of West 

Coast Highway between Challenger Parade North and Challenger Parade South between 

the hours of 2:00 am and 1.30pm on 28 August 2011. 

To facilitate and manage the temporary closure of West Coast Highway, traffic management 

arrangements will be implemented at:- 

 

 

the intersection of West Coast Highway and Challenger Parade North, so as to direct 

traffic southwards along Challenger Parade; 

the intersection of West Coast Highway and Challenger Parade South to direct traffic 

northwards along Challenger Parade. 

As a result, Challenger Parade will become the only north-south corridor for heavy vehicles 

and local traffic. 

Signs on the northern section of West Coast Highway will encourage motorists to detour via 

Hale Road or The Boulevard. Signs on the southern section of West Coast Highway will 

encourage motorists to detour via Alfred Road, Mount Claremont. 

As a result of the temporary closure of West Coast Highway, and so as to manage vehicle 

movements off or into Challenger Parade, temporary road closures of Bodmin Avenue, 

Falmouth Avenue, Jubilee Court, Launceston Avenue and Boscombe Avenue (that abut the 

southern section of Challenger Parade) will be required to minimise congestion of the flow of 

traffic along Challenger Parade. 

The temporary closure of the unnamed access road north of the Floreat Surf Life Saving 

Club to West Coast Highway will also be required to prevent parking and vehicle congestion 

in that area. 

Temporary closure of beach car parks 

In 2008, the beach car parks were open for use during City to Surf. This resulted in severe 

congestion of Challenger Parade and a period of total gridlock at the conclusion of the event. 

The ineffective closure of the beach car parks during the 2009 and 2010 events resulted in 

hundreds of vehicles being parked in these car parks, again resulting in significant 

congestion and lengthy delays in traffic movement along Changer Parade. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Accordingly, it is proposed that the beach car parks off Challenger Parade be closed from 

5:00pm Saturday 27 August to 1.30pm Sunday 28 August 2011 using water-filled barriers, in 

order to prevent traffic congestion on Challenger Parade, particularly at the conclusion of the 

event. 

The event managers have proposed that the car park to the north of City Beach SLS Club be 

used to accommodate bus parking for corporate and school groups; and that those vehicles 

will not be allowed to exit the car park until 1:00pm. The car park off Fred Burton Way was 

used for this purpose last year, but proved to be unsuccessful and ultimately contributed to 

the congestion on Challenger Parade. As an alternative, the car park immediately south of 

Floreat SLS Club could be used for this purpose, without causing any traffic management or 

congestion issues 

Recommend that controlled access to City Beach Surf Life Saving Club and Clancy's Fish 

Pub will be provided by means of partial closures and a traffic directions officer (supplied by 

the event organiser) during the restricted period to direct vehicles and limit access to bona 

fide personnel or restaurant patrons only. 

Wembley Golf Course and Bold Park Pool Access 

The Event managers have liaised with the Administration regarding partially restricted 

access to the Wembley Golf Course and the Bold Park Pool. A plan to notify and 

communicate the message about controlled access to the golf complex and the swimming 

pool between 7:00am to 1:00pm on 28 August 2011 was discussed. 

Patrons will be informed of traffic management arrangements and partial restrictions that will 

be in place around the area of the Golf Course and the Bold Park Pool. Information 

pamphlets indicating alternative routes will be made available at the Pool and the Golf 

Course for patrons. The cost associated with this will be the responsibility of the event 

organiser. 

Bus Parking 

All public transport buses will be parked on West Coast Highway between Marapana Road 

and The Boulevard. The buses with enter the area via The Boulevard controlled closure 

west of Empire Avenue. Buses will egress the area from Marapana Road to the City. All 

participants in the event will have free access on all public transport on the day. 

Parking Restrictions 

(a) 

No Stopping Restrictions on The Boulevard Median 

The median strip located on The Boulevard has no signed restrictions but, under the Road 

Traffic Code 2000 Section 165, a driver is not permitted to stop in this area. During previous 

City to Surf events, many motorists, unaware of this regulation, used the median for parking 

causing safety problems and congestion for other motorists and public transport. 

It is recommended that signage indicating permanent “No Stopping, Road or Median” be 

installed in the median strip of The Boulevard, between Templetonia Avenue and West 

Coast Highway. This will create a consistent parking restriction plan and remove any 

ambiguity for motorists. It will also allow for enforcement of the restrictions. 



28 JUNE 2011 

(b) 

Temporary Parking Restrictions 

Temporary parking restrictions are again recommended in Kingsland Avenue, Marapana 

Road, Windarra Drive, Hesperia Avenue, Taworri Way and Yaringa Way in order to prevent 

verge parking in these streets on 27 and 28 August 2011. 

The imposition of "No Parking - Road or Verge" and "No Stopping - Road or Verge" will 

enable the erection of signs and the issue of infringements. 

Adoption of the temporary parking restrictions will control unauthorised verge and street 

parking in the local streets to the east of City Beach Oval and will provide the Rangers with 

authority to issue infringements where required. 

Access for Jolimont Residents, Halesworth Road 

Residents of the affected section of Jolimont will be able to exit the area onto Jersey Street 

via the park and laneway located at the end of Lansdowne Street; this will ensure that 

vehicles are diverted away from the Hay Street road closures. 

McLean Park 

All the parking bays at Floreat Forum Shopping Centre have again been made available to 

facilitate car parking for some of the estimated 10,000 participants. No overflow parking will 

be made available at Alderbury Reserve. 

The 4km walk/run will now start at 8:00am and should be concluded by 9:00am, resulting in 

minimal impact on the surrounding residents and limiting the number and operating period of 

road closures required. 


The proposed temporary parking restrictions require Council's approval in terms of 4.1 of the 

Town's Parking Local Law. 

Signs will be erected in the vicinity of the significant road closures to inform motorists of the 

proposed temporary closure for 2011 City to Surf. The event managers will be circulating 

letters/information sheets to affected residents to advise of temporary road closures and 

relevant event information 


Traffic management and the temporary closure of the roads used during the event have 

been arranged between the event organiser, Main Roads and the various Local 

Governments involved with the event. 

Traffic management arrangements for the temporary road closures within the Town have 

been estimated to cost in excess of $20,000 and will be funded as in-kind sponsorship 

through the Recreation and Culture Budget item - City to Surf. Any over-budget expenditure 

will be recouped from the event organisers, Corporate Sports Australia. 

As in previous years, the Town's Rangers will be undertaking local enforcement and general 

surveillance activities throughout the event, with the costs being borne as part of the Town's 

in-kind sponsorship, in accordance with the event Service Agreement. 



28 JUNE 2011 

However, additional resources in the form of casual Rangers will be required to assist the 

Town's Rangers in the management and local law enforcement of this event. Corporate 

Sports Australia has agreed to pay for six casual Rangers to assist the Town's Rangers in 

traffic and local law enforcement duties during the event. In total, the Town's in-kind 

financial support of this event, including the use of City Beach Oval is estimated to be in 

excess of $30,000. 


Approval of the temporary road closures, temporary traffic management arrangements, 

temporary parking restrictions and partial closure of the beach car parks for City to Surf 2011 

meets the Council's Strategic Plan objectives of:- 

 

 

 

Balancing the diverse interests for the good of the whole community, 

Encouraging and supporting community group activities, 

Ensuring compliance with legislation and the enforcement of regulatory requirements. 

The strategic direction pertaining to the proposed amended parking restrictions supports one 

of the outcome area objectives of the Town’s 2009 -2020 Strategic Plan, namely:- 

 

 

 

Services that meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and visitors; 

develop a parking strategy aligned to land use 

Ensuring compliance with legislation and the enforcement of regulatory requirements. 


Community consultation will be conducted by Corporate Sports Australia (the event 

organisers) via three letter/information sheet deliveries using a contracted delivery agency. 

Signs will also be erected along West Coast Highway, Oceanic Drive, and Challenger 

Parade indicating the times of road closures and detours. 

In addition to the above, the Administration will inform Clancy's Fish Pub, the City Beach and 

the Floreat Surf Life Saving Clubs as well as Surf Life Saving WA of the temporary road 

closures and the arrangements made to enable access to their respective premises. 

No formal community consultation is required in relation to the proposed parking restrictions 

on The Boulevard as they merely reinforce existing statutory requirements. 

Patrons of the Bold Park Pool and the Wembley Golf Course will be notified 8 weeks prior to 

the event by the event organizer using pamphlets informing patrons of the proposed road 

closures and alternative routes to these facilities. 

SUMMARY: 

This report seeks the requisite Council authorisations to put in place the measures 

necessary to manage traffic, parking and crowds for the City to Surf event. This is a major 

event on the state's event calendar and the Town's contribution is vital to its ongoing 

success. 



28 JUNE 2011 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. City to Surf 2011 - Schedule of Temporary Road Closures. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the roads listed in the attachment (City to Surf, 28 August 2011 - Schedule of 

Temporary Road Closures) be temporarily closed at their respective 

intersections at the times detailed in that schedule on Sunday 28 August 2011; 

the event organisers be required to make provision for patrons of the Clancys 

Fish Pub, members of the City of Perth and Floreat Surf Life Saving Clubs and 

the Beach Inspector to have controlled access to their respective premises or 

the beach for the duration of the event; 

(iii) the unnamed access road north of the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club to the car 

park adjacent to Beach Access Track number 12 be temporarily closed from 7:00 

am to 1:00 pm on Sunday 28 August 2011; 

(iv) "No Parking, Road or Verge" restrictions be implemented and signs erected in, 

Windarra Drive, Taworri Way and Yaringa Way from 8:00 am on Saturday 27 

August 2011 to 2:00 pm on Sunday 28 August 2011; 

(v) 

permanent “No Stopping, Road or Median” parking signs be placed on the north 

and south side of the median strip of The Boulevard between West Coast 

Highway and Templetonia Avenue City Beach. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.59 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR MAY 2011 


To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the 

Council of other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters. 

DETAILS: 

The following items (for the month of May 2011) have been dealt with under delegated 

authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects 

with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 Talgarth Way, City Beach - Two storey dwelling 

7 Frinton Avenue, City Beach - Second storey addition and alterations to existing 

dwelling 

114 Drabble Road, City Beach - Patio 

10 Lowanna Way, City Beach - Two storey dwelling with undercroft garage 

11 Dundalk Road, Floreat - Two storey dwelling 

10 Hornsey Road, Floreat - Front fence 

30 Clanmel Road, Floreat - Front fence 

63 Donegal Road, Floreat - Carport alterations 

9 Callan Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

7 Tralee Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

16 Evandale Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

13 Peebles Road, Floreat - Two storey dwelling 

210A Selby street, Wembley - Single storey dwelling 

54 Keane Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

46A Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

75 Holland Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

53 Harborne Street, Wembley - Front fence 

38 Gregory Street, Wembley - Front fence 

19 Keane Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

2/184 Harborne Street, Wembley - Change of use from office to shop 

350 Cambridge Street, Wembley (Cambridge Forum) - Change of use from fitness 

centre to office 

87 Alexander Street, Wembley - Garage 

289 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Carport 

57 McKenzie Stret, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

333-337 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Firewall addition to service station 

93 Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Double carport 

101 Lake Monger Drive, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

166 Tower Street, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling 

70 Blencowe Street, West Leederville - Front fence 

12 Ruislip Street, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

68 St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing 

dwelling 

The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a 

recommendation for approval:- 



28 JUNE 2011 

 

96A Salvado Road, Wembley - Proposed subdivision/amalgamation 

The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s 

information:- 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - received 

No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against 

decisions of the Council during May 2011. 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined 

No applications for review were determined during May 2011. 

Compliance: 

1. A Parking Prosecution came before the Perth Magistrates Court on the 13 May 2011. 

On the day the Accused, Ms Heather Wilkinson did not attend Court but provided an 

endorsed plea of 'guilty' to the Court, along with a letter maintaining her assertion that 

the Town of Cambridge was constitutionally invalid. The Court accepted the accused 

correspondence as an endorsed plea of 'guilty' and the accused was convicted on that 

basis. 

The Court imposed the penalty of $200 and ordered the Accused to pay the Town's 

costs in the amount of $428.45. 

2. A Parking Prosecution came before the Perth Magistrates Court on the 23 May 2011. 

On that day the Accused, Mr Mohammad Sabriye, did not attend Court. Magistrate 

Woods elected to stand the matter down until after 11.00am, at which time, the 

Accused was convicted in his absence pursuant to section 55 of the Criminal Code Act 

2004. 

The Court imposed a penalty of $200.00 and ordered the Accused to pay the Town's costs 

in the amount of $800.00. 




That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated 

authority for the period ending 31 May 2011 be received. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

DV11.60 

BUILDING LICENCES APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 


To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building licences approved under 

delegated authority in May 2011. 

BACKGROUND: 

Listed below are the total numbers of licences issued in the month of May 2011 and the 

comparative figures of the number of licences issued for the same month of the previous 

year. Financial Year to Date figures have also been listed to provide an indication of building 

activity. 

May 2011 May 2010 Financial Year 

to Date 

2010/2011 

Financial Year 

to Date 

2009/2010 

Building Licences 68 64 642 554 

Provisional Building 0 0 0 0 

Licences 

Demolition Licences 11 9 90 94 

Building Approval 

1 1 17 5 

Certificates 

(Acknowledgement 

of Unauthorised 

Structure) 

Special Licences 0 0 3 0 

Total 80 74 752 653 

Value of 

Construction 

$18,398,139 $14,022,392 $135,903,352 $122,294,161 

Note: The total value of construction for May 2011 period was influenced by the approval for 

the Multi Storey Mixed Use Building situated at 48-50 Oxford Close, West Leederville. 




That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Licences approved under delegated 

authority for the month of May 2011, as attached to and forming part of the notice 

paper, be received. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

The report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on 20 June 2011 was 

submitted as under:- 

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING 

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources 

Committee open at 6.03 pm. 

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Present : Time of Time of 

Entering Leaving 

Members: 

Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.03 pm 10.00 pm 

Mayor Simon Withers 6.03 pm 10.00 pm 

Cr Rod Bradley 6.03 pm 10.00 pm 

Cr Tracey King 6.03 pm 10.00 pm 

Cr Otto Pelczar 6.03 pm 10.00 pm 

Cr Hilary Pinerua (Deputy) 

Observers: 

Cr Corinne MacRae 

Cr Julie Watson 

Officers: 

Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic 

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works 

Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks 

Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance 

Jean McGready, Manager Community Development 

Neil Costello, Manager Governance 


Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

10.00 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Leave of Absence - Cr Sonia Grinceri 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\JUNE 2011\C CR.DOCX 73


28 JUNE 2011 


Mr Bill Marchbank, 16 Smith Street, Claremont 

Re: Item CR11.59 - Waste Collection and/or Processing Services - Tender T02-11 

Question 1 

Are the figures relating to collection charges inclusive or exclusive of GST 

Response 

Exclusive of GST. 

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Deptutations 

Item CR11.55 

Item CR11.57 

Deidre Martino 

Gillian Catlow 

John Cardell-Oliver 

Clive Miller 

Donna Miller 

David Ross 

Barbara Pederson 

Margaret Smith 

Marita Somerford, Perth Netball Association 

Tim Cooper, Wembley Athletic Club 

Les Day, Principal of Wembley Primary School 

Petition 

A petition containing 33 signatures has been submitted by the users of Wembley 

Community Centre suggesting that all senior citizens who use the centre be provided with 

an identifying card or sticker for their car which would enable the Inspector to easily 

identify any illegal parking. 


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee 

held on 16 May 2011 as contained in the May 2011 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. 

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Item CR11.77 - Financial Interest - Mayor Withers, Crs Langer and Pinerua 

7. REPORTS 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.55 

WEMBLEY SPORTS PARK DEVELOPMENT - MASTER PLAN 


To consider public comments and decide upon the final Wembley Sports Park Masterplan. 

BACKGROUND: 

It is relevant that a context history of this master plan is provided. A summary of the 

background in relation to the development of this precinct is detailed below: 

1. October 2003 - Council endorses the concept of Wembley Athletic Club's submission to 

relocate from Henderson Park and consolidate their facilities at Pat Goodridge Reserve. 

2. October 2005 - Council endorses the briefing of consultants to determine the feasibility of 

consolidating Wembley Athletic Club to Pat Goodridge Reserve. 

3. October 2006 - Council received a Needs Assessment Report for Pat Goodridge Reserve 

conducted by A Balanced View Leisure Consultancy Services (ABV). Public consultation 

was sought by ABV during their study however no responses were received. Consultation 

was undertaken with relevant sporting associations as well as surrounding Councils and 

State government agencies. 

4. January 2008 – Council appoints Arup to undertake a Pat Goodridge Precinct Master 

Plan principally to address traffic, parking and spatial needs as a result of Needs 

Assessment adopted in October 2006 and deferred subject to funding being approved in 

the 2007/2008 Budget. This project included a public workshop attended by 59 people 

held in April 2008, advertised in local press and with letter box drop to surrounding 

residents. 

5. December 2008 – Council adopts the Pat Goodridge Master Plan prepared by Arup. The 

plan provided for the relocation of Wembley Athletic Club to Pat Goodridge Reserve and 

identifies a potential location for the State Netball Centre within the precinct. 

6. September 2009 – Correspondence between the State and Town outlining the broad 

conditions that would need to be agreed prior to agreement for the State Netball Centre 

to be constructed within Wembley Sports Park, notably Town approval to the layout and 

design of the State Netball Centre within the Park. 

7. December 2009 – Christou Design Group were appointed by the Town to undertake 

revised master planning, including consultation and then detail design of facilities and 

park layout including State Netball Centre, Matthews Netball Centre and consolidated 

Football, Baseball and Cricket needs of Wembley Athletic Association. Residents within 

close proximity to Wembley Sports Park were invited to a public workshop held in March 

2010, with 20 people attending. 

8. May 2010 - The Premier announced that $26.1 million would be provided in the State 

budget to build the State Netball Centre at the Matthews Netball Centre (a part of 

Wembley Sports Park). This changed the premise by which construction was to be 

funded and undertaken, especially with regards to Perth Netball Association and 

Matthews Netball Centre works. 

9. December 2010 - Council adopts the indicative Wembley Sports Park Master Plan - 

Option 1, accommodating the State Netball Centre, facilities for the Perth Netball 

Association and the Wembley Athletic Club as the preferred site indicative master plan 

subject to: 



28 JUNE 2011 

(a) further design work to reduce the number of hard courts at the Matthews Netball 

Centre to 34, to reduce the number of courts requiring reconfiguration and to 

reduce the costs of implementation; 

(b) consultation with stakeholders; and 

(c) agreement with the State Government. 

It is relevant to note that relevant Council decisions were partly based on the funding 

assumptions that were in place at that time. Residents in proximity to Wembley Sports 

Park were advised in writing by letterbox delivery of this decision. 

10. February 2011 - Council affirms a series of principles to be adopted relating to matters 

surrounding the State Netball Centre and its operation within Wembley Sports Park, 

issues regarding cost matters for construction activity and issues surrounding the 

adjacent Nursery site and application of State funds from this project to the Wembley 

Sports Park project. The final location of the State Netball Centre within Wembley Sports 

Park had yet to be agreed between the State and Town. 

11. April 2011 – A final draft Master Plan is endorsed for public consultation as a result of 

reaching agreement with the State as to the location of the State Netball Centre and the 

ensuing impacts on Matthews Netball Centre and Perth Netball Association facilities. The 

public consultation commenced soon thereafter comprising local press advertisements, a 

public forum attended by approximately 70 people held on 12 May 2011, direct and 

targeted mail out to key stakeholders, web site progress reports and working directly with 

stakeholders (primarily residents) in face to face and telephone conversations. Formal 

feedback to the Town was required to be in writing and comments were received up to 

the closing date of 10 June 2011. 

In consideration of some issues raised in the stakeholder feedback, the Draft Master Plan has 

been refined to better identify matters and also reflects updated layout of the State Netball 

Centre. This has now become the preferred Master Plan. 

The preferred Master Plan refined from this consultation is shown as Attachment 1. 

DETAILS: 

1. Key Features of the final Master Plan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development of State Netball Centre as a standalone building, proximate to Selby 

Street with an initial build of four indoor courts a possible expansion to six indoor courts 

at a later stage. 

Development of a new Perth Netball Association building within Matthews Netball 

Centre catering for administrative and operational needs of association netball. 

Redevelopment of Matthews Netball Centre to provide 37 external hard courts 

(18 which would be lit) and 11 grass courts. With guaranteed access to two indoor 

courts, this provides Perth Netball Association with 50 courts. 

Location of a central grass oval which would be used for football and baseball. 

Redevelopment of the existing Pat Goodridge ovals to cater for football and baseball as 

well as maintaining two cricket fields. 

Significant improvements to parking and internal traffic flow through better design which 

would reduce congestion on peak days. 

New site access from Selby Street and Salvado Roads. 

Retained access and egress from Selby Street. 

Intent to provide functional dual use (pedestrian and cycle) paths from northern to 

southern boundary. 



28 JUNE 2011 

 

 

 

 

Intent to improve public amenity through creation of suitable playground and access to 

new oval. 

Intent to optimise spend on Town’s building assets by consolidation of Wembley Athletic 

Association needs into one building (redeveloped Pat Goodridge Pavilion). 

Intent to create a sports park serving the regional needs for netball, football, baseball 

and cricket. 

Intent to open up the site to improved public access, particularly from Salvado Road 

which currently has no public access into the park. 

It is relevant to note that, upon approval of this master plan, the State will continue design 

and documentation for the new facilities it is providing for this project, notably the State 

Netball Centre, new Perth Netball Association building, redevelopment of Matthews Netball 

Centre and the first stages of site access, car parking, internal roads and pedestrian 

improvements. These works are predicated upon approval of the master plan. 

The various master plans from 2008 onwards have all retained the key functional issues 

described above. This master plan is simply a refinement of prior works based on 

developments with the State. 

Arup, as part of their 2008 works, undertook a traffic and parking study. Most, if not all, of 

the issues and outcomes identified by Arup have been incorporated in this master plan. The 

State and Town are jointly finalising a revised integrated traffic and parking study which is 

necessary for State Planning approvals for the works. The outcomes of this study will shape 

the detail design of works as they proceed. 

2. Consultation 

Consultation has been a key feature of each stage of the various master plans considered 

and approved by Council. This latest round of consultation in relation to the master plan 

comprised: 

advertisements in the Post newspaper (30 April 2011 and 7 May 2011). 

letterbox delivery to residents in proximity to Wembley Sports Park (generally in an area 

bounded by Hay St, Jersey St, Cambridge St and Birkdale St). 

direct mail to Town's ratepayers associations and Hackett Civic Association. 

direct mail to all relevant sporting clubs. 

direct mail to Nedlands and Subiaco Councils. 

meetings with Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR). 

Town of Cambridge website updates on the project provided on 2 May 2011 and 

20 May 2011. 

Public forum held on 12 May 2011 with Town of Cambridge, Christou Design Group and 

DSR to field questions on the plan. Approximately 70 people were in attendance. 

A summary of the issues raised and Town of Cambridge response were directly mailed 

to each attendee at the public forum who provided their contact details. These are 

shown as Attachment 2. 

3. Feedback received 

The Town has received 44 comments which can be broadly divided into: 

Full support or support with minor comment 36% 

Objections to certain aspects of the Master Plan 45% 

Objection to the entire Master Plan 14% 

Matters raised not concerning content of Master Plan 5% 



28 JUNE 2011 

Notable support came from Wembley Athletic Club, Wembley Baseball Club, Wembley 

Districts Cricket Club and Perth Netball Association (representing 74 clubs or schools with 

547 teams that play at the Matthews Netball Centre). 

The major grouping of addresses where comments received was: 

Halesworth Rd (27%) 

Alderbury St (14%) 

Salvado Rd (16%) 

Other Addresses or Specific Sports Associations (43%) 

61% of respondents were identified as Town of Cambridge residents, 14% were from 

Subiaco, 9% from Nedlands with the balance being sporting clubs or details of residence 

were not supplied. 

4. Summary of Issues 

4.1 Parking and traffic management- raised in 32 comments (73%) 

Issues 

Many comments have been received questioning the capacity of the proposed parking 

arrangements to 'solve' all of the issues regarding peak winter Saturday demand for 

parking. Some comments related to concerns that traffic congestion would be increased 

in local roads such as Alderbury St and Salvado Rd. Some comments reflected the 

increasing demand for parking as noted by a recent major regional netball event held on 

the June long weekend and the lack of proper traffic management in place. 

Comment 

It is important to note that since the Arup study in 2008, the objective has been to 

improve the current traffic low and congestion and that it is unlikely that there will be a 

parking solution that caters for every vehicle within Wembley Sports Park. This is 

consistent with industry practice in car park design, and relies upon other operational 

measures to resolve peak period demand if possible. It is noted that the traffic study 

currently underway will better define the situation and remedy. Measures such as 

residential parking permits can be implemented if deemed necessary. 

The lack of traffic management during the June long weekend is regrettable and this will 

be discussed with Perth Netball Association who are the occupiers of the site but did not 

coordinate this particular event which was a state wide carnival from each association. 

It is the intention of the Master Plan to implement traffic controls such that the current 

access from Alderbury St to and from Selby Street is maintained whilst preventing 

through traffic from entering and leaving Wembley Sports Park into Alderbury St. 

The Master Plan has been developed to reduce congestion in Salvado Road on Perth 

Netball Association competition days by encouraging drop off and pick up within 

Wembley Sports Park. Along with a more convenient connection to Selby Street, this 

should assist in reducing demand on Salvado Road. The Selby Street entrance will be 

the main access point to the site and with the proposed layout will encourage motorists 

to use this entrance without encountering significant delays due to congestion. The 

access point in Salvado Road is a secondary access point. 

Action 

As part of the Western Australian Planning Commission approval for the works, the 

Department of Sport and Recreation and Town of Cambridge are jointly commissioning 



28 JUNE 2011 

an updated integrated traffic and parking study. This is necessary to update the previous 

planning to properly capture the settled location of the State Netball Centre building. It 

is intended that public consultation will be integral to this study. Each respondent who 

raised traffic and parking issues is to be invited to participate in this consultation. 

4.2 Location of State Netball Centre - raised in 6 comments (14%) 

Issue 

Feedback has been received requesting that the State Netball Centre not be located 

within Wembley Sports Park. 

Comment 

Approval, subject to conditions, to locate the State Netball Centre within Wembley 

Sports Park has previously been made by Council and is the nominated location of the 

State Government. Benefits of locating the State Netball Centre at this location will 

include the redevelopment of the Matthews facility as part of the State's project budget 

to provide opportunities for amateur players to utilise indoor courts and establish 

Matthews as the main netball centre in Perth. 

The site of the Matthews Netball Centre is classified as a Regional Park and Recreation 

Reserve under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and it is entirely appropriate to develop 

regional facilities under this zoning at this location. 

4.3 Operation of Matthews Netball Centre - raised in 2 comments (5%) 

Issues 

Some feedback has been received that suggests that Matthews Netball Centre and 

Perth Netball Association would be better to split their operation over Saturdays and 

Sundays to mitigate peak demand. Contrasting feedback has been received to suggest 

that another large Association netball centre be built elsewhere to cater for growth. 

Comment 

Perth Netball Association, as the lessee of Matthews Netball Centre, is supportive of the 

Master Plan. It is understood that the Perth Netball Association are developing 

strategies to cater for long term growth in the sport. The Town is working with Perth 

Netball Association to explore all potential measures to manage competition days that 

may reduce congestion including scheduling of fixtures to reduce the overlap of patrons 

at the site. 

4.4 Location of football and baseball ovals - raised in 19 comments (43%) 

Issue 

Feedback has been received questioning the capacity of Wembley Sports Park to cater 

for football and baseball, especially in peak winter days where football and netball will 

both be in operation. Concerns have been raised that the southern baseball diamond in 

its present location will present hazards to nearby residents from foul balls. 

Comment 

Council has affirmed decisions to locate football and baseball in Wembley Sports Park 

since 2003. Conflicts with Netball will only occur on Saturdays during the netball season 

which operates on 17 Saturdays each year. The main conflict will be when football is 

fixtured and games are not held every week at the home ground. Overflow parking on 

the cricket oval could be implemented to assist with peak demand. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Action 

The detail planning for the baseball diamonds will take into account risks resulting from 

errant foul balls and will identify a suitable set of mitigation measures. 

4.5 Landscaping and Trees - raised in 20 comments (45%) 

Issues 

Concerns have been raised that the Master Plan has identified some existing trees will 

be removed. Comments have been raised that no overt environmentally sustainable 

statements were included in the Master Plan. 

Comment 

The Master Plan identifies that it will be necessary to remove the majority of trees on the 

north eastern boundary of the existing Matthews Netball Centre to facilitate the car 

parking and traffic improvements as well as where future oval and new netball facilities 

will be built. 

It is suggested that with new landscaping to be installed more compatible with the need, 

the park, in total, will become a more attractive and accessible public park. 

Action 

As works progress suitable water management and environmentally sustainable design 

will be investigated and adopted if feasible. 

Due consideration of the nature and scale of landscaping will be included in 

development plans. 

4.6 Anti-Social behaviour - existing car park - raised in 2 comments (5%) 

Issue 

Concerns have been raised that anti-social behaviour occurs in the existing car park and 

that growth of activity will only increase this behaviour. 

Comment 

It is believed that the new car park designs will be such that few opportunities will exist 

to allow 'hoon' behaviour when compared to current layout. It is expected that 

incidences of ant-social behaviour of this type will be reduced. 

4.7 Anti-Social behaviour - sports clubs - raised in 11 comments (25%) 

Issue 

Concerns have been raised that anti-social behaviour occurs in the existing Wembley 

Athletic Club rooms at Henderson Park and that they should not be allowed to move to 

Wembley Sports Park because of this or that they should not be licensed premises. 

Comment 

The Town has received only four written complaints since 2003 regarding Wembley 

Athletic Club's patrons. 

The Town's new leasing policy provides for tenants to be more accountable for their 

patron's behaviour. 

Wembley Athletic Club has affirmed with the Town its intention to ensure it is a good 

neighbour. 



28 JUNE 2011 

4.8 Park Amenities - raised in 11 comments (25%) 

Issue 

Concerns have been raised some car parks are being shown as bitumen when previous 

plans showed them as grass, playground equipment was not shown, dual use footpaths 

appear missing and other issues surrounding the amenity of the area. 

Comment 

These matters have been addressed in the Master Plan for consideration by Council. 

The eastern car park adjacent to Halesworth Road is planned to be reinforced turf. 

Playground equipment can be accommodated within the site and shared paths are 

planned for the ultimate development of the site. 

4.9 Proposed Naming- raised in 10 comments (23%) 

Issue 

Some concern was raised regarding the use of the name Wembley Sports Park and 

need to recognise Pat Goodridge. 

Comment 

This park comprises many activities and needs to recognise the heritage of parts of the 

park. It is proposed to have the site called Wembley Sports Park which incorporates: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Netball Centre 

Matthews Netball Centre 

Wembley Oval (new central oval) 

Pat Goodridge Reserve (existing southern ovals) 

Perth Netball Association building 

Wembley Athletic Club building. 

It is believed that this proposed allocation of names to facilities best recognises the past 

and future needs and will assist in directing users of the site to the relevant facilities. 

4.10 Nursery Site and Henderson Park- raised in 10 comments (23%) 

Issues 

Comments were received concerning the Town's intent for the Nursery site and whether 

or not it should be converted to car parking. Concerns were raised regarding the future 

planning for both the Nursery Site and Henderson Park. 

Comment 

The Town's intent is clear in that the Nursery Site is proposed for future development 

primarily for residential purposes and therefore is not available for car parking. The land 

has significant value to the ratepayers of the Town which needs to be managed in the 

best interests of all residents. The Town has a fiduciary duty to appropriately manage 

the Town's assets including financial assets. 

It is also noted that the Town needs to grow the number of residences within the Town 

boundary in line with the State Government's Directions 2031 and that the development 

of the Nursery Site for residential in preference to other uses is consistent with this 

need. Directions 2031 identifies the Nursery Site as a development site for dwelling and 

population growth. The Nursery Site is not a consideration for the approval of the 

Wembley Sports Park Master Plan. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Henderson Park is currently home to Wembley Athletic Club and Wembley Junior 

Football Club (WJFC) (which is not an affiliate of Wembley Athletic Club). WJFC have 

indicated that their preference is not to relocate to Wembley Sports Park. This can be 

accommodated on the basis that WJFC do not require the existing Giles Pavilion in 

Henderson Park and the Town can demolish the Giles Pavilion as a means of reducing 

ongoing ratepayer costs. Henderson Park is proposed to remain as a Parks and 

Recreation area and is zoned Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region 

Scheme. 

4.11 Stakeholder Consultation Process - raised in 14 comments (30%) 

Issues 

Concerns were raised that Councillors did not attend the public forum on 12 May 2011. 

Councillors have been responding to individuals who have contacted them directly on 

this issue. 

Concerns were also raised that the forum was not conducted to suit some resident and 

precluded open debate on the draft Master Plan. 

Comment 

The operation of the public forum on 12 May was intended to stimulate questions from 

stakeholders such that they could be better informed regarding the Master Plan and to 

assist people in making a submission. Although the meeting was structured on the 

basis of providing information, many attendees expressed their views on the plan. It 

was not intended for feedback from that meeting to be used in the decision making 

process with the formal submission being the appropriate means of providing Elected 

Members with community views. 

5. Subiaco and Nedlands Councils 

Subiaco and Nedlands Councils were invited to participate in the consultation forum as well 

as to provide feedback. Both councils have previously provided formal response to the 2008 

Master Plan consultation relating to: 

Traffic Management and flow (Nedlands) 

Consideration of impacts of works on Mabel Talbot Lakes (Subiaco) 

These have been included in the draft master plan and traffic study works. 

No formal response has been received to the 2011 Draft Master Plan. The Town is seeking 

meetings with each Council to determine if further feedback is forthcoming. 

6. Detail Design 

The detail design phase will address issues raised through this consultation and previous 

consultation. Issues include: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proper consideration and implementation of vegetation management, landscape 

management and groundwater use 

Implement Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles in 

design of the environment 

Location of facilities to take into account the existing main sewer line 

Location of screening, where necessary, for errant baseballs being hit out of the 

baseball fields 

Park and Ride capacity which can be easily catered for in the new main car park 

Traffic and parking 

Playground, shared paths. 



28 JUNE 2011 


Policy 2.1.15 - Community Grant Programs 

Policy 5.5.22 - Parking Restrictions 


Presently, the State and Town are continuing discussions regarding the impacts and costs 

surrounding the decision for the State Netball Centre to be located within Wembley Sports 

Park. These discussions will be subject of a future Council report. 

Christou Design Group, within the scope of their existing engagement, will be finalising cost 

plans for the staged development of works beyond the Matthews Netball Centre / State Netball 

Centre project. This will also be subject of a future Council report. 


The revised master plan for Wembley Sports Park continues to support the overall vision 

contained in the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan. 


Various comments have been received from the community and stakeholders and have been 

commented on in this report. 

SUMMARY: 

This master plan sets out the use of Wembley Sports Park as a major facility serving the needs 

of netball, football, cricket and baseball. 

The draft Master Plan presented in April 2011 has been updated to reflect feedback from the 

consultation process. It is believed that this plan is now suitable as a master plan for the longer 

term development of Wembley Sports Park. It is noted that detail design will give greater 

certainty to parking and access road arrangements coming from the conclusion of the parking 

study underway. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Master Plan for Wembley Sports Park - June 2011 

2. Issues and Responses resultant from public forum 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Wembley Sports Park Master Plan as attached be approved and used as the basis of 

future development within the Wembley Sports Park; 

the following actions be approved: 

(a) 

the traffic and parking study, incorporating stakeholder consultation, be factored 

into detail design of works; 



28 JUNE 2011 

(b) detail planning of the baseball diamonds will be undertaken including risk review 

and mitigation; 

(c) detail planning of new landscaping, water management and environmentally 

sustainable design will be undertaken as works progress; 

(d) design for turf carparks, playgrounds and shared paths be included in the 

appropriate stages of works; 

(iii) 

comments noted and all respondents be advised of the outcome and thanked for their 

feedback and contribution. 


Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Pinerua 

That clause (ii)(c) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

(ii) 


sustainable design will be factored into detail design of works. 


Moved by Cr Bradley 


(ii) (e) an environmental impact assessment be undertaken on the changes proposed in 

the Master Plan. 

Amendment lapsed for want of a seconder 

FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 20 June 2011) 

As a result of an administrative oversight, it has become apparent that a number of public 

submissions made in relation to the Wembley Sports Park Master Plan were not included in the 

analysis presented to the Community and Resources Committee on Monday 20 June 2011 as 

part of the report CR11.55 

Five submissions were received by the Town within the submission period which fell into this 

category, with a further 2 submissions received after the closing date; but have been included 

in this memorandum for completeness. 

The data contained in the report needs to be amended as follows: 

Submissions received: 51 

Supportive: 

Objections to certain aspects of the Master Plan 

Objection to the entire Master Plan 

Matters raised not concerning the Master Plan 

33% (17 submissions) 

47% (24 submissions) 

16% ( 8 submissions) 

4% ( 2 submissions) 

The Summary of Issues section should be amended as follows: 

Parking and traffic management - raised in 37 comments (73%) 

Location of State Netball Centre - raised in 8 comments (16%) 

Operation of Matthews Netball Centre - raised in 4 comments (8%) 



28 JUNE 2011 

Location of football and baseball ovals - raised in 22 comments (43%) 

Landscaping and Trees - raised in 24 comments (47%) 

Anti-Social behaviour - existing car park - raised in 5 comments (6%) 

Anti-Social behaviour - sports clubs - raised in 12 comments (24%) 

Park Amenities - raised in 12 comments (24%) 

Proposed naming - raised in 11 comments (21%) 

Nursery Site and Henderson Park - raised in 11 comments (21%) 

Stakeholder Consultation process - raised in 15 comments (29%) 

New matters raised that are worth noting are concerns regarding the levels of car parks, 

especially the Selby Street carpark being at the same level as the footpath, comments 

regarding increased budget needs to maintain new oval at Wembley Sports Park and further 

suggestions for how Selby Street should be treated for traffic. Other issues raised in these 

submissions were consistent with the comments in the report. 

Each Elected Member has been furnished a complete set of all submissions received. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr MacRae 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Wembley Sports Park Master Plan as attached be approved and used as the 

basis of future development within the Wembley Sports Park; 

the following actions be approved: 

(a) the traffic and parking study, incorporating stakeholder consultation, be 

factored into detail design of works; 

(b) detail planning of the baseball diamonds will be undertaken including risk 

review and mitigation; 


sustainable design will be factored into detail design of works; 

(d) design for turf carparks, playgrounds and shared paths be included in the 

appropriate stages of works; 

(iii) comments noted and all respondents be advised of the outcome and thanked for 

their feedback and contribution. 

Discussion ensued. Cr Bradley suggested that the item be referred back to Committee for 

further consideration. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That the item relating to the Wembley Sports Park Development - Master Plan be referred 

back to the Community and Resources Committee for further consideration. 

Amendment lost 2/6 

For: 

Against: 





28 JUNE 2011 

During discussion, Cr Langer suggested a number of amendments to the motion which would 

clarify the timing of the development and improvements regarding trees and landscaping. 

Amendment 


That the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

That: 

(i) 

(ii) 



it be noted that the development of Wembley Sports Park may be undertaken in 

stages with detail design required in each stage; 

(iii) the Master Plan be amended as necessary to incorporate changes required as a 

result of the traffic and parking study, including stakeholder consultation; 

(iv) 

the following actions be approved as each stage progresses to detail design: 

(a) 

a tree plan be developed which: 

(1) aims to retain as many trees as possible; and 

(2) requires that at least twice as many trees are planted than are removed; 

(b) detailed planning of facilities, such as the baseball diamonds, include risk 

review and mitigation plans; 

(c) appropriate funding is provided to undertake landscaping commensurate 

with the nature of the park; 

(d) 

(e) 

attention be given to environmentally sustainable design (ESD) principles in 

developing project budgets and where practical, ESD measures implemented; 

design for turf carparks, playground and shared paths be included in the 

appropriate stages of works; and 

(v) 

comments be noted and all respondents be advised of the outcome and thanked 

for their feedback and contribution. 



That: 

(i) 

(ii) 



it be noted that the development of Wembley Sports Park may be undertaken in 

stages with detail design required in each stage; 

(iii) the Master Plan be amended as necessary to incorporate changes required as a 

result of the traffic and parking study, including stakeholder consultation; 



28 JUNE 2011 

(iv) 

the following actions be approved as each stage progresses to detail design: 

(a) 

a tree plan be developed which: 

(1) aims to retain as many trees as possible; and 

(2) requires that at least twice as many trees are planted than are removed; 

(b) detailed planning of facilities, such as the baseball diamonds, include risk 

review and mitigation plans; 

(c) appropriate funding is provided to undertake landscaping commensurate 

with the nature of the park; 

(d) 

(e) 

attention be given to environmentally sustainable design (ESD) principles in 

developing project budgets and where practical, ESD measures implemented; 

design for turf carparks, playground and shared paths be included in the 

appropriate stages of works; and 

(v) 

comments be noted and all respondents be advised of the outcome and thanked 

for their feedback and contribution. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.56 

HOLYROOD PARK PAVILION UPGRADE 


To consider design options for improvements to the existing Holyrood Park Pavilion (ex West 

Leederville Croquet Club Building). 

BACKGROUND: 

This report was previously considered by Council at its meeting held 24 May 2011 (Item 

CR11.41). 

In September 2007, a report relating to a Holyrood Park Improvement Plan was considered by 

Council (Item IN07.62). The decision of Council was to approve the plan (as amended) for 

Plan P658-06-01, and for the implementation program to be used as a guide for implementing 

the improvement works. A copy of Plan P658-06-01 is included as an attachment. 

At this stage, most improvement works have been completed with the exception of Item 1.4:- 

"Assess ex croquet clubhouse for required upgrades so that it can be retained for community 

use". 

In order to progress the pavilion upgrade, an allowance of $124,000 was made in the 2009/10 

Budget and this has been carried forward into the 2010/11 Budget. 

DETAILS: 

When assessing options for pavilion improvements, two concepts have been prepared by 

architects. They are included as attachments:- 

1. Closed pavilion (Dwg A01) 

2. Open pavilion (Dwg A02). 

In preparing the plans, consideration has been given to the physical improvements and asset 

enhancements required based on the age and condition of the existing building. Items 

considered were:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need for re-roofing, replace tiles, new gutters and fascia. 

Paint or render exterior brickwork. 

Toilet requirements including unisex and disabled person facilities. 

External paving improvements around building. 

Security requirements. 

Provision of kitchen equipment for use. 

Furniture requirements. 

Public buildings safety requirements. 

The options have been prepared recognising the various community comments received over 

the last two years and use of the existing facility over the last two years. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Comments on Design Options 

Closed Option (Plan A01) 

This is the preferred option as it requires liaison with Council for use which will prevent any antisocial 

behaviour occurring. The building is to be extended to take in the existing easterly 

verandah space to enhance the space for hire. 

A new unisex toilet has been provisioned for external use by park users. A second toilet is 

available inside the pavilion. 

This design maintains and enhances the available facilities which have been used by the 

community over the last two years. 

Open Option (Plan A02) 

This design creates an open pavilion area for use by any community person/group on a first in 

first use basis. It does allow for public use of the toilet at all times. The kitchen area is 

enhanced and provided with a security roller shutter such that use of these facilities will only be 

possible with a prior booking through community development. Only one unisex toilet is 

provided as it is always available for use. 

Community Development Comments 

Since May 2009, this facility has been available for hire to community groups with fees set 

annually as part of the Budget process. 

The 2010/2011 Fees and Charges for the facility are:- 

$10.50 per hour; 

$41.00 per half day; and 

$77.00 for the full day. 

Generally, the facility is hired out for children's birthday parties on the weekends. There is also 

a new Men's Group meeting which seem to meet regularly at this venue. 

The recorded usage of hire and applicable fees has been:- 

Total Fees 

2009 - 14 occasions varying from 1.5 hours to 6 hours duration $ 498 

2010 - 35 occasions varying from 2 hours to 6 hours duration $1,617 

2011 - 6 occasions varying from1.5 hours to 6 hours duration $ 200 

$2,315 

Hire of the venue has covered starts from 8.00am and the latest event finished 10.00pm. From 

a community safety perspective, the preferred design option would be to go for the Closed 

Option with the recommendation that the external toilet that is open to park users be opened 

and locked each day on a timing mechanism like the accessible toilet at City Beach. This will 

ensure a further deterrent to any antisocial behaviour at night. 

Review of Options 

On the other hand, an enclosed venue that must be hired out limits its use. For the majority of 

time over the course of a year, it would be closed. An open facility offers casual use at all 

times, integral with use of the park in general and would be less visually intrusive on the 'open' 

park. 



28 JUNE 2011 

An argument can be considered for the open option as follows:- 

1. Open facilities will be accessible to the public without booking or paying a hire fee. 

2. Kitchen would be made available for hire by booking and paying a fee for children's 

parties etc. 

3. Provides shelter for park users. 

4. Internal toilets with one less toilet to maintain. 

5. Consistent with casual nature of park environment and no longer an exclusive use facility. 


 

 

Where works are to exceed $100,000 (ex GST) the Local Government Act 1995 requires 

public tenders to be invited. 

Council has various policies for use and rental of facilities. 


A cost assessment of the two options has been completed and quotations obtained as follows:- 

1. Closed Pavilion $115,000 ex GST 

2. Open Pavilion $ 95,000 ex GST 

The adopted Budget has an allowance of $124,000 ex GST. This would allow the project to 

proceed as allowances for furniture, contingencies and architecture fees need to be provided. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas which cover this proposal:- 

 

 

A wide range of quality, accessible recreation facilities. 

Community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained. 


This proposal has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11 

as "Inform". This assessment was reached recognising that a community survey was 

completed when developing the Holyrood Park Improvement Plan in September 2007. Since 

then the pavilion has had controlled use from a booking system managed by Council's 

community development staff. The next stage of consultation would be "Consult" and this is 

considered to have already been completed. If uncertain about the closed or open option, 

Council may wish to consult further in relation to the use of this facility. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan P658-06-01 Holyrood Park Improvement Plan. 

2. Plan A01 - Closed Pavilion Design Option. 

3. Plan A02 - Open Pavilion Design Option. 



28 JUNE 2011 

FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 25 May 2011) 

It is difficult to ascertain the potential hire income of the proposed closed redeveloped option of 

the Holyrood Park Pavilion. 

Nevertheless, the past 2 years usage patterns of the current Holyrood Park Pavilion reveal 14 

(from May 2009 - June 2009) to 35 (from July 2010 - May 2011) with minimal advertising, 

market research or promotion being undertaken (word of mouth and Town's website and news 

letters). It is likely that use would continue to increase with a higher standard of facility, 

targeted marketing and promotional strategies introduced and cross-marketing opportunities 

with the Town's other community facilities. Further, additional income would be derived from an 

increase in hire fees from the present charge of $10.50 per hour to $15.50 per hour (similar 

charge at the Wembley Community Centre for 20 people). However, additional hire income 

would not cover capital or maintenance costs of the facility. 

The focus on open versus closed redeveloped Holyrood Park Pavilion should not be solely on 

potential hire income but on how the facility will function and be managed. The open option 

would present more problems than the closed option for a number of reasons, including:- 

1. Potential Conflict 

How does the Town manage the facility when a user books and pays for the kitchen yet people 

from the public can still use other aspects of the facility This can be managed through a 

booking system and exclusive use of the facility for those that booked, similar to sporting clubs 

hiring reserves. 

2. Community Safety 

A number of community safety issues could arise including anti-social behaviour (in close 

proximity to residents), graffiti and a shelter for backpackers and the homeless. If the open 

option is selected, consideration will need to be given on how to manage this issue. 


During discussion, Mayor Withers foreshadowed that should the motion be lost, he intended to 

move that the open option be adopted as the preferred design option. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the closed option (Plan A01) be adopted as the preferred design option; 

the closed option plan be finalised and quotations/tenders be sought. 

Carried 6/2 

For: 

Against: 

Crs Bradley, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar, Pinerua and Watson 

Mayor Withers and Cr King 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.57 

PARKING RESTRICTIONS - WEMBLEY COMMUNITY CENTRE 


To obtain Council approval to implement parking restrictions in the Wembley Community 

Centre carpark No. W103. 

BACKGROUND: 

This report was previously considered by Council at its meeting held 24 May 2011 (Item 

CR11.42). 

The Wembley Community Centre carpark has 44 parking bays to service the requirements of 

visitors and staff. Visitors and staff of the adjacent Wembley Primary School have also 

regularly been utilising these parking facilities for extended periods. This has led to severe 

inconvenience to clients of the various services offered by the Community Centre who are 

forced to seek alternative parking at a great distance from the Centre. 

Written requests have been received by the Town from Community Centre users requesting 

that measures be instituted to resolve the parking problem they are encountering. 

DETAILS: 

The parking issues have been investigated by the Town's Ranger Services who have liaised 

with the Principal of the Wembley Primary School to assist in advising school staff and parents 

of the inconvenience being caused to the Community Centre visitors. This has not proved 

successful and it is anticipated that the problem will be further exacerbated next year when the 

school student numbers will increase by over 10 percent. 

In discussions between the Town's Ranger Services, Community Development Officers and 

Community Centre staff, it was agreed that the implementation of parking restrictions over the 

entire carpark, indicating "3 Hour Parking At All Times", would resolve the current problems for 

clients and visitors to the Community Centre but would not address school parking 

requirements. 


Implementations of parking restrictions as detailed in this report are in conformity with Policy 

No. 5.2.22(i) - 'Implementation of Restrictions'. 

Clause 3.1 of the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law requires that any proposal to 

determine or amend the permitted time or the conditions of parking in a parking station; or the 

permitted class of vehicle which may park in a parking station; or persons who may park in a 

parking station, requires a formal decision by the Council. 


The total cost of the proposed parking restriction signage is estimated at $300. This can be 

accommodated under Budget Item - 'Road Name Signs and Parking Signs'. 



28 JUNE 2011 


The strategic direction pertaining to the proposed parking restrictions supports the outcome 

area objectives of the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020, namely:- 

- services that meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and visitors; 

- develop a parking strategy aligned to land use. 


This matter has been assessed as "Inform" under the Town's Community Consultation Policy 

No. 1.2.11 with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information 

to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions". 

This report has been submitted in response to requests from the Wembley Community Centre 

and written requests from clients of the Centre. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan of Wembley Community Centre carpark. 


There are two issues associated with this matter:- 

Parking requirements for the Wembley Community Centre (WCC) and access requirements for 

the Wembley Primary School. 

The above report deals specifically with the parking requirement for the WCC. 

Wembley Community Centre (WCC) 

Concern has been raised through the centre manager that the WCC on its busiest days, has 

insufficient bays available in their carpark to cater for their needs. This is caused by the use of 

some of the carpark by staff, and sometimes, parents at the Wembley Primary School. These 

busy days are Tuesday, Thursday and Friday throughout the mornings. 

This concern has been verified by a recent petition received from senior citizens attending 

community physiotherapy exercise classes at the centre. The petition asserts that the use of 

the WCC carpark by parents and staff of the Wembley Primary School is excluding them from 

access to the parking spaces. As seniors, they point out that many of their number have 

walking difficulties and require close access to the centre. They have requested that measures 

be taken to limit the use of the carpark to centre users only. They suggest that they could be 

issued with an identification permit for their car which would enable the Town to enforce the 

exclusive use of the carpark by centre patrons. 

In the petition, mention is also made of other senior groups' people with disabilities and senior 

citizens orchestral group who experience the same problem. 

The petition is tabled for consideration by the Committee and Council. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Wembley Primary School 

A letter from the Wembley Primary School, dated 13 June 2011, has been received, requesting 

that Council reconsider the proposal in the above report to limit parking in the WCC carpark to 

centre users. The school seeks access to the bays in the WCC in the carpark adjacent to the 

school oval (16 bays). 

In support of their request, they have provided a range of information relating to school 

enrolment, staff numbers, and resulting access and parking needs. 

The needs of the school in this regard, are varied. There is the need to provide for the staff at 

the school as well as for the students attending school. Within these basic needs, there are 

also varied requirements relating to times of access and period of stay. The following is a 

summary of information provided by the school. 

Enrolments 

From the years 2005-2011, enrolments at the school have steadily grown from 432 students to 

673 students. It is anticipated that there will be a further increase next year to beyond 700 

students. 

The school provides for kindergarten and pre-primary children as well as the normal years 1 to 

7. For the main primary school (years 1 to 7) the school is bound to provide for all children 

within its prescribed catchment. There is some discretion in relation to kindergarten and 

pre-primary, however, the school strives to provide for all children within its catchment. Figures 

provided indicate that the kindergarten pre-primary, which is separated from the main primary 

school by the school oval (and is currently undergoing additions), has enrolments for 184 

children. 

Staff 

Currently, the school employs 33.89 full time equivalent (FTE) staff, teaching staff plus a further 

16.95 (FTE) non teaching staff. Non-teaching staff includes administration, library, educational 

and special needs assistance, gardener and cleaners. Not all of the staff are at the school all 

day and every day. It is indicated that over the week, the number of staff in attendance all day 

ranges from 46-50. 

Staff Parking Provision 

The school has 27 onsite parking bays (whilst not mentioned in the recent letter the school has 

previously advised that they are unable to provide any further onsite parking bays due to the 

fact that they are already below acceptable standards for outdoor space for the children). A 

further three bays will become available on the kindergarten/pre-primary sites when 

renovations are completed around September this year. 

From a survey undertaken by the school for the week of 30 May 2011 - 3 June 2011 it is 

indicated that the majority of the remaining parking needs is taken up by the use of the 

Wembley Community Centre (main carpark ranging from 16 - 21 cars) and one to three cars in 

the smaller centre carpark in Jersey Street). Three staff members generally walk to school and 

one occasionally catches the bus. 

Student (Parent) Access 

A table provided by the school gives an approximation of the numbers accessing the school 

each day. Based on these numbers, up to 290 students arrived at the school by car each 

morning (presumably mostly between 8.30am and 9.30am). The number of cars can be 



28 JUNE 2011 

considered to be less than this as there will be siblings and/or friends sharing a ride in some 

cases. Nevertheless, this is a significant number of cars to accommodate within a relatively 

short period. 

In catering for these vehicles, it needs to be recognised that not all students can be simply 

dropped off (kiss and drive). In the case of kindergarten and pre-primary children, it is required 

that the children be escorted to the classroom. This practice tends to continue for year 1 and 2 

children. In such cases, parents would have to park for generally anywhere between 10 and 30 

minutes. In addition to car trips, it is significant to note the table indicates around 220 students 

walk to school each day and 40 ride their bicycles. In this regard, it is noted that the school is a 

participant in the Town's TravelSmart programme to increase these numbers. 

SUMMARY: 

While sympathising with the needs of the primary school, it is not reasonable that the use of the 

WCC carpark is excluding access by the users of the centre. The situation is also exacerbated 

by the fact that these users are mostly seniors who require close access. As such, it is 

considered that the Town is justified in taking immediate steps to exclude staff (and parents) 

from using the carpark. 

Having received the petition and having had further discussions with the community centre 

manager, it is considered that rather than imposing a time restriction in the carpark (as 

recommended in the above report), the issuing of an identification permit to be placed on the 

vehicles of centre users, is perhaps a more practical means of controlling parking. It would 

then be a simple matter for the rangers to patrol the carpark and identify any cars that do not 

have the necessary authorisation. This would require signs to be erected at the entrance to the 

carpark and possibly inside the carpark indicating that it is for authorised centre users only. 

This can be enforced under the Town's Parking Local Law. Council has already declared this 

carpark as a 'parking station' which will enable the Town to enforce the restrictions. A fine of 

$80 is applicable to unauthorised use. 

Assisting in addressing the school's needs is a fairly complex matter and it may well be that not 

all of their demands for car parking can be provided for and that greater use of alternative 

transport modes such as walking, riding or public transport will be required. This also has the 

benefit of reducing the school's carbon footprint and the Town's TravelSmart programme can 

assist in this regard. 

In the meantime, unrestricted kerbside parking is available within reasonable proximity to the 

school in surrounding residential streets. This is something that is not usually encouraged, 

however, the use will only occur during daytime hours and provided the cars are parked 

properly, it should not create undue disturbance to the adjacent residents. As an aside, it is 

broadly acknowledged that kerbside parking can serve as a traffic control measure, narrowing 

the visual perception of the street width and causing vehicles to slow down, although, it is 

recognised that not everyone would accept this measure. 

In their letter, the school has requested an on-site meeting with the Town to be conducted over 

the morning of a normal day to observe the access/parking issues first hand. This will be a 

valuable exercise and the administration will be taking up this invitation. It is important the day 

chosen is one of the busy periods for the WCC. Further to this, the Administration will explore 

with the school what, if any, opportunities there are to improve existing parking provisions. The 

Department of Education has indicated that, where justified, they are to contribute funds 

towards any new works. In this regard, attention is drawn to Item CR11.62 on this Agenda 

proposing the provision embayed parking on the eastern side of Alexander Street. Council has 

previously supported this proposal subject to the Department of Education contributing towards 

the works. 



28 JUNE 2011 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

appropriate signs be erected in the carparks serving the Wembley Community 

Centre restricting use to centre users and an identification permit be issued to the 

users, to be permanently affixed to their car, to enable the carparks to be patrolled 

by the Town's rangers; 

the Principal of the Wembley Primary School be informed of the decision in (i) 

above and that discussions continue with the school in relation to their 

parking/access needs. 

During discussion, Cr MacRae suggested that, following recent discussions with school 

representatives, the works detailed in clause (i) of the recommendation not be implemented 

until the proposed street parking and footpath realignment works in Alexander Street are 

constructed. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Langer 

That clause (ii) be deleted and replaced with the following:- 

(ii) 

the decision in (i) not be implemented until the proposed street parking and 

footpath realignment works in Alexander Street are constructed; 

(iii) the Council, in collaboration with the Department of Education, Wembley Primary 

School administration and School Board prepare a parking and access plan. The 

plan will include, but not be limited to, the identification of additional bays for staff 

in the immediate area and strategies for increasing safety during pick-up and dropoff 

times; 

(iv) the Administration to report to the July Council meeting on the progress of the 

initiatives outlined above and confirmation that the Department of Education will 

co-fund the works in Alexander Street. 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

appropriate signs be erected in the carparks serving the Wembley Community 

Centre restricting use to centre users and an identification permit be issued to the 

users, to be permanently affixed to their car, to enable the carparks to be patrolled 

by the Town's rangers; 

the decision in (i) not be implemented until the proposed street parking and 

footpath realignment works in Alexander Street are constructed; 

(iii) the Council, in collaboration with the Department of Education, Wembley Primary 

School administration and School Board prepare a parking and access plan. The 

plan will include, but not be limited to, the identification of additional bays for staff 



28 JUNE 2011 

in the immediate area and strategies for increasing safety during pick-up and dropoff 

times; 

(iv) the Administration to report to the July Council meeting on the progress of the 

initiatives outlined above and confirmation that the Department of Education will 

co-fund the works in Alexander Street. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.58 

GREEN WASTE/ORGANIC COLLECTION SERVICE 


To consider introduction of a new waste collection service to separate green waste and 

organics from the general waste bin. 

BACKGROUND: 

1. In September 2010, 'Waste Management - Green Waste Collection Survey' (Item 

CR10.10) was considered. This report provided results of a survey completed throughout 

the Town on the potential options for a new green waste collection service. Details 

relevant to the survey are included in report attachment 1. 

On 10 August 2010, 10,650 rates notices, including the Green Waste Collection Service 

survey form were sent out. 

At the end of September 2010, the following survey results had been received to the 

following survey questions:- 

Replies % 

1. Business as usual, two verge collections a year 565 35.2 

2. On demand green waste collection 121 7.5 

3. Green waste wheelie bin service with two verge 683 42.6 

collections (green and bulk) 

4. Green waste wheelie bin service with two verge 116 7.2 

collections (bulk only) 

5. Green waste tipping vouchers supplied 22 1.4 

6. Form returned with no preference 96 6.0 

TOTAL 1,603 100.0 

Response rate 11.6% 

Some surveys have been completed opting for multiple choices based on the other 

question which was included in the survey, namely:- 

Do you wish to swap your existing 240 litre domestic waste bin for a 120 litre bin This 

120 litre bin will attract a saving of $128 per annum (waste fee $160 or $32). 

The common response was 'yes', but only if the green waste bin was supplied to provide 

the replacement waste volume. 

The decision of Council on report CR10.10 was that:- 

"That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the survey statistics be noted; 

a new section be included within tender documentation for provision of a 240L 

fortnightly green waste collection and, on receipt of tender results in February 2011, 

the proposed new collection service be reconsidered; 



28 JUNE 2011 

(iii) 

the Administration prepare a report on the feasibility of introducing an organic (wet) 

bin collection as an alternative to a green waste service". 

2. Tenders for Waste Collection and/or Processing Services (T02-11) closed on 19 May 

2011 and a separate tender evaluation report has been prepared for consideration by 

Council in June 2011. This report allows assessment of the proposed new service prior 

to consideration of the tender assessment. 

DETAILS: 

1. At close of tender submissions for T02-11, only one tenderer was able to provide a green 

waste collection and processing service which could be used throughout the Town. Four 

tenders were received for collection only (no processing) and only one was received for 

material processing. 

2. Two options have been tendered for the fortnightly collection. The first option allows for 

supply of a 240L Sulo SOC bin to all residential properties and multi-residential properties 

up to 4 units. Other units will be assessed for applicability for the service at a later date. 

This would involve up to 8,500 properties. 

The annual cost of this service to collect and process is $333,400. Additional costs for 

provision of a new bin which would be amortised over 10 years and on costs for service 

management would also apply. 

It is forecast 2,750 tonnes of green waste could be collected. Disposal savings to 

Mindarie Regional Council facilities would be:- 

 

$123/tonne x 2,750 tonnes = $338,250 over a full year. 

3. The second option tendered was for collect and process only to properties who request 

the service. On the basis of the survey completed in September 2010, it was known 

around 854 properties would have the service if provided. It was also evident up to 200 

others from the returned surveys had requested some sort of new green waste collection 

service. On the basis only 1,603 responses were received from 10,650 survey forms, it 

was assessed for tender pricing that up to 2,000 properties may register for a new green 

waste service. On this basis, the tender price received to collect and process material 

was significantly higher than the first option by 242%. 

The annual cost to collect and process 2,000 bins on a fortnightly basis is $176,800 plus 

additional costs for bin amortisation and on costs. 

It is forecast 650 tonnes of green waste could be collected and disposal savings would be 

$79,950 over a full year. 

4. On an annual basis, a full recovery fee would be:- 

8,500 Bins 

$ 

2,000 Bins 

$ 

Collect and Process 36.40 88.40 

Bin Cost (10 Years) 7.90 7.90 

Oncost 15% 5.46 5.46 

Service Cost 48.86 101.76 

MRC Savings (12.44kg/lift) 39.78 39.78 

Net Cost 9.08 61.98 



28 JUNE 2011 

5. Comment on Green Waste Collection and Processing 

Why provide a new green waste collection and processing service 

It is a desire of all councils across Australia to reduce the volume of waste going to 

landfill. This can be achieved through recycle services and through the more expensive 

establishment of resource recovery facilities. It is also relevant in 2006, the Waste 

Management Board (WMB) of WA released a Draft Organics Strategy that stated:- 

"Garden organics from households should be via a system that minimises the potential 

contamination in the final compost product while maximising the amount of organic 

material collected. Source separation is the most appropriate method of collecting 

garden organics to be used as feedstock for compost". 

The strategy also stated that:- 

"the WMB will encourage local government to implement source - separated garden 

organic collections that aim to capture the majority of garden organics from residential 

properties in their area". 

Organic material can be composted to produce beneficial high quality humus. Using 

compost is beneficial for all types of gardening/growing, especially for environments with 

poor soils like Western Australia. Composting the organic component of municipal solid 

waste diverts a large portion of waste from landfill. Municipal solid waste can also make 

up to 30% of the waste going to landfill. This increases the longevity of landfills and 

conserves resources that would be used building landfills. Composting of organic waste 

occurs aerobically and does not produce methane, just carbon dioxide. The benefits of 

using compost include carbon sequestration in soil, avoidance of chemical fertilisers and 

other chemical plant/soil additives, improving soil properties and related plant growth, and 

rehabilitation of degraded land and mitigation of land degradation. 

The future of waste management in Western Australia lies in reducing waste to landfill by 

source reduction and recovery. Recovery of organic waste is crucial to this aim. 

The Mindarie Regional Council has adopted a different approach for diversion of organics 

from landfill with the introduction from 1 July 2009 of a Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) 

capable of processing 100,000 tonnes of waste. This plant was designed to divert 71.4% 

of waste from landfill, however, with the composition of waste delivered, the plant is 

diverting only 51% of waste from landfill. As a consequence, this process is extremely 

expensive when compared to processing of green waste collected in a dedicated bin and 

windrow composted. 

What is the current assessment of organic material in the existing general waste bin 

which is disposed of at Mindarie Regional Council at a fee of $123 per tonne from 1 July 

2011 

Attachment 2 provides statistical analysis of the Town of Cambridge and City of 

Nedlands. This data is summarised below and based on historical Cambridge data 

between 1996 and 2001 when a separate brown lid 240L fortnightly collection was in 

place. The City of Nedlands introduced a separate 240L fortnightly collection service in 

2007 and the statistics support the Cambridge data in establishing around 32% of waste 

in a general waste bin could be green waste/organics. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Cambridge 

2009/10 2000/01 

Green Waste N/A 2,815 22.8% 

General Waste 9,416 72.9% 5,971 48.4% 

Recyclable 3,495 27.1% 3,541 28.7% 

Total 12,911 tonnes 12,327 tonnes 

} 71.2% 

Nedlands 

2005/06 2009/10 

Green Waste N/A 2,436 23.4% 

General Waste 7,600 75.3% 5,276 50.7% 

Recyclable 2,496 24.7% 2,696 25.9% 

Total 10,096 tonnes 10,408 tonnes 

} 74.1% 

Using both sets of data, it is assessed 32% of waste collected in the general waste bin, 

when no green waste service is provided, is a possible diversion tonnage. 

Using Cambridge statistics, an assessment has forecast 2,750 tonnes of green waste 

could be collected in the new service which, at $123 per tonne, saves on disposal fees an 

amount of $338,250 for a year. 


Existing policies No. 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 cover Council’s existing waste service provisions. 

Introducing a third bin for green waste would require revision to existing policies. 

Mindarie Regional Council Constitution 

As Council is one of seven members of the Mindarie Regional Council, it is bound to deliver 

certain wastes to facilities nominated by the Mindarie Regional Council under the original 

Constitution agreement (as amended). The original Constitution executed 22 December 1987 

has "waste" defined as "house and trade rubbish and refuse and other waste matter but does 

not include liquid wastes or any wastes composed substantially of liquid". 

By Deed of Variation executed 25 November 1996, amendments were agreed to the 

Constitution as follows:- 

1(a) In clause 1.1 by adding to the definition of "waste" the words "and does not include any 

waste retained by a constituent municipality for the purposes of recycling". 

1(b) By inserting a new paragraph 4A as follows:- 

4A.1 A constituent municipality, unless otherwise agreed by the parties hereto, shall be 

bound to dispose of waste in accordance with the requirements of the Regional 

Council and in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall be 

bound to deliver waste to such site or sites as the Regional Council may nominate. 

4A.2 The Regional Council may exempt a constituent municipality from the provisions of 

clause 4A.1 hereof for such time and subject to such conditions as the Regional 

Council deems fit and any exemption granted shall be communicated in writing. 

4A.3 Where a constituent municipality fails to dispose of waste in accordance with clause 

4A.1 above and in particular, fails to deliver waste to a site or sites nominated by 



28 JUNE 2011 

the Regional Council, that constituent municipality shall, in addition to any other 

damages or costs thereby occasioned, be liable to pay to the Regional Council 

such fees or costs as a constituent municipality would have paid had it complied 

with the said clause and delivered waste to the site or sites nominated. 

The existing Constitution has been under review for many years and as a result of the imminent 

withdrawal of the City of Stirling from the Mindarie Regional Council on 1 July 2001, the 

Constitution will be replaced with an Establishment Agreement. The current draft of this 

document specifically excludes the obligation to deliver waste which is specifically collected for 

recycling purposes, including green waste/organic material. 


The provision of a new green waste bin can be funded through the Waste Management 

Reserve which, at the end of May 2011, has $963,356. It is estimated up to 8,500 bins costing 

$680,000 would be required. Bins are amortised over 10 years if included within any service 

fee and this assessment is completed in a separate report. An annual fee of $48.86 is required 

if all properties are provided the service. If only up to 2,000 properties are serviced, an annual 

fee of $101.76 would be applicable. Any fee can be reduced by $39.78 if allowance is made for 

the reduced costs of disposal to Mindarie Regional Council facilities. If the 8,500 bins option 

was implemented and all savings were applied, the net service cost relates to bin amortisation 

and on-costs estimated at $9.08 per bin service. 


These policy reviews relate to the Town’s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 as follows:- 

Community 

- to provide quality services to meet identified needs and expectations. 

Natural and Built Environment 

- to provide sound and sustainable environmental management; 

- to improve waste management and strategies in line with State Government’s 

management practices. 


This report has been prepared based on information presented to all Town ratepayers in 2010. 

Implementation of the new service would require a new education and consultation program. 

SUMMARY: 

It is evident from the tender results, if up to 8,500 residential properties were provided a 240L 

bin, collected fortnightly for green waste, the service could be funded from the savings in waste 

disposal fees to Mindarie Regional Council. It is assessed waste processing of clean green 

waste costs in the order of $40 per tonne. Disposal of material at Mindarie Regional Council is 

at a rate of $123 per tonne for Budget year 2011/12 and is expected to continue to increase in 

future years at a rate far exceeding any CPI adjustment. The savings gap will only increase. 

It is evident from research of other councils who have a dedicated green waste collection, the 

service is well used and accepted. The major management issue will be reducing 

contamination of the green waste bin material, especially if a 120L general waste service is 

used. Generally speaking, this is managed through an education campaign. 



28 JUNE 2011 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Green Waste Survey Data - September 2010. 

2. Collection and Cost Statistics. 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

a new 240L Green Waste/Organic Collection Service be provided to all residential 

properties up to 4 units, and to other properties on application and assessment that the 

service be appropriate; 

the service be fortnightly with collection on the alternate week to the recyclable collection 

week; 

the commencement of the service be subject to discussions with the contracted collection 

and processing contractor and from 1 October 2011 preferably. 


Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Bradley 


(ii) 

further consideration be given to whether to offer an "all in" or an "opt in" Green 

Waste/Organic Collection Service. 





That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

a new 240L Green Waste/Organic Collection Service be offered to all residential 

properties up to 4 units, and to other properties on application and assessment 

that the service be appropriate; 

further consideration be given to whether to offer an "all in" or an "opt in" Green 

Waste/Organic Collection Service; 

the service be fortnightly with collection on the alternate week to the recyclable 

collection week; 

(iv) the commencement of the service be subject to discussions with the contracted 

collection and processing contractor and from 1 October 2011 preferably. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.59 WASTE COLLECTION AND/OR PROCESSING SERVICES - TENDER T02-11 


To review tender submissions for waste collection and/or waste processing services and select 

a preferred tenderer(s) in order to finalise contract agreements for the provision of services 

commencing 1 October 2011 and expiring 30 June 2016. 

BACKGROUND: 

1. The current waste collection services were resultant from a tender process in early 2006. 

Contracts were awarded for a 5 year period commencing 1 July 2006 and expiring 30 

June 2011 as follows:- 

 

 

 

General Waste - Cleanaway 

Recyclables - Perthwaste 

Bulk Verge - Alvito 

2. During the last five years, waste management and processing of waste materials has 

undergone significant change which has required a review of previous waste strategies to 

accommodate industry changes like:- 

 

Changes to MRC Disposal Fees 

MRC Disposal Fee - landfill $17.00 per tonne 2001/02 



MRC Disposal fee - RRF facility/landfill $120/$66 per tonne at 1 July 2009 

MRC Disposal Fee - single fee $105 per tonne 2010/11 

MRC Disposal Fee - single fee $123 per tonne 2011/12 

 

 

 

Introduction of Resource Recovery Facilities (RRF) from 1 July 2009 to process 

100,000 tonnes of the MRC's 252,000 tonnes. The cost of an RRF is approximately 

+300% of landfill operations. 

The withdrawal of City of Stirling from the MRC potentially 1 July 2011. This has an 

effect of around $20 per tonne on MRC operational fees. 

A desire to improve recycling of all materials from the waste stream and reduce all 

waste tonnages from landfill, including green and garden waste. 

Acknowledgment that the existing Tamala Park landfill waste facility will close 2020 

- 2025 and new landfills are potentially to be located in the Gingin area. 

3. When preparing tender documentation, consideration has been given to separate 

services as follows:- 

(a) 

(b) 

General Waste Collection - Disposal to MRC Facilities (Tamala Park or RRF) 

Recycle Collection and/or Processing Recyclables 



28 JUNE 2011 

(c) 

(d) 

New Service: Green/Organic Waste Collection and/or Processing 

Bulk Verge Collection (twice per year) 

Included in the tender was the following separate schedule of price options:- 

SCHEDULE B 

PART 1 

General Waste Collection 

1.1 Collection of General Waste and Delivery to MRC Facilities 

PART 2 

Recycle Collection and Processing 

2.1 Collection and Processing 

2.2 Collection Only - Delivery to 3 rd Party MRF 

2.3 Processing Recyclables Only 

PART 3 

Green/Organic Collection and Processing 

3.1 Collection and Processing 

3.2 Collection Only - Delivery to 3 rd Party Processing 

3.3 Processing Green/Organics Only 

PART 4 

Bulk Verge Collection - Twice Yearly 

The schedules have been prepared to enable an evaluation on submitted schedules 

which allows for the service to be provided by one or more contractors and obtain best 

value for money for the Town. 

4. Council has discussed provision of a new service for collection of green/organic 

materials. In report CR10.10 (September 2010), a summary of a green waste survey was 

presented which resulted in the following Council decision:- 

"a new section be included within tender documentation for provision of a 240L fortnightly 

green waste collection and on receipt of tender results in February 2011, the proposed 

new collection service be reconsidered". 

A separate report has been prepared on this new service which is included in the June 

2011 Agenda. 

5. In November 2010, report CR10.42 considered the option to provide a 360L yellow lidded 

bin for enhanced capacity when collecting recyclable materials. This bin has now been 

included in the tender pricing schedule. 

DETAILS: 

1. Tender T02-11 was advertised on Saturday, 2 April 2011 with a closing day for 

submissions being Thursday, 19 May 2011. 

2. At tender closing, submissions were presented as follows:- 

(a) Perthwaste - Parts 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 

(b) Cleanaway - Parts 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2 

(c) Sita - Parts 1, 2.1, 2.2 



28 JUNE 2011 

(d) Avon Waste - Parts1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.2 

(e) Solo Resources - Parts 1, 2.1, 2.2, 4 

(f) Alvito - Part 4 

(g) D & M Waste - Part 4 

(h) Perth Engineering - Part 2.3 

Perthwaste, Cleanaway, Solo Resources and Sita also presented alternative tenders with 

a conforming tender. 

3. The following evaluation methodology was used in respect of this tender:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Tenders are checked for completeness and compliance. Tenders that do not 

contain all information requested (eg completed Offer Form and Attachments) may 

be excluded from evaluation. 

Tenders are assessed against the Selection Criteria. Contract costs are evaluated, 

eg tendered prices and other relevant whole-of life costs are considered. 

the most suitable Tenderer(s) may be short-listed and may also be required to 

clarify the Tender, make a presentation, demonstrate the product/solution offered 

and/or open premises for inspection. Referees may also be contacted prior to the 

selection of the successful Tenderer(s). 

A Contract may then be awarded to the Tenderer(s), whose Tender is considered the 

most advantageous tender to the Principal. 

Selection Criteria from Contract Specification 

A Contract will be awarded to a Tenderer(s) who best demonstrates the ability to provide 

quality service at a competitive price. The tendered prices will be assessed with the following 

compliance and qualitative criteria to determine the most advantageous outcome to the 

Principal. 

The Principal has adopted a best value for money approach to this Request. 

This means that, although price is considered, the Tender containing the lowest price will not 

necessarily be accepted, nor will the Tender ranked the highest on the qualitative criteria. 

A scoring system will be used as part of the assessment of the qualitative criteria. Unless 

otherwise stated, a Tender that provides all the information requested will be assessed as 

satisfactory. The extent to which a Tender demonstrates greater satisfaction of each of these 

criteria will result in a greater score. The aggregate score of each Tender will be used as one of 

the factors in the final assessment of the qualitative criteria and in the overall assessment of 

value for money. 

The selection criteria for this Tender shall be:- 

Compliance Criteria 

1. General and Corporate Information 

2. Compliance with Specifications and Conditions of Contract 

3. Complete Pricing Schedule 

4. Occupational Safety & Health/Quality 

5. Financial Position 

6. Insurance 



28 JUNE 2011 

Qualitative Criteria 

1. Organisation Capabilities/Key Personnel: Relevant Skills and Experience (20% 

Weighting) 

2. Contractor Performance/Operational Requirements / Strategy (30% Weighting) 

3. References (10% Weighting) 

4. Pricing (40% Weighting) 

Review of Submissions 

Non-conforming tenders were also submitted by four contractors with details as follows:- 

Perthwaste 

- if awarded Part 1, 2 and 3, a reduction in customer service would apply which offered a 

fixed saving per year. 

- offered to accept a fixed price increase per year over the contract duration for rise and 

fall. 

- offered to review rise and fall clause for recyclable materials. 

Cleanaway 

- offered a price profit share formula for recyclables. 

- offered an alternate bin for the new green waste service in lieu of the Sulo SOC 

designated. 

- offered a reduced schedule of prices if awarded contracts for Part 1, 2 and 3. 

- offered an alternate bulk verge collection method using 3m 3 bulk bins which are provided 

to residents on call. This service was significantly more expensive than the preferred bulk 

verge contractor. 

Solo Resources 

- offered a revised reduced schedule of prices for Part 1, 2 and 3. This was conditional 

upon them being successful in other tenders with Gosnells, Armadale and South Perth. 

It is evident from the Council minutes of the 24 May 2011 Gosnells City Council, Solo 

Resources was not successful with the Gosnells submission. 

Sita 

- a reduced schedule of prices was available on condition many contract clauses were 

varied or omitted. 

An analysis of all eight tenderers has identified all have been acceptable submissions in 

accordance with the required compliance criteria. 

Subsequently, all eight tenderers have been assessed on the Qualitative Criteria presented and 

a ranking of submissions was finalised. As this tender allowed for an assessment in 4 parts, 

and not all tenderers priced all 4 parts, the tender selection process has identified two preferred 

contractors following an individual review and collective review. 

The conforming tenders have been assessed and a summary of prices based on collection and 

customer service priced schedules has been compiled. This summary is included in the 

confidential attachment to this report. 



28 JUNE 2011 

When reviewing value for money, and in consideration of some elements of the conforming 

bids and non-conforming bids, the following tender selection recommendation is made:- 

Perthwaste 

Part 1: General Waste Collection 

Part 2.1: Collection and Processing of Recyclables 

Part 3.1: Collection and Processing of Green Waste 

Alvito 

Part 4: Collection of Bulk Verge 

Price Impacts 

When applying existing contract rates to the evaluation cost matrix, the financial result is a 

saving in the order of $75,000. The current rates have a collection and processing cost of 

$1,508,234. This excludes the proposed new Green Waste service (Part 3.1). 


Council policies No. 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 cover Council's existing waste service provisions 

with the exception of green/organic waste collection as a separate collection. 

The Statutory Implications are covered within the Local Government (Functions and General) 

Regulations 1996. Two clauses are relevant:- 

Clause 18(6) and 18(7) 

If a Local Government has accepted a tender and the acceptance does not create a 

contract within 6 months or a contract is created and is terminated by both parties within 6 

months, then the Local Government may accept from the other tenders the tender which 

it thinks would be the most advantageous to the Local Government. 

 

Clause 20 - Variation of Requirements Before Entry into Contract 

(1) If, after it has invited tenders for the supply of goods or services and chosen a 

successful tenderer but before it has entered into a contract for the supply of the 

goods or services required, the Local Government wishes to make a minor variation 

in the goods or services required, it may, without again inviting tenders, enter into a 

contract with the chosen tenderer for the supply of the varied requirement subject to 

such variations in the tender as may be agreed with the tenderer. 

(2) If:- 

(a) 

(b) 

the chosen tenderer is unable or unwilling to enter into a contract to supply 

the varied requirements; or 

the Local Government and the chosen tenderer cannot agree on any other 

variation to be included in the contract as a result of the varied requirement, 

that tenderer ceases to be the chosen tenderer and the Local Government may, 

instead of again inviting tenders, choose the tenderer, if any, whose tender the 

Local Government considered it would be the next most advantageous to it to 

accept. 

(3) In subregulation (1):- 



28 JUNE 2011 

minor variation means a variation that the Local Government is satisfied is minor 

having regard to the total goods or services that tenderers were invited to supply. 

Recognising these requirements, a recommendation will be made to select successful 

tenderers(s) and approval will be authorised to the Chief Executive Officer to finalise contract 

documentation and agree on any minor variations to be included within the contract. 


A comparison of submitted tenders, and on specific review of the preferred tenderer's rates, 

has indicated an increase in price for the Bulk Verge Collection and a slight decrease in other 

collections which results in a saving of around $75,000 on current contract prices. The 

introduction of a new green waste service is expected to be cost neutral with collection and 

processing costs balanced by savings in tonnage delivered to MRC. The introduction of the 

green waste service to all residential properties requires delivery of a new bin which can be 

funded from the Waste Management Reserve. An allowance of $680,000 will be required. The 

Waste Management Reserve balance at 31 May 2011 is $963,356. 

On balance, the waste collection services will be similar to costs experienced over the last 

Budget year and the selected tenderers offer the Council good value for money. 


The following sections of the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 are addressed in this report:- 

Community 

- to provide quality services to meet identified needs and expectations. 


- to provide sound and sustainable environmental strategies. 

- to improve waste management strategies in line with State Government's management 

practices. 


This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11 as 

"Inform". 

The requirement for a special green waste service was the subject of a Town wide survey and 

the survey results were considered by Council in September 2010 (Item CR10.10). 

SUMMARY: 

The tenders presented allowed a matrix of options to be assessed on four separate elements:- 

1. General Waste; 

2. Recyclables; 

3. Green Waste (new service); and 

4. Bulk Verge Collection. 

The evaluation has identified Perthwaste as the preferred tenderer for collection of General 

Waste, Recyclable Collection and Processing and for the new Green Waste Collection and 

Recycling. The selection of a single contractor has advantages for customer service 



28 JUNE 2011 

coordination and communication with residents and is the most cost effective option when 

assessed against individual elements. 

Perthwaste have, over the last five years, been the appointed contractor for collection and 

processing of recyclables. They are familiar with the Cambridge collection strategy and have 

held a contract with City of Nedlands for three years for collection of all waste materials 

including green waste as proposed by Cambridge. 

The evaluation also identified Alvito as the preferred tenderer for Bulk Verge. Alvito has held 

this contract for in excess of 10 years and the service they provide is excellent. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Pricing Matrix (Confidential). 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise contract documentation with each of 

the selected tenderers as provided for in the Local Government (Functions and General) 

regulations 1996; 

Perthwaste be selected as the successful tenderer for Tender No. T02-11 for:- 

(a) General Waste - Schedule Part 1.1; 

(b) Recyclable Collection and Processing - Schedule Part 2.1; 

(c) Green/Organic Collection and Processing - Schedule Part 3.1; 

based on the Schedule of Rates presented in accordance with the tender documentation 

for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 June 2016; 

(iii) 

Alvito be selected as the successful tenderer for Tender No. T02-11 for:- 

(a) Bulk Verge Collection - Schedule Part 4; 


for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 June 2016. 


Members agreed that discussion of this item be held behind closed doors in accordance with 

Section 5.23(2)(e) of the Local Government Act 1995. It was also agreed to defer 

consideration of the item until prior to the conclusion of the meeting. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Pinerua 

That the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate contract documentation with each 

of the selected tenderers as provided for in the Local Government (Functions and 

General) regulations 1996; 






for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 June 2016 and subject to satisfactory negotiations; 

(iii) 

(iv) 

the final pricing and structure of the contract be submitted to Council for approval; 




for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 June 2016. 




That:- 

(i) 

the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate contract documentation with 

each of the selected tenderers as provided for in the Local Government (Functions 

and General) regulations 1996; 

(ii) 





based on the Schedule of Rates presented in accordance with the tender 

documentation for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 June 2016 and subject to 

satisfactory negotiations; 



28 JUNE 2011 

(iii) 

(iv) 

the final pricing and structure of the contract be submitted to Council for approval; 



based on the Schedule of Rates presented in accordance with the tender 

documentation for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 June 2016. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.60 

WASTE MANAGEMENT - FEES AND CHARGES ANNUAL REVIEW 


To review fees and charges for waste management for the 2011/12 Budget. 

BACKGROUND: 

1. The Town of Cambridge reviews fees and charges on an annual basis prior to the 

adoption of the new budget. 

The impact of Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) fees from Mindarie Regional Council 

(MRC) was initially considered in May 2008 (Item IC08.38) when the concept of a waste 

disposal fee was adopted. 

In the 2008/09 Budget, Council's decision was to phase-in these increased fees over 

three budgets. 

The additional fees adopted for the three year phase-in were modelled on $27.50 for 

2008/09, $55.00 for 2009/10 and $70.00 for 2010/11. 

The waste fee was to cover the increased costs over and above the landfill disposal fee. 

At that time, landfill was $54 per tonne and disposal fees were forecast to be $128 per 

tonne when the RRF commenced (1 July 2009). The waste fee recovered the increase 

ie. $128 - $54 = $74/tonne. 

2. In the 2009/10 Budget, the waste fee was reviewed and modified in support of properties 

who used the smaller 120L Domestic Waste Bin in lieu of a 240L. The fees adopted 

were:- 

120L Bin: $10 per assessment. 


3. In the 2010/11 Budget, the concept was again reviewed and fees adopted as:- 

120L Bin: $32 per assessment (= 20% of full fee). 


DETAILS: 

A review of costs associated with waste management service charges for:- 

 

 

 

 

a new 360 litre recycle bin service; 

additional 240 litre general waste service; 

additional 240 litre recycling bin service; and 

120L/240L/360L fees for non rateable and rate exempt properties, 

indicates a need to adjust the fees for the 2011/12 Budget period. The proposed costs cover all 

relevant contract collection matters and reflect new tender rates for collection effective 1 

October 2011. 



28 JUNE 2011 

The review of costs to be charged reflects the following price variance factors:- 

1. Disposal fees for MRC based on a single fee calculation are expected to increase from 

$105 to $123 per tonne (+ $18.00 per tonne) from 1 July 2011. These rates are ex-GST. 

This rate was adopted by the Mindarie Regional Council on 30 May 2011 at a Special 

Council Meeting. 

On this basis, if each bin collection had 25kg of waste and collection was on a weekly 

basis, the additional tipping cost to Council is $23.40 per year. At 15kg per collection, the 

increase is $14.00 per year. 

2. Disposal fees for MRC for 2010/11 were subject to a review of calculation method. In 

April 2010, direction was given to adopt a single fee to replace the previous multi-fee used 

in the previous budget. The single fee has been adopted for the 2011/12 Budget. 

For budget purposes, the single fee advised is $123 per tonne. 

3. Council contracts various organisations for collection of waste and recyclables and these 

contracts have collection rates which are subject to a rise and fall review. These rates 

are reviewed annually at 30 June each year. As the current 5 year contracts expire on 1 

July 2011, a tender has been conducted and the waste fees have been based on the 

tender rates. The following variations are applicable:- 

General Waste Bins 

For clarification, the following definitions are applicable:- 

Domestic = Side Lift Service 

Commercial = Rear Lift Service 

Domestic (inc GST) 

2010/11 2011/12 

120L $176.00 $176.00 

240L $242.00 $247.00 

Commercial (inc GST) 

2010/11 2011/12 

120L N/A N/A 

240L $258.00 $264.00 

Recyclables Bin 

2010/11 (inc GST) 2011/12 (inc GST) 

240L Domestic $45.00 $46.00 

240L Commercial $75.00 $67.00 

360L Domestic N/A $51.00 

360L Commercial N/A $81.00 

4. Waste Fee 

The waste fee was initially reviewed at a Councillor forum held 4 May 2010 and new 

parameters for calculation were adopted based on full recovery of all MRC disposal fees. 

A further review was completed at the Council Forum held on 14 June 2011. 

The fee also recovers costs associated with employment of a Waste Minimisation Officer 

and costs associated with a Waste Education Campaign which commenced in the last 

Budget (2010/11). 



28 JUNE 2011 

In order to encourage residents to reduce waste disposal to landfill, by using a 120L 

domestic waste bin in contrast to the 240L bin, the 120L bin has a set rate based on 20% 

of the costs of the 240L bin. In 2009/10, the fees were levied on 3,118 properties with 

120L bins and 7,216 properties that had a 240L bin. 

The report attachment includes a calculation and recommends the following charges 

based on a single disposal fee of $123 per tonne from Mindarie Regional Council and no 

extra green waste collection service being adopted. 

Proposed Fees (2011/12) 

120L 240L Average 

2010/2011 Actual $32.00 $160.00 $136.00 

2011/2012 Proposed $38.30 $191.51 $143.67 

Increase $6.30 $31.51 $7.67 

It is proposed the fees be adopted for the 2011/12 Budget. 

Based on no change in services:- 

120L = 3,118 

240L = 7,216 

10,334 

This fee would recover $1,501,350:- 

$1,285,350 MRC Disposal (10,450 tonnes) 

$ 70,000 Waste Minimisation Officer 

$ 146,000 Waste Education Campaign 

5. Waste Fee - Impact from Proposed New Green Waste Collection 

As Council is to consider, at the June 2011 Council meeting, a new Green 

Waste/Organics collection commencing 1 October 2011, fees have been modelled 

should this new service be approved. 

The impacts for modelling are:- 

 

 

A new fee for provision of a green waste bin, collected fortnightly from 1 October 

2011, has been calculated at $37.30 (excl GST) for 39 weeks ($50 for a full year). 

The new collection will reduce disposal fees payable to Mindarie Regional Council. 

On the basis the new collection commences on 1 October 2011, only 39 weeks of 

the year will be available for savings. If 2,750 tonnes were collected in a full year, 

the model proposes 2,063 tonnes from 1 October 2011 should be collected, saving 

$253,688 in fees to Mindarie Regional Council. 

Option 1 

With the introduction of the proposed new service, it is estimated 1,000 properties 

may take the option of downgrading their existing 240L general waste bin. With the 

reduced tonnage for disposal to Mindarie Regional Council, and on the assumption 

no new green waste bin fee is approved, the following fees would result:- 



28 JUNE 2011 

Recovery 

120L Bin $44.46 ex GST 4,118 services $183,086 

240L Bin $222.27 ex GST 6,216 services $1,381,630 

Green Waste Bin Nil 8,500 services Nil 

These fees would recover $1,564,716. 

Option 2 

If a separate fee of $37.30 was established for the green waste bin service, then 

the waste fees would be:- 

Recovery 

120L Bin $35.40 ex GST 4,118 services $ 145,777 


Green Waste Bin $37.30 ex GST 8,500 services $ 317,050 


Option 3 

If all savings on disposal to MRC were offset against the general fee, then a 

residual green waste fee could be considered. 

Recovery 

120L Bin $42.65 ex GST 4,118 services $ 175,633 


Green Waste Bin $7.50 ex GST 8,500 services $ 63,750 


It is evident several other options for calculating this fee may be required. Models require 

a review of the sensitivity about properties who will downgrade from a 240L general 

waste bin and on the requirement for any new green waste bin fee. Other options will be 

evaluated and presented to Council as part of the Budget process. 


Waste management issues are relevant to Policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. 


The proposed fees ensure Council recovers the actual cost of providing the waste collection 

service in accordance with Policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. 

The Council currently provides and charges for additional waste collection services above policy 

allocations. The extra bins provided in 2010/11 were:- 

240L Domestic collection: 466 bins 

240L Commercial collection: 134 bins 

Recycle collection: 0 bins 

These fees also apply to all rate exempt and non-rateable assessments. 

GST is payable on bins in excess of policy allocations and exempt when bins are part of a 

standard Council service. 



28 JUNE 2011 


The strategic direction remains focussed on the provision of fees and charges to reflect the cost 

associated with the provision of the services and to encourage community to be involved in 

recycling. 

The adoption of these fees relates specifically to the Town of Cambridge Strategic Plan as 

follows: 

Community 

to provide quality services to meet identified community needs and expectations. 


to provide sound and sustainable environmental management; 

to improve waste management and strategies in line with State Government’s 

management practices. 


This project has been assessed under the trial community consultation policy and an 'Inform' 

assessment made. 

The proposed fees will be published with the 2011/12 Draft Budget which is to be circulated for 

community comment and will include the fees and charges that are to be recommended for 

adoption in the budget. 

SUMMARY: 

The rates proposed for the 2011/12 Budget period have been amended to reflect the contractor 

collection rates which will apply from 1 October 2011 and also to reflect the proposed disposal 

charges levied by the Mindarie Regional Council. The costs are based on the actual costs 

incurred by Council in providing the collection service. The fees have been assessed using an 

MRC Single Fee Model of $123 per tonne. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Cost Review Summary for Various Bin Services. 

2. Waste Fee Model. 

3. Summary of Refuse Disposal Costs. 




That:- 

(i) 

the following fees and charges be adopted for additional bins, non-rateable and rate 

exempt properties for the 2010/2011 financial year:- 

(a) 

General Waste Collection: 

 

 

Domestic collection (side lift service) of 120 litre general waste bin on a 

weekly basis - $176.00 (inc GST) per bin per year; 



28 JUNE 2011 

 

 

 

Domestic collection (side lift service) of 240 litre general waste bin and 

additional bins on a weekly basis - $247.00 (inc GST) per bin per year; 

Commercial collection (rear lift service) of additional 240 litre general 

waste bin on a weekly basis - $264.00 (inc GST) per bin per year; 

Supply additional 240 litre bins - $70.00 plus GST; 

(b) 

Recyclable Collection (Non Rateable and Rate Exempt Properties): 

 

 

 

 

 

Domestic collection (side lift service) of additional 240 litre bins in excess 

of policy on a fortnightly basis at $46.00 (inc GST) per bin per year; 

Domestic collection (side lift service) of additional 360 litre bins in excess 

of policy on a fortnightly basis at $51.00 (inc GST) per bin per year; 

Commercial collection (rear lift service) of additional 240 litre waste bins 

in excess of policy on a fortnightly basis at $67.00 (inc GST) per bin per 

year; 

Commercial collection (rear lift service) of additional 360 litre waste bins 

in excess of policy on a fortnightly basis at $81.00 (inc GST) per bin per 

year; 

Supply additional 240 litre bins in excess of policy - $70.00 plus GST; 

(ii) 

the following fees be noted and further considered when adopting the Budget for 

2011/12:- 

(a) 

(b) 

a fee of $38.00 (excl GST) for provision of a 240L Green Waste/Organics bin, 

collected on a fortnightly basis, be considered for all residential and multiresidential 

properties up to 4 units. This new service is to commence 1 

October 2011; 

a compulsory waste fee per assessment on general waste bins, levied under 

the Health Act 1911, and allocated in accordance with Policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 

5.3.3 on all rateable properties be:- 

Waste Fee 

No Green Waste 

Service 

New Green 

Waste 

Option 1 

New Green 

Waste 

Option 2 

New Green 

Waste 

Option 3 

120L Domestic 38.30 44.46 35.40 42.65 

240L Domestic 191.50 222.27 177.20 213.27 

240L Green N/A Nil 37.30 7.50 

Waste 

Note: All fees are ex GST 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.61 

WORKS AND PARKS RESERVES - FEES AND CHARGES ANNUAL REVIEW 


To review the fees and charges associated with road reserves and park reserves for inclusion in 

the 2011/2012 Budget. 

BACKGROUND: 

The fees and charges for road reserves include: 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Bonds (Secure Sums) to cover the cleaning and repair of footpaths, kerbs, street 

trees, signs, right of ways, crossovers, drainage and verges that have been damaged by 

property developers and their contractors. 

Reinstatement charges for the reinstatement of footpaths, kerbs, street trees, signs, right 

of ways, crossovers, drainage and verges. 

Right of Way contribution for developments that require primary access to a right of way. 

Crossover subsidy that is paid to a property owner who constructs or upgrades the 

primary crossover to a property. 

Purchase price for footpath slabs recovered from footpaths that have been replaced with 

concrete. 

The fees and charges for park reserves include: 

 

 

Access fees for entry to a park or reserve. 

Bonds for carrying out activities in a park or reserve. 

These fees and charges are reviewed on an annual basis prior to Budget consideration and 

listed in the annual budget. 

DETAILS: 

Works Bonds (Secure Sums) 

Works bonds are nominal sums retained by the Town during the course of private development 

and building works. These bonds allow the Town to carry out any reinstatement works during or 

after the development that the developer does not complete and invoice the total costs at the 

completion of the development. The balance of the Works Bond is re-paid to the original payee. 

The Administration Fee component is not re-paid and represents the average cost of processing 

the secure sum and the inspection of the works. The Administration fee covers a before and 

after inspection and for arranging corrective works to repair any damage caused by the building 

activity. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Reinstatement Works Charges 

The Reinstatement Works Charges are used for advising builders/owners of typical costs for 

repairing damage, preparing a quote for the works, and debiting the cost of works from the 

works bond. If these rates are not relevant to a repair, then a specific quote is prepared and 

sent to the builder/owner for their acceptance. The builder/owner has the choice of accepting 

the Town’s quote or making their own arrangements to complete reinstatements. 

Crossover Subsidy 

Policy No. 5.2.7 - Vehicle Crossovers – Specification requires the Town to contribute 50% of the 

construction cost of a standard crossover when it is the first crossover to a property. The 

Town's "standard crossover" is 3.0 metres wide and 5.5 metres long. The contract rate for a 

concrete crossover is $42.33 per square metre plus $61.13 per metre of apron. Therefore, the 

50% contribution equates to approximately $80.00 (excl GST) per linear metre of a typical 

crossover measured from the kerb line. 

Park Access Fees and Bonds 

The Parks and Reserves Access fees and bonds allow developers and property owners to 

access the Council’s Parks and Reserves for building or renovation purposes. The number of 

park access applications received in 2010/11 covered the management costs involved. No 

increases are proposed in 2011/2012. 

Administration Fees 

This fee covers the cost of inspecting the site before, during and after the works are completed. 

The revenue is charged to Revenue - Footpath Inspections. This has not increased because 

the cost of inspections and arranging repairs was fully recovered by the previous 2010/11 fees. 

Verge Security 

This is now included in the Development and Sustainability Fees and Charges. 

The fees and charges as listed in the 2010/2011 Budget and proposed for the 2011/2012 

Budget are listed below. 

ROAD RESERVES – Works Bonds, Charges and Subsidies 

Residential and Commercial Developments (For repair / reinstatement / cleaning of kerb, 

footpath, lane, street tree, drainage, road, signs or verge). 

(One bond per development or applicant). 

Description 

Residential & Commercial Developments 

(a) $0 to $20,000 (was $0 to $50,000) 

Works Bond 

Administration Fee Inspection 

(b) $20,001 to $150,000 

Works Bond 

Administration Fee 

(c) $150,001 to $500,000 

Works Bond 


Current Fee 

2010/2011 

(Ex GST) 

$0 

$50 

$700 

$100 

$700 

$150 

Proposed Fee 

2011/2012 

(Ex GST) 

$0 

$50 

$700 

$100 

$700 

$150 

GST 

Applicable 

Yes/No 

Nil 

Yes 

Nil 

Yes 

Nil 

Yes 



28 JUNE 2011 

(d) $500,001 to $999,000 

Works Bond 

Administration Fee 1 st year 

Per month thereafter 

(e) Construction Works in excess of $1 million 

Works Bond 

$1500 

$200 

$0 

$5000 bank 

guarantee 

$1500 

$200 

$0 

$5000 bank 

guarantee 

Nil 

Yes 

Yes 

Nil 


$200 

$200 Yes 

Per month thereafter 

$0 

$0 Yes 

Residential or Commercial Demolitions 

Works Bond 

$700 

$700 Nil 


$200 

$200 Yes 

Relocation of Buildings 

Works Bond 

$0 

$0 Nil 


$100 

$100 Yes 

Crossover & Verge Paving 

Administration Fee $40 $40 Yes 

Reinstatement Works Charges 

Mobilisation to job $300 $300 Yes 

Slab Footpath $15 per slab $20 per slab Yes 

Concrete Footpath Repair (


28 JUNE 2011 


Policy No. 5.2.7 - Vehicle Crossovers – Specification requires the Town to contribute 50% 

towards the construction cost of the first standard crossover to a property. 


Estimated revenue and expenditure for reinstatements are included in the Road Infrastructure 

section of each Budget as 'Revenue - Recoverable Works', and, 'Expenditure - Recoverable 

Works'. The estimated revenue from the Administration Fee is included as 'Revenue – Footpath 

Inspections'. Estimated expenditure for inspections is charged to 'Footpath Inspections'. 


The strategic direction remains focussed on the provision of fees and charges to reflect the 

actual cost associated with the provision of the services. 

Economic 

financial sustainability 

Natural and Build Environment 

quality public open space and recreational facilities 

clean, safe and vibrant environment 


This project has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as 

'Inform'. 

The proposed fees will be published with the 2011/2012 Draft Budget, will be circulated for 

community comment and will include the fees and charges that are to be recommended for 

adoption in the Budget. 

SUMMARY: 

In general the fees and charges currently in use adequately manage the various issues and 

only minor amendments have been made. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



28 JUNE 2011 




That the following fees and charges be adopted for the 2011/2012 financial year subject 

to Council Budget approval:- 

ROAD RESERVES – Works Bonds, Charges and Subsidies 

Residential and Commercial Developments (For repair / reinstatement / cleaning of kerb, 

footpath, lane, street tree, drainage, road, signs or verge) 

Description 

Residential & Commercial Developments 

(a) $0 to $20,000 

Works Bond 


(b) $20,001 to $150,000 

Works Bond 


(c) $150,001 to $500,000 

Works Bond 


(d) $500,001 to $999,000 

Works Bond 


(e) Construction Works in excess of $1 million 

Works Bond 

Secure Sum 

and Fee 

2011/2012 

(Ex GST) 

$0 

$50 

$700 

$100 

$700 

$150 

$1500 

$200 

$5000 bank 

guarantee 

GST 

Nil 

$5 

Nil 

$10 

Nil 

$15 

Nil 

$20 

Nil 

Total Secure 

Sum and Fee 

(Inc GST) 

$0 

$55 

$700 

$110 

$700 

$165 

$1500 

$220 

$5000 bank 

guarantee 

 


$200 

$20 

$220 

Residential or Commercial Demolitions 

Works Bond 

$700 Nil $700 


$200 $20 $220 

Relocation of Buildings 

Works Bond 

$0 Nil 

$0 


$100 $10 $110 

Crossover & Verge Paving 

Administration Fee $40 $4 $44 

Reinstatement Works Charges: 

Mobilisation $300 $30 $330 

Slab Footpath $20 per slab $2 per $22 per slab 

slab 

Concrete Footpath Repair (


28 JUNE 2011 

Crossover Subsidy 

Subsidy for new primary crossovers 

conforming to Town's specifications. (50% cost 

to construct standard single width crossover) 

Depot – Sale of slabs to public borrowed from 

Waste fees charges. 

Note: 

 

All bonds are reimbursed to the original payee. 

 

$80 per 

metre length 

$5.00 per 

slab 

Bonds may be paid by the Property Owner, Builder or Contractor. 

One bond per development or applicant. 

$8 per 

metre 

length 

$0.50 per 

slab 

$88 per 

metre length 

$5.50 per 

slab 

PARK RESERVES – Access Fees and Secure Sums (Bonds) 

Access Fee for minor maintenance works by 

adjacent resident 

Access Fee for major works by Builder or 

Developer 

Bond for minor and major works in addition to 

Access Fees 

Carried 8/0 

$50 per day 

$30 per half 

day 

$250 per day 

$150 per half 

day 

$500 - $1500 

(individually 

assessed 

relative to 

risk and 

potential 

impact) 

$5 

$3 

$25 

$15 

$55 per day 

$33 per half 

day 

$275 per day 

$165 per half 

day 

Nil $500 - $1500 

(individually 

assessed 

relative to 

risk and 

potential 

impact) 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.62 

ALEXANDER STREET - ON-STREET PARKING ADJACENT TO RUTTER PARK 


To advise Council of proposal for the provision of additional on-street parking in Alexander 

Street adjacent to Rutter Park and seek approval to include work required in the 2011/12 Draft 

Budget submission. 

BACKGROUND: 

At its meeting held on 23 March 2010, Council considered a report (Item IC10.9) to modify 

kerbside parking restrictions in Alexander Street in the vicinity of the Wembley Community 

Centre and the Wembley Primary School. 

These modifications were required to better control the flow of traffic, especially at school drop 

off and pick up times. This was achieved, in part, by Council's decision to shift the "kiss and 

drive" parking location and ban all parking on the east side of Alexander Street from the 

entrance to the Community Centre to the first residence adjacent to Rutter Park. In addition, 

Council decided that:- 

"(iii) concept designs be prepared for additional parking in Alexander Street adjacent to Rutter 

Park and a further report be presented to Council; 

(iv) 

the Education Department be requested to consider joint funding of the Alexander Street 

parking improvements as they recognise the increased school activities being created at 

the Wembley Primary School". 

This report addressed the two decisions. 

DETAILS: 

The concept design which indicated that the footpath adjacent to Rutter Park being used to 

provide parallel parking has been progressed to detailed design stage and is attached to this 

report as drawings no. E228-10-01. 

The section of footpath is proposed to be relocated within Rutter Park on an alignment parallel 

to the existing path between the two rows of mature trees. 

Utilising the existing path to create an indented parking area will be cost effective because only 

minor accommodation work will be required to allow vehicles to mount the kerb. This proposal 

will create 12 additional parking bays and still allow for two-way traffic when both sides of the 

road are occupied by parked cars. 

Discussions have been held with representatives of the Wembley Primary School and the 

Department of Education and Training on strategies to improve parking availability around the 

school. This is a more complex issue and is being progressed by the Director Development 

and Sustainability. In these discussions, it was indicated that Council could possibly proceed 

with the construction of the Alexander Street parallel parking bays to partly relieve the 

substantial parking shortfall if the Department of Education and Training was prepared to 

contribute 50% of the $40,000 estimated cost of construction. 



28 JUNE 2011 

This proposal received a positive response from the Department of Education and Training 

representative but the funding contribution is subject to approval from the Department of 

Education and Training directorate. He also indicated that the Department, in making its 

decision to contribute to the cost of improving parking conditions near a school, must be 

satisfied there is a clear benefit for the school concerned. 

Although no response has yet been received from the Department of Education and Training, it 

is considered that from a safety and amenity perspective, the construction of the parking bays 

at an early stage has merit. 

It is proposed that $40,000 funding for the parking proposal be included for consideration in the 

2011/12 Draft Budget submission to Council. Should a contribution be approved by the 

Department of Education and Training, then the project will be scheduled for construction. 


Policy No. 5.2.17 - 'Road Design' applies in consideration of safety requirements and 

standards. 

Council may make regulations for parking under the provisions of the Local Government Act 

1995, Schedule 9.1. 


The estimated cost of construction to realign the footpath in Alexander Street, adjacent to 

Rutter Park, and modify kerbing to allow cars to utilise the redundant path for parking is 

$40,000. This project will be included for consideration in the 2011/12 Draft Budget submission 

to Council. 


The proposed provision of parking embayments supports the outcome area objectives of the 

Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, namely:- 

- services that meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and visitors; 

- develop a parking strategy aligned to land use. 


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". 

Liaison and discussions have been carried out with representatives of the Wembley Primary 

School, Department of Education and Training and the Wembley Community Centre. The 

residents opposite the proposed parking embayments have been previously advised of this 

proposal and have indicated support for its implementation. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan No. E228-10-01 - Proposed Alexander Street Parking at Rutter Park. 



28 JUNE 2011 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed street parking provisions and footpath realignment in Alexander 

Street adjacent to Rutter Park, as indicated on Plan No. E228-10-01, be endorsed 

for construction; 

funding of $40,000 be included in the 2011/12 Draft Budget submission for the 

construction of parking embayments and footpath realignment in Alexander Street, 

adjacent to Rutter Park and the works proceed, subject to the Department of 

Education and Training contributing 50% ($20,000) towards the cost. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.63 

LAKE MONGER RESERVE WORKING GROUP 


To consider various recommendations from the Lake Monger Reserve Working Group. These 

recommendations are a result from the meeting held on 5 May 2011. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Lake Monger Reserve Working Group meets twice a year and last met on 5 May 2011. At 

this meeting, the Group made various recommendations, which in accordance with the Group's 

Terms of Reference, require the Community and Resources Committee's consideration. 

The Group's Terms of Reference in relation to this issue states:- 

"In accordance with the status of similar groups, the Working Group will not have any delegated 

decision making powers and will report its recommendations through the Infrastructure and 

Community Committee for ultimate consideration by the Council". 

DETAILS: 

The Working Group's recommendations at the meeting on 5 May 2011 are summarised below. 

Item 4.1 "Programmed Works 2010/2011" of the meeting minutes lists the information provided 

to the Group on the status of the current budgeted works. 

Item 4.1.7 included details on the status of project "Upgrade Interpretive Signs - Budget 

$5,000" as follows:- 

Interpretive information signs were designed by Conservation and Land Management and 

installed in 2000. The concept is based on the visitor arriving at the Powis Street car park and 

the information booth, where information is provided with details covering all of the issues at 

Lake Monger Reserve. The visitor is also directed to four main trailside nodes of interest 

around the Lake perimeter and provides visitors the necessary information that interprets the 

Lake's past present and future. A logo for Lake Monger Reserve was also designed and 

produced. 

Works in relation to this budgeted $5,000 project includes the replacement of the existing and 

reinstatement of missing signs that have weathered and/or damaged at the four trailside nodes. 

The four nodes include the north lookout, the east lookout, the south/east rehabilitation area 

and the south west playground area. 

The Working Group requested the Administration to consider the installation of new signage 

with an alternate style, similar to Kings Park and Bold Park. The Administration advised that 

the information the Town has for signage is still relevant and should stay the same, however, 

graphics and sign design could be improved. The funds available though are not sufficient to 

make the changes requested by the Working Group. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Comment 

This project is listed as Item 28 on the attached Overview of Proposed Works Plan in the four 

trailside node locations. This is an opportune time to re-design the interpretive signs at the 

Reserve and to incorporate the Town's branding and style. This would require engaging a 

graphic design professional to re-design the signs, an organisation to make the signs and one 

to install the signs. Information relating to suitable organisations have been received from the 

Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority. The cost for this project as recommended by the 

Working Group will not be known until estimates are obtained, but could be in the vicinity of 

around $30,000. 

It will be recommended that the $5,000 currently listed in the 2010/11 Budget be carried 

forward to 2011/12 and this amount be increased by $25,000 to $30,000 to design, 

manufacture and install new signs, using existing information and installed approximately in the 

existing locations and in accordance with the trailside nodes locations. 

Item 4.1.9 included details on the status of project "Tree Planting Program - Budget 

$5,000" as follows:- 

This is Stage 1 of 5 of the Implementation Program and is listed in the Overview of Proposed 

Works Map as Item 10. It includes the planting of native trees along the west side of the Lake 

and in the dog exercise area to provide additional shade for reserve users. When placing 

trees, consideration will be given to minimise the screening of lake views from adjacent 

residents. 

The Group was advised that this year the priority for tree planting is along the new shared path 

parallel to Gregory Street on the west side of the Lake which was completed in January 2011. 

This was a request raised by residents at a site meeting held at the Lake Monger Bowling Club 

on 13 January 2011 which the Mayor, Councillors and the Administration attended to discuss 

this new path. 

The Working Group recommended that instead of planting trees along the new path, trees 

should be planted in the north picnic area, the south west picnic area, the dog exercise area 

and along the reserve boundary along Lake Monger Drive because they will provide the most 

benefits in these areas. The Administration advised that this will be taken under consideration 

and if Budget allows trees will also be planted in the areas mentioned, if not, future tree panting 

programmes will cater for these areas. 

Comment 

The local community residents who attended the meeting on 13 January 2011 advised that 

trees have not been planted along the new shared path and that Council should plant trees to 

provide shade to users. The Administration advised that tree planting would occur along the 

new path to be undertaken during the 2011 winter planting program. There was also 

discussion in relation to the potential of trees screening resident's views of the Lake. The 

Administration advised that the careful placement and the distance between the new trees 

would ensure that complete screening of views did not occur. It is recognised that partial 

screening will occur but this is considered beneficial because vistas which have trees in view 

have a more aesthetic appeal. 

It will be recommended that tree planting along the new shared path on the western side of the 

Reserve be progressed as programmed and planting at locations recommended by the 

Working Group also be included in this year or next year depending on available funds. 

The following are two issues the Working Group raised under Item "Other Issues":- 



28 JUNE 2011 

Item 1 - Undertake Reserve Visitor Survey 

The Group advised that visitors to the south west playground, which is the most popular 

playground at the Reserve, are parking on Lake Monger Drive verge adjacent to the playground 

to off-load people and equipment and then drive to one of the three carparks on Lake Monger 

Drive to park. There appears to be a need for additional carpark bays in the western most car 

park and possibly closer to the south west playground. One of the options could be, instead of 

removing the western most carpark in the future, is to retain it and extend it further west. 

The Administration advised that the relocation of the Lake Monger Drive carparks is due to be 

undertaken in 2013/14 with the removal of the centre carpark and in 2014/15 an appropriate 

organisation would be engaged to design the new car parks in the south west and the south 

east playground areas which would include the identification of appropriate number of bays. 

The Working Group had a general discussion on how to progress this and agreed that, before 

any changes to the car parking arrangements along Lake Monger Drive were considered, an 

understanding was required on how visitors arrived to this side of the reserve, how they parked 

and what facilities they used. The Group requested the Administration to undertake a visitor 

survey along the three carparks on Lake Monger Drive and the information to collect should 

include how visitors get to these carparks and once there where do they go and how do users 

arrive to the south west playground. 

Comment 

There are two issues raised by the Group:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(a) 

the possible increase in the number of car bays in the west carpark vicinity; and 

undertake a visitor survey to determine how visitors access the reserve along Lake 

Monger Drive. 

Increase Number of Car Bays 

Based on visual observations there is probably a need for additional bays on all the car parks 

along Lake Monger Drive, the more the Council will provide the more visitors will use. 

However, the strategic approach identified in the current Management Plan and past Council 

decisions, to improve traffic management as well as pedestrian and fauna safety, is to reduce 

the number of visitors entering the Reserve by parking in the three carparks along Lake Monger 

Drive. 

To achieve this, the Powis Street carpark was constructed in the north of the Reserve in 2004 

including a visitor interpretive information facility and a bird contact area (adjacent the north 

lookout) where visitors can get close to the birds. Bus bays were also removed from the verge 

of Lake Monger Drive and replaced them within the Powis Street carpark. The next stage was 

to be the installation of facilities and amenities between the Powis Street car park and the Lake, 

otherwise visitors would not use the Powis Street carpark. 

In accordance with the Implementation Program, the removal of the centre carpark on Lake 

Monger Drive is listed in 2013/14. The loss of car bays has been allowed for within the Powis 

Street carpark bay allocation. The relocation of the west and east carparks on Lake Monger 

Drive, to adjacent the west and east playgrounds, including toilet facilities is listed in 2014/15 of 

the Implementation Program. These carparks are proposed to provide the same number of 

bays as the existing west and east carparks. Increasing their car bay numbers would go 

against the strategy listed above, which is to reduce the number of visitors entering the reserve 

from the car parks on Lake Monger Drive. 



28 JUNE 2011 

During the public consultation process of the Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 

2008-2018, local residents were concerned about the changes to car parking facilities along 

Lake Monger Drive including their location and size of car parks. They were advised that the 

number of bays were unlikely to increase in fact they would decrease with the removal of the 

centre carpark and the new carparks would be designed with a similar number of car bays and 

their proposed locations would improve the current safety concerns. 

Due to the recommendations of the current management plan and previous Council decisions, 

it will be recommended that changes to car parking facilities along Lake Monger Drive be 

progressed as listed in the Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 2008-2018 and associated 

Implementation Program. That is, the centre carpark be removed in 2013/14 and new carparks 

constructed in 2014/15 in the west and east playground areas to replace the existing Lake 

Monger Drive west and east carparks. The numbers of car bays in the new carparks are to be 

in similar numbers to the existing west and east carparks. 

However, these changes to car parking and toilet facilities along Lake Monger Drive should not 

occur until additional facilities such as playgrounds and picnic facilities have been provided in 

the north area of the Reserve, on the south side of the Powis Street carpark. 

(b) 

Undertake Visitor Survey 

A visitor survey along the three carparks on Lake Monger Drive would be useful to determine 

visitor numbers in the vicinity. However, this should be undertaken at the time of designing the 

west and the east carparks by an appropriate organisation to assist them in the design. 

However, in keeping with the current strategy the design should not significantly increase the 

number of car bays. 

It will be recommended that a visitor survey be undertaken only when the funding for the 

construction of the new carparks in the west and east playground areas are approved. 

Item 2 - Install Goal Posts 

The Group requested the possibility of installing Australian Rules football goal posts (4 posts) in 

the south west area of the reserve, one hockey goal close to the north/west playground and 

one hockey goal close to the south/west playground. The hockey goal posts would be used as 

soccer goals. The Administration advised that this was a request raised by residents at a site 

meeting on 13 January 2011 and will be listed in the 2011/12 Draft Budget for Council 

consideration. 

Comment 

An amount of $10,000 to install goal posts suitable for Australian Rules football and hockey (to 

be also used for soccer), has been included in the 2011/12 Draft Budget for Council 

consideration. Recently the Town has been requested for the installation of a netball goal post. 

It is also recommended that a basketball goal post be included within the concrete pad of the 

netball pad. As a result, an additional amount of $15,000 is required, total $25,000, to install all 

of the above goal posts. 


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. 


The recommendations to this report will have the following Budget implications:- 



28 JUNE 2011 

 

 

 

 

Upgrade Interpretive Signs - there is $5,000 available in the 2010/11 Budget which will be 

carried forward to 2011/12 and this amount be increased to $30,000 to undertake the 

required works. 

Tree Planting Program - there is $5,000 allocated in the 2010/11 Budget which is 

sufficient for this project. 

Undertake Reserve Visitor Survey - not recommended, funds not required. 

Install Goal Posts - an amount of $10,000 has been included in the 2011/12 Draft Budget. 

This amount should be increased to $25,000 to undertake all works requested. 


This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

 

 

 

Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; 

Develop and improve the Town's main beaches and reserves; 

Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure 

their sustainability for future generations. 


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 issues are in accordance with the management plan that was 

endorsed following consultation. 

SUMMARY: 

The Lake Monger Reserve Working Group, at its meeting on 5 May 2011, made various 

recommendations which in accordance with the Group's Terms of Reference require the 

Community and Resources Committee's consideration. 

The Working Group's recommendations and the Administration's comments can be 

summarised as follows: 

1. Upgrade Interpretive Signs 

Working Group's recommendation - design new interpretive signs using similar formatting to the 

Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority. 

Administration's recommendation - there is $5,000 available in the 2010/11 Budget which can 

be carried forward to 2011/2012 and this amount be increased to $30,000 to develop new 

signs. 

2. Tree Planting Program 

Working Group's recommendation - do not plant trees along the new shared path parallel to 

Gregory Street, instead plant adjacent the picnic and dog exercise areas and an avenue of 

trees west of the west playground. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Administration's recommendation - there is $5,000 allocated in the 2010/11 Budget for tree 

planting, which is sufficient to plant trees along the new shared path and some of the areas as 

recommended by the Working Group. 

3. Undertake Reserve Visitor Survey 

Working Group's recommendation - undertake a reserve visitor survey to assess how visitors 

arrive and use the reserve along Lake Monger Drive which will assist in determining the need 

for any additional car bays in the west car park. 

Administration's recommendation - undertake the survey when funding for the construction of 

the new carparks in the south/west and south/east playground areas are approved. Changes 

to car parking facilities should progress in accordance with the Lake Monger Reserve 

Management Plan 2008-2018 and Implementation Program. In accordance with the strategy of 

reducing visitor numbers for safety reasons along Lake Monger Drive and encouraging visitors 

to use the Powis Street carpark, changes to car parking facilities along Lake Monger Drive 

should not occur until additional facilities are provided on the south side of the Powis Street 

carpark. 

4. Install Goal Posts 

Working Group's recommendation - install goal posts for Australian Rules football in the 

south/west area of the reserve, two hockey goals (to be used as a soccer goals) one in the 

north/west and one in the south/west areas of the Reserve. 

Administration recommendation - in addition, a request for a netball goal has been requested 

from the community and this can be accommodated within a shared netball/basketball pad in 

the south west area of the reserve. An amount of $10,000 has been included in the 2011/12 

Draft Budget. This amount should be increased to $25,000 to undertake all works requested. 

5. Other Issues - Proposed Master Plan Requirement 

Whilst not part of the Working Group issues raised, the Working Group requires direction from 

Council in regards to the status of the current Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 

2008-2018. In a report presented to Council in November 2010 (CR10.55 North Lake Monger 

Reserve Master Plan), Council considered the Draft Master Plan proposed for community 

consultation, together with the feasibility analysis of the café proposal. The Council decision on 

this report was:- 

"That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

no further action be taken on the North Lake Monger Master Plan; 

a report be prepared on options for developing the North Lake Monger precinct in the 

context of the entire Lake Monger Reserve; 

a review be undertaken to identify the most appropriate location and most appropriate 

format for a café/kiosk at Lake Monger". 

The report attachment provides information which was presented to Council in November 2010 

as a further report, post Council meeting 26 October 2010. 



28 JUNE 2011 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Lake Monger Reserve Overview of Proposed Works Map. 

2. Lake Monger Reserve Implementation Program. 

3. Lake Monger Reserve Working Group minutes 5 May 2011. 

4. Lake Monger Reserve Working Group Terms of Reference. 

5. Excerpt - Report CR10.55 (November 2010). 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

an amount of $30,000 be considered in the 2011/12 Draft Budget to design, manufacture 

and install new interpretive information signs at Lake Monger Reserve, using the existing 

information and installed in accordance with the Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 

2008-2018; 

tree planting along the new shared path on the western side of the Reserve, parallel to 

Gregory Street, be progressed as programmed including the north/west and south/west 

playground areas, the dog exercise area and the area to the west of the south/west 

playground; 

(iii) changes to car parking facilities along Lake Monger Drive not be progressed until 

additional facilities are provided on the south side of the Powis Street carpark and the 

Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 2008-2018 be amended accordingly; 

(iv) a survey be undertaken of visitors arriving at the Lake Monger Drive carparks when 

funding, to change these carparks, becomes available; 

(v) 

an amount of $25,000 be considered in the 2011/12 Draft Budget to install Australian 

Rules, hockey, netball and basketball goal posts on the west side of the Reserve in 

accordance with this report and the Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 2008-2018 

be amended accordingly. 


During discussion, Members agreed that clause (iii) be deleted as it was considered 

unnecessary at this time. 

Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That clause (iii) of the motion be deleted. 




28 JUNE 2011 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

an amount of $30,000 be considered in the 2011/12 Draft Budget to design, 

manufacture and install new interpretive information signs at Lake Monger 

Reserve, using the existing information and installed in accordance with the Lake 

Monger Reserve Management Plan 2008-2018; 

tree planting along the new shared path on the western side of the Reserve, 

parallel to Gregory Street, be progressed as programmed including the north/west 

and south/west playground areas, the dog exercise area and the area to the west of 

the south/west playground; 

(iii) a survey of how visitors arrive at the Lake Monger Drive carparks and use the 

reserve be undertaken when funding to change these carparks becomes available; 

(iv) an amount of $25,000 be considered in the 2011/12 Draft Budget to install 

Australian Rules, hockey, netball and basketball goal posts on the west side of the 

Reserve in accordance with this report and the Lake Monger Reserve Management 

Plan 2008-2018 be amended accordingly. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.64 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 17 MARCH 2011, 28 APRIL 2011 

AND 30 MAY 2011 


To report on items considered at the Mindarie Regional Council meeting held on Thursday, 28 

April 2011 and on the issues dealt with at a Special Council Meetings held 17 March 2011 and 

30 May 2011. 

BACKGROUND: 

The purpose of the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) is to provide waste disposal facilities at 

least for its members within the Mindarie region. The MRC generally meets on six occasions 

each year for Ordinary meetings and holds Special meetings when required to progress 

specific initiatives. Details relating to the meeting held on 24 February 2011 and 16 December 

2010 were reported to Council in March 2011 (Item CR11.23). 

DETAILS: 

Item 1 - Special Council Meeting held 17 March 2011 

The purpose of this Special Council Meeting was to consider details relating to a mid-year 

financial review for the 2010/11 Budget year. Details relating to this report were considered at 

the last meeting held 24 February 2011 when the recommendation was lost. 

The Council decision includes the following issues:- 

 

 

 

 

 

Members' fee reductions for smaller tonnages were offset by an increase in non-member 

fees. 

Costs had been affected by a lower residue diversion rate with back payments required 

for previous years, City of Stirling withdrawal expenses and increased costs associated 

with management and disposal of Household Hazardous Wastes (HHW) where tonnages 

doubled. 

Increases in operational expenditure were highlighted and commensurate savings in 

operations were detailed. 

Approval was given to create a reserve for Members Revenue Equalisation which allows 

for the transfer of $2.24 million pertaining to under/over recovery of disposal fees for 

previous year's income. This will be used in future years when a mid-budget adjustment 

is required from MRC members. 

Approved a deficit forecast for 2010/11 and required for further savings to be identified to 

the next Ordinary Council Meeting on 28 April 2011. 

Item 2 - Ordinary Council Meeting held 28 April 2011 

Business Report Update - Issues Presented 

 

 

Planning for a site to replace Tamala Park has now identified options and is investigating 

a number of possible sites in the Shire of Gingin. 

The Price Waterhouse Coopers suggested approach to valuation work for the withdrawal 

of City of Stirling was supported. It was noted the seven MRC member council's also 

required to review and accept/reject the suggested approach. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Resource Recovery Facility Update 

 

 

 

BioVision have confirmed a final design for long term repairs to the composters had been 

completed and independently verified. Long term repairs have been programmed to 

commence in May 2011. Composter 1 is programmed for August to October 2011. 

During this period, operation will be reduced to 70% capacity by operating for longer 

hours. 

The waste diversion target is still being evaluated and following a fourth waste audit to be 

conducted in April 2011, further assessment will be made. 

Extraction of metals from the RRF facility is causing problems as a consequence of the 

number of disposed gas bottles. 

Budget Financial Year 2010/11 - Expenditure Reduction 

As requested at the Special Council Meeting held 17 March 2011, details were provided on 

further savings. These were identified at a total of $319,200. 

Tender - Administration Building Extension 

A tender was accepted to add additional operation space for Administration. The initial 

building, when constructed, catered for 7 persons but now accommodates 20 full or part time 

staff. 

Re-Allocation of Transitional E-Waste Program Funds 

Following discussion with Cambridge Administration, the CEO of the Western Metropolitan 

Regional Council (WMRC) wrote to the Mindarie Regional Council in relation to allocation of 

WATEP funding (Western Australian Transitional E-Waste Program). 

It has been established Cambridge residents comprise up to 30% of the usage of the WMRC 

McGeough Resource Recovery Facility during HHW collection days as this facility is more 

convenient to use in lieu of the Mindarie Regional Council collection facilities at Balcatta and 

Tamala Park. 

The funding arrangements are based on regional council boundaries. It was requested the 

WATEP funding component for Cambridge, estimated at $4,153 in the first year, be allocated to 

the WMRC. The result would allow a 40% increase in grant funds for the WMRC and a 5% 

reduction to the MRC for the Balcatta and Tamala Park facilities. This proposal was supported 

by the Mindarie Regional Council and furthermore, reallocation for years 2 and 3 was 

approved. 

This decision allows all Cambridge residents access to a closer facility for disposal of HHW 

materials. 

Comment: Administration discussions with the WMRC supported this proposal and it is 

considered a Cambridge contribution matching the grant funds would be welcomed by the 

WMRC in recognition of use by Cambridge residents. Any arrangement would be subject to 

further discussions with WMRC. 

Item 3 - Special Council Meeting held 30 May 2011 

The purpose of this Special Council Meeting was to consider a proposed waste disposal fee for 

the 2011/12 Budget. Early adoption of this fee allows all MRC members to finalise individual 

Council budgets and for the fee to be publically advertised prior to implementation on 1 July 

2011. The MRC disposal fee adopted was $123 per tonne which increases from $105 per 



28 JUNE 2011 

tonne in 2010/11. This fee was arrived at following an extensive review by a specially formed 

working group of all MRC operations. It is based on complete withdrawal of City of Stirling 

tonnages from 1 July 2011. City of Stirling has not advised what disposal plans they propose 

post 1 July 2011. Should they agree to deliver to 30 December 2011, the MRC could be $111 

per tonne and if they committed to disposal until 30 June 2012, the MRC fee could be $103 per 

tonne. 

The Mindarie Regional Council will conduct a Budget workshop on 16 June 2011 and consider 

the Budget for 2011/12 at the next Ordinary Council Meeting scheduled to be held on 7 July 

2011. 




There are no Financial Implications related to this report. The disposal fee nominated at $123 

per tonne now allows for Cambridge to finalise its Waste Budget allocations for 2011/12. 


Key outcome areas addressed in the 2009-2020 Strategic Plan include:- 

Delivery Services 

- Services meet the needs of ratepayers and residents and visitors. 

Environmental Leadership 

- Environmentally sustainable practices for Town operations 

- Community awareness, knowledge and action. 

Capacity to Deliver 

- Financial sustainability. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. In 

accordance with the assessment criteria, no consultation is required as this report is purely 

administrative in providing information to Council. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



28 JUNE 2011 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the report relating to items considered by the Mindarie Regional Council at 

meetings held on 17 March 2011, 28 April 2011 and 30 May 2011 be received; 

an allocation of $5,000 be included in the Waste Management Budget for 2011/12 as 

a contribution to WMRC for use of their facilities for disposal of Household 

Hazardous Waste (HHW) material. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.65 

REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - SENIOR SERVICES 


To review the current fees structure for the Cambridge Senior Services. 

BACKGROUND: 

Each year, as a part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges relating to the delivery of 

Senior Services to recipients within the Town are reviewed and the most appropriate time to set 

these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget so that new fees can be reflected in the 

revenue items. 

DETAILS: 

The fee structure for Cambridge Senior Services is determined by its primary funding agency, 

the Health Department’s Rehabilitation, Aged and Continuing Care Directorate under the Home 

and Community Care (HACC) Program. 

The service continues to include diversification of activities in the Day Centre program, 

including outings which have proven very popular amongst clients. These include day trips for 

socially isolated clients with the extended excursions continuing to be well received. Other 

services provided include:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Domestic Assistance 

Social Support 

Personal Care 

Centre Based Day Care 

In Home Respite 

Transport 

Home Maintenance 

Delivered Meals 

Allied Health -Podiatry 

The need and success of the services provided has been demonstrated by the recent funding 

secured from HACC for the replacement of a vehicle and additional recurrent funding to staff a 

new position of a Social Activities Officer to promote 'Wellness' which is a new initiative 

implemented by the funding agency that encourages healthy lifestyles and promotes 

independence. 

A competitive analysis of core services has been undertaken which reveals variances in fees 

and charges between service providers however Cambridge Senior Services charges are 

comparable to three of the four services providers analysed. There are a number of services 

listed above that are not provided by other organisations therefore they have not been included 

in the analysis. Table 1 below shows the current charges by five agencies including the Town. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Table 1: 

2010/2011 Competitive Analysis 

Agency 

City of 

Wanneroo 


Subiaco 


Stirling 

Mercy 

Aged Care 

Cambridge 

Senior 

Services 

Domestic 

Assistance 

Day 

Centre 

$7.00 

per hour 

$7.00 day 

$5.50 meal 

$8.50 $7.00 day 

per hour $7.75 meal 

$8.00 $6.55 day 


$8.00 $7.00 

$8.00 meal 

$8.00 $8.00 


Social 

Support - 

Shopping 

$7.00 

per hour 

$8.50 

per hour 

Respite- 

Personal 

Care 

$7.00 

per hour 

$8.50 

per hour 

Allied Health 

$41.00 initial $34.85 

after. Domiciliary only 

No service 

$8.00 $8.00 $25.00 (Centre) 

per hour $32.00 (Domiciliary) 

$8.00 $8.00 No Service 

$8.00 $8.00 

per service 

$22.00 (Centre) 

$25.00 (Domiciliary) 

Under HACC guidelines, the Cambridge Senior Services must adhere to their National 

Safeguard Fee Policy and Principles. These policies and principles seek a contribution from 

clients towards the costs of the HACC Services(s) they receive at a level that is fair and 

affordable, but sufficiently flexible to adapt to individual circumstances. Furthermore, HACC 

have notified all service providers that from 1 July 2011, some of the services are to be capped 

in line with the HACC Fees Schedule Guide which mean that CPI increase cannot be applied to 

these fees if they have already reached the capped level. This has had implications on the 

Home Maintenance service which will decrease form $20 per hour to $8 hour (overall decrease 

of $12). HACC also directed service providers to charge full cost recovery for the provision of 

meals either at home or on the centre which denotes that the fee for meals will be $8.50. 

Following a review of the Cambridge Senior Services fees, it is recommended that where 

appropriate fees are increased in line with CPI (Perth) movements (usually range from 3.4+ %). 

Although the CPI (Perth) movements for the period March 2010 to March 2011 was only 2.6% it 

is recommended to increase the fees and charges in relation to the Cambridge Senior 

Services by approximately 4%. This can be justified as it takes into consideration the increases 

in staff wages, utilities and building costs. Table 2 below highlights the proposed fees and 

charges for the range of services provided for the 2011/2012 financial year. 

Table 2: 

2011/2012 Proposed Cambridge Senior Service Fees and Charges 

Senior Programs – HACC 2010/11 2011/12 Increase 

Centre Based program - activities *$8 *$8 Nil 

Centre program - meals and refreshments *$8 *$8.50 0.50c 

Home based programs 

*$8 

*$8 Nil 

- Home Respite, Domestic Assistance Per Hour per hour 

Allied Health – Podiatry (per session) $22 Centre $23 Centre $1 

Home based programs 

- Personal Care, shopping 

$25 Dom 

$8 

(per session) 

$27 Dom 

$8 

(per 

session) 

Home Maintenance $20 $8 per hour ($12 )decrease 

Transport $6 $6.20 0.20c 

(one way 

trip) 

Transport - Centre Based Program New $2.50 

(round trip) 

$2.50 

$2 

Nil 



28 JUNE 2011 

Outings –within the parameters of Day $5-$20 Full cost varies 

program 

recovery 

Visiting group-per person $5 $6 $1 

Extended excursions – overnight trips, Up to $300 Up to $300 Nil 

Note: * GST not applicable 

The HACC Safeguard Fees Policy also states that a fee limit must be set which means that 

whilst some clients receive several services from an agency, they can only be charged up to 

the fee limit. This limit is not applied to some services including meals, transport, podiatry 

(Allied Health) and Home maintenance. Table 3 below highlights the current fee limit which has 

been set by HACC and forms part of their Safeguard Fees Policy. 

Table 3: 

2011/2012 Cambridge Senior Services Fee Limit 

Category 

Level 1 – Full pensioner or equivalent pension eligibility income 

Level 2 - Part pensioner or equivalent pension eligibility income 

Level 3 – Non pensioner 

Fee Limit 

$56 per week 

$67 per week 

$138 per week 


Policy No. 2.1.5 – Cambridge Senior Services Fees and Safeguards Policy. 


The adoption of fees and charges pertaining to the Cambridge Senior Services will have a 

direct impact on the revenue in the next financial year. The 2011/2012 Budget which is 

currently in draft form has incorporated the proposed fees as mentioned in the report. 


The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports three of the key priority areas of the 

Towns 2009-2020 Draft Strategic Plan namely:- 

 

 

 

Planning for our community 

Delivering our services 

Capacity to deliver 


As per Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation is not required. 



28 JUNE 2011 




That: 

(i) 

the following fees and charges for the Cambridge Senior Services be adopted, 

effective from 1 July 2011:- 

SENIOR PROGRAMS – HACC 2011/12 

Centre Based Program- Activities $8 

Centre Based Program – Meal and morning/afternoon tea $8.50 

Home Based Programs - Personal Care, shopping $8 

Allied Health – Podiatry (Centre) – per session 

$23 

“ “ (Domiciliary) – per session 

$27 

Home Maintenance (per hour) $8 

Outings –within the parameters of Day program 

Full cost recovery 

Visiting group - per person $5 

Extended excursions – overnight trips, 4 nights 5 days Up to $300 

Transport (one way trip) $6.20 

Transport -centre based program 

$2.50 (round trip) 

* Fee Limit: 

Level 1 - Full pensioner or equivalent pension eligibility income $56 

per week 

Level 2 - Part pensioner or equivalent pension eligibility income $67 

per week 

Level 3 - Non pensioner $138 

per week 

Note: GST not applicable to Centre Based programs and Home Based Programs – Home 

Respite and Domestic Assistance; 

* Fee Limit – Applicable to clients with multiple needs (with the exception of meals, 

transport, podiatry, Allied Health and home maintenance); 

(ii) 

the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to waive fees and charges in accordance 

with the provisions of Section 6.12 (1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 should 

special circumstances apply. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.66 

REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE 


To review the fees and charges of the Quarry Amphitheatre. 

BACKGROUND: 

Each year, as part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges are reviewed and the most 

appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the budget so that the new fees can be 

reflected in the revenue items. 

Since the Town took direct management of the Quarry Amphitheatre on 13 August 2009, many 

processes were implemented, including a restructuring and simplifying of the fee structure and 

a new community rate introduced in an effort to assist non profit community organisations of a 

charitable or benevolent nature. 

DETAILS: 

Venue 

The Quarry Amphitheatre has three distinct areas for hire:- 

The Main Auditorium (the amphitheatre) – a 556 seat outdoor theatre. 

The Cavern – a dressing room to the amphitheatre and function area for up to 100 

people. 

Café/Lawn – a picturesque lawn area in front of the café with panoramic views. 

There are currently two distinct seasons in the Quarry’s calendar year which represent different 

price categories. They are:- 

Peak Season (November 1 to April 30) – Standard rate 

Off-peak Season (May 1 to October 31) – Standard rate discounted by 30% 

Financial Performance 

The financial performance of the venue has improved considerably during the last two years 

since the Town has taken direct management of the Quarry Amphitheatre (except café and 

ushering). The net cost to Council has improved and this trend should continue. Table 1 below 

highlights the financial net costs (excluding capital expenditure, depreciation and internal cost 

allocations) to the Town for the operations of the Quarry Amphitheatre for the last 10 years. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Fees and Charges Competitor Analysis 

Feedback from existing clients indicate that existing fees are acceptable and in line with the 

type of venue. Market analysis also supports this assessment. See Table 1 below for more 

detail. 

Table 1: 2010/2011 Outdoor Venue Competitor Analysis 

Venue Cost Comments 

Kwinana Amphitheatre (now 

known as Koorliny Arts centre 

Sunken Garden Amphitheatre, 

Crawley WA 

Kings Park Pioneer 

Minimum charge $150 

Minimum charge $200 + 

cleaning charges minimum of 

$120 plus 

The area seats up to 6000 and 

costs vary from $12,000 per 

night depending on the function 

A smaller 250 Amphitheatre is 

available on a % of turnover 

basis ranging from 20-50%. 

Includes lighting and basic sound system. 

. Access to 200 free bays 

BYO &Licensed Café free BBQ access 

300 - 385 seats 

additional charges for technical support 

This is a green field site, which requires 

fencing and all technical resources to be 

imported. No security is available at the 

site. 

Historically, fees and charges have increased in line with CPI (Perth) movements (usually 

range from 3.4+ %). Although the CPI (Perth) movements for the period March 2010 to March 

2011 was only 2.6%, it is recommended to increase the fees and charges by approximately 

4%. This can be justified as it takes into consideration the increases in staff wages, utilities and 

building costs. In addition, it is proposed to introduce new fees and charges in relation to the 

hire of marquees that the Town purchased during this current financial year to be used at the 

venue. The proposed fees and charges for associated with the venue are highlighted in table 2 

below: 



28 JUNE 2011 

Table 2: Proposed Fees and Charges 2011/12 

All rates are per day and all fees GST inclusive 

AMPHITHEATRE - Commercial Rate Peak rate Off peak rate 

Performance day 2010/11 $1300 $910 

" 2011/12 " $1350 $945 

Difference $50 $30 

Non performance 

day 2010/11 $650 $455 

" 2011/12 $675 $470 


AMPHITHEATRE - Community Rate Peak rate Off peak rate 


" 2011/12 $890 $620 


Non performance 

day 2010/11 $460 $300 

2011/12 $475 $315 


CAFÉ LAWN AREA - Commercial Rate Peak rate Off Peak rate 


" 2011/12 $725 $505 


Non Performance 

day 2010/11 $300 $210 

2011/12 $312 $220 


CAFÉ LAWN AREA - Community Rate Peak rate Off Peak rate 


" 2011/12 $478 $335 


Non Performance 

day 2010/11 $200 $140 

2011/12 $210 $147 


CAVERN AREA - Commercial 

Rate Performance day Non Performance day 

2010/11 $250 $125 

2011/12 $260 $130 


CAVERN AREA - Community 

Rate Performance day Non Performance day 

2010/11 $165 $82 

2011/12 $172 $86 


The current equipment list remains the same with the addition of eight open marquees and one 

white closed marquee all measuring 3x3 that were purchased during this 2010/11 with the 

intention of hiring them out to customers for private functions. The proposed charges for 

equipment hire are detailed in Table3 below: 

Table 3: 

Proposed 2010/2011 Equipment Charges 

2010/11 2011/12 Diff 

Radio Mic (ea) $46 $48 2.00 

Data Projector & Screen $176 $183 7.00 

Feature Lighting $150 $156 6.00 

Extra Microphones (ea) $21 $22 1.00 

Banquet Tables (ea) $16 $17 1.00 



28 JUNE 2011 

Black Chairs (ea) $2.50 $.260 0.10c 

In Ear Monitors (ea) $75 $78 $3.00 

Lectern $75 $78 $3.00 

PA System $250 $260 $10 

3 x 3 marquee (open) new 

$50 

Per Function 

n/a 

3 x 3 marquee (closed) new 

$100 

Per Function 

n/a 

Staffing Charges 

Ushering has been provided by the Town's Contractor for the last two years and costs are 

recouped in hire fees at a set $34.00 per hour. Fees are also recouped for the provision of 

Duty Managers (which is a requirement of Liquor Licence regulations) and these are subject to 

penalty rates. The proposed staff charges for 2011/12 are detailed in Table 4 below: 

Table 4: Proposed 2011/12 Staff charges 

Ushers 2010/11 Per Hour - all times Hour $34 

2011/12 Per hour – all times Hour $35 

Difference $1 

Technical Staff 2010/11 Per Hour - all times Hour $62 

2011/12 Per hour – all times Hour $42 

Difference $2 

Cleaning Fee 2010/11 Per Hour - All times Hour $50 

2011/12 Per hour – all times 

Duty Managers 2010/2011 2011/2012 Difference 

W/Days to 5:00pm $34 $35 $1 

Sat & W/day after 5pm $36 $37 $1 

Sundays $39 $40 $1 

Public Holidays $66 $67 $1 

Ticketing 

The Town has an agreement with Ticketmaster Ticketing and Marketing Systems and, as such, 

is required to inform and invoice hirers for the charges as set by them. In accordance with past 

decisions, a ticket levy commensurate with the ticketing commission received by the Town for 

all tickets sold has been retained and no increases have been suggested for Ticketmaster 

ticketing fees. Tickets fees such as hard tickets and promoter tickets have 4% increases. 

The following proposed ticketing charges for the 2011/2012 financial year are outlined in Table 

5 

Table 5: 

Ticketing 

Category 2010/11 2011/12 Difference 

(a) Booking Fee(30% commission to Town i.e. $1.05 $3.50 per ticket 3.50 0.00 

(b) Handling Fee( for tickets mailed to patrons) 

$6.60 per 6.60 0.00 

booking 

(c) Patron Ticket Exchange $3.30 per ticket 3.30 0.00 

(d) Patron Credit Card Handling Fee 

(e) Hard – Manual Tickets 

0 to 500 tickets 

Event Free 

(ii) 501 ticket plus 

Event Free 

(f) Promoter Tickets(per production/series) 

(i) 0 to 100 tickets 

(ii) 101 to 200 tickets 

(iii) 201 tickets 

$6.60 per 

booking 

$1.25 per ticket 

$33.00 

$1.15 per ticket 

Nil 

$0.90 

$1.20 

$1.45 

6.60 0.00 

1.30 

$34.00 

1.20 

$0.95 

$1.25 

$1.50 

0.05 

1.00 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 

0.05 



28 JUNE 2011 

Security Call- Out Charges 

Security Call outs remain at cost of recovery per invoice from the Town’s security contractor. 


Policy No.2.1.27 – Hire of Community Facilities. 


The adoption of Policy changes and the proposed fees and charges will have an immediate 

and positive impact on the proposed 2011/12 Budget. 




 

 

 

Planning for our community; 

Delivering our services; 

Capacity to deliver. 


The proposed new fees and charges for 2011/12 financial year have been assessed under 

Policy No. 1.2.11 - community consultation and no community consultation is required. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the fees and charges for the Quarry Amphitheatre for 2011/2012, as detailed in the 

above report, be adopted effective from 1 July 2011; 




Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.67 

REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - BOLD PARK AQUATIC CENTRE 


To review the current fee structure for entry, programmes and services at the Bold Park Aquatic 

Centre. 

BACKGROUND: 

Each year, as part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges are reviewed and the most 

appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget so that new fees can 

be reflected in the revenue items. 

Current fees and charges for the centre remain competitive with the market. In general terms, 

it is accepted that fees and charges change to coincide with the Perth Consumer Price Index 

(CPI). 



2011 was only 2.6% it is recommended to increase the fees and charges in relation to the Bold 

Park Aquatic Centre in the forthcoming financial year by approximately 4%. This can be 

justified as it takes into consideration the increases in staff wages, utilities and building costs. 

The report will discuss the following:- 

1. Financial performance and patronage for previous ten years. 

2. Illustration of competitive fees and charges. 

3. Justification for fees and charges. 

4. Organised programme, lane hire and service charges. 

DETAILS: 

1. Financial Performance and Patronage 

The following chart shows the facility’s financial performance and patronage from 2000/2001 to 

2010/2011 (projected). Financial figures have been rounded up. An overview is illustrated in 

the Graph below: 



28 JUNE 2011 

Graph 1: 

Revenue 

Revenue has increased from $568,000 in 2000/2001 to a projected figure in 2010/2011 of 

$939,000. The increase can be attributed to a number of factors including facility improvements 

(shade-sails, state-of-the-art filtration, re-commissioning of heat pumps, accessible 

changeroom), increase in sales from merchandise and the kiosk and increase in programming 

(in-house coaching, living longer/living stronger and body harmonics). 

Expenditure 

Expenditure has increased from $629,000 to approximately $1,290,000. A number of factors 

contribute to this including, increase in operating costs (power, water, chemicals and labour), 

and the aging infrastructure - building, plant and pool shell. Depreciation and cost allocations 

have not been included in the expenditure. 

In relation to the pool shell (which is beyond its useful life), the Town is in the process of 

engaging an engineering consultant to examine the structural integrity of the pool shell/ 

surrounds and the initial desk top work geothermal feasibility study. A separate report will be 

presented to Council in the future on these matters. 

Net Operating Cost 

The net operating cost has increased from a deficit of $60,000 to approximately $351,000. The 

increase in the operating deficit is getting more difficult with age and condition of the pool. A 

significant increase in the deficit during the past twelve months (2010/2011 financial year) can 

be attributed to a number of factors including non-capital works ($45,000), Pool and Plant 

Maintenance (increase of $20,000) and Building Maintenance (increase of $40,000). 

Patronage 

Patronage has been steady over the past ten years with the exception of 2005/2006 due to mild 

summer and heating of the Claremont Pool). The last twelve months has increased due to 

remedial works completed at the Claremont Aquatic Centre. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Illustration of Comparative Fees and Charges 

Table 1 below provides a competitor analysis from other Aquatic Centres within the 

region/metropolitan area for entry to the pool. Where no figure appears, the category of 

entrance should be regarded as not existing within that particular centre’s schedule. Bold Park 

Aquatic Centre current proposed fee schedule is comparable with similar outdoor 50 metre 

facilities. The assumption is that all centres surveyed will also have fee and charges increases 

introduced during the forthcoming financial year. 

Table 1: Competitor Analysis - Fee Comparisons - Current 2010/2011 

Single Entry Bold Beatty Swan Challenge Fremantle Bayswater Claremont Terry Aqualife 

Park Park Park Stadium 

Waves 

Tyzak 

Adult 4.90 5.50 4.90 5.20 4.90 5.20 4.70 5.20 5.00 

Child (under 15) 3.50 4.00 3.70 4.00 3.40 4.00 3.50 3.70 3.90 

Child (under 5) free see below free under 4 see below under 3 free free free 

accompanied by a full 

paying adult 

free 

free 

Family Pass 14.50 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.50 14.00 15.50 14.50 

(2 adults,2 children) 

Student (15+ with 4.30 4.50 3.90 3.90 3.90 4.00 3.50 3.70 3.90 

current ID) 

Senior/Pensioner 3.50 3.50 3.90 4.00 3.90 4.00 3.00 3.50 3.90 

Health Care Holder 4.20 3.50 3.90 4.00 3.90 4.00 3.00 3.50 3.90 

School Program 2.90 2.50 3.00 2.20 2.20 2.50 2.90 2.40 

Single Entry Bold Beatty Swan Challenge Fremantle Bayswater Claremont Terry Aqualife 

Park Park Park Stadium 

Waves 

Tyzak 

Non Swimmer 2.00 2.00 1.70 2.00 1.90 1.90 2.00 1.80 1.50 

Spectator (carnival) 3.40 2.00 1.70 1.90 1.90 2.00 1.50 

Vacation Swim 2.90 2.90 3.50 3.00 2.20 3.40 3.50 3.90 

Organized 

Programs 

Swimming Classes 

(30 min) 

11.50 

to 

12.00 

13.40 10.50 

to 

12.00 

13.50 

to 

15.50 

12.40 

to 

13.90 

12.50 10.50 12.50 12.00 

Swimming Class 13.00 13.40 11.60 15.50 13.90 13.00 10.50 14.00 12.00 

(45 min) 

Squad Junior 

(per month) 

80..0 

0 

Outsource 

d 

78.00 Outsource 

d 

Outsourced Outsource 

d 

Kirby Swim 125.00 Outsource 

d 

Squad Level 1 92.00 " 90.00 " “ '" “ " 

(per month) 

Squad Level 2 

" 100.0 " “ " “ " 

(per month) 

0 

Squad Level 3 

" 107.0 " “ " “ 140.00 " 

(per month) 

0 

Squad Level 4 

" " “ " “ " 

(per month) 

Squad Level 5 

" " “ " “ " 

(per month) 

Fitness class & Swim 12.00 10.50 13.00 10.00 11.00 13.50 13.00 

Aquarobics - 1 hour 8.30 12.00 10.50 11.00 10.00 11.00 7.00 12.50 11.00 

(45min) 

Crèche 1 st child 4.90 4.50 4.50 4.30 3.80 4.00 5.00 3.80 

Crèche 2 nd child 4.00 3.50 4.50 2.85 1.90 5.00 

Spa & Swim 10.00 9.20 9.70 13.60 

Spa add on 3.20 

Child under 5 

accompanied by a 

paying adult 

Child under 4 

accompanied by a 

non-swimming adult 

free free free free free 3.80 free free free 

1.50 



28 JUNE 2011 

Proposed Fee Increases 

The proposed fee increases are detailed in the various following tables. 

Table 2: Proposed Fee Increase - Single entries 

CASUAL 

Current Fees Proposed Fees 

2010/2011 2011/2012 

Variance 

Admission 

Price 

Inc GST Inc GST 

Adult 4.90 5.00 0.10 

Child 3.50 3.70 0.20 

Child Under 4yrs 

(Must be accompanied by a full fee paying adult) 

Free Free N/A 

Family 14.50 15.00 0.50 

Student 4.30 4.40 0.10 

Seniors (over 60 yrs) 3.50 3.60 0.10 

School Entry vacation 2.90 3.00 0.10 

Non Swimmer 2.00 2.00 - 

Spectator Carnival 3.40 3.50 0.10 

Crèche (per 90 minute session) 1 st child 4.90 5.10 0.20 

Crèche (per 90 minute session) 2 nd child 4.00 4.20 0.20 

Aqua Aerobics 8.30 8.50 0.20 

Living Longer, Living Stronger (LLLS) 

* fees set by COTA 7.00 7.00 

Health Care Card (concession card holder) 4.20 4.40 0.20 

Spa add-on 3.20 3.30 0.10 

 

 

 

The spa add-on is a fee that is added to the normal entry fee which allows for a reduction 

for users who receive a discount. 

The crèche is an additional service provided to customers and does not contribute 

financially to the Centre’s position as the cost to provide the service exceeds the revenue 

received. 

LLLS fees are currently capped at $7 per visit. 

Table 3: Proposed Fee Increase - Multiple Entries (10 entry pass – valid 12 months) 

MULTI PASSES 

Current Fees Proposed Fees 

2010/2011 2011/2012 Variance 

Admission 

Price 

Inc GST Inc GST 

Adult 45.00 47.00 2.00 

Child 32.00 33.50 1.50 

Student 38.50 40.00 1.50 

Seniors/Pensioner 32.50 34.00 1.50 

Health Care Card (concession card holder) 38.50 40.00 1.50 

Crèche 1 st child 49.00 51.00 2.00 

Crèche 2 nd child 40.00 41.00 1.00 

Aqua Aerobics 74.50 77.50 3.00 

Vacation Swimming 30.00 30.00 

Living Longer, Living Stronger 

* fees set by COTA 70.00 70.00 

Note: Increase in single entries is reflected in the multiple entries. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Other Programme, Lane Hire and Service Charges 

In addition to the entry fees and charges in the competitor analysis, there are a number of other 

programs and hire charges. As with the entrance fees, the Centre’s charges remain 

competitive with other centres. 

Table 4: 

Proposed Fee Increase – Other 

Activity 

Current 

2009/2010 

(Inc GST) 

Proposed 

2010/2011 

(inc GST) 

Variance 

Price 

Swimming Classes Pre-school 

11.50 12.00 0.50 

(20 min) * GST free 

Swimming Classes 

12.00 13.00 1.00 


Swimming Class 

13.00 13.50 0.50 


Private 1 (I person) 

* GST 40.00 42.00 2.00 

free 

Private 2 (2 people) * GST free 46.50 

Squad Junior (per month) (2) 80.00 83.00 3.00 

Squad Intermediate (per month) (3) 92.00 95.00 3.00 

Body Harmonics LTS (10) 247.00 257.00 10.00 

Body Harmonics Freestyle (5) 247.00 257.00 10.00 

Body Harmonics Graduate (10) 218.00 226.00 8.00 

Body Harmonics private (5) 475.00 500.00 25.00 

BBQ Hire 5.50 5.50 Nil 

Lane Hire 13.00 14.00 1.00 

Community Room Hire 13.50 14.00 0.50 

Carnival Hire (6 Lanes) 160.00 165.00 5.00 

Locker Hire (small) coin operated 1.00 1.00 Nil 

Locker Hire (large) 2.50 2.60 0.10 

Inflatable pool toy 1.50 2.00 0.50 

Buoyancy Belt Hire 2.50 3.00 0.50 

Kickboard Hire 1.20 1.50 0.50 

The locker hire facility for small lockers provided at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre does not have 

the capacity to accept any coin denomination other than $1.00. However, the large lockers are 

paid for over the counter and a 10 cent increase would be appropriate as they are normally 

used by families and groups. 




The adoption of fees and charges pertaining to the Bold Park Aquatic Centre will have a direct 

impact on the revenue next financial year. This will impact on the 2011/12 Budget that is 

currently in draft form and incorporates the proposed fees and charges as detailed in the report. 



28 JUNE 2011 




 

 

 






Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is required. The new fees and charges will be 

included in the 2011/2012 Town’s budget. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the fees and charges for the Bold Park Aquatic Centre for 2011/2012, as detailed in 

the above report, be adopted effective from 1 July 2011; 

should special circumstances apply, the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to 

waive fees and charges in accordance with the provision of section 6.12 of the 

Local Government Act 1995. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.68 

REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - THE BOULEVARD CENTRE 


To review the current fee and charges for the Boulevard Centre (TBC), located under the 

Cambridge Library. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Boulevard Centre (TBC) is a purpose built Conference Centre constructed as a part of the 

Cambridge library redevelopment that opened in early July 2002. The Centre generates 

revenue from a number of sources including room hire, set up fees, catering and staff. It is 

envisaged that income for the 2010/2011 financial year will be approaching $500,000. 

Each year as part of the budgetary process the fees and charges of all Council facilities are 

reviewed and this report shall review the market pricing making recommendations to fees & 

charges 

DETAILS: 

Classifications 

The current room hire fees for The Boulevard Centre are structured around the four 

classifications below. These were introduced in July 2008/09 and have resulted in a fair and 

manageable structure for staff and customers alike. Since then, the TBC has produced a 

surplus of over $100k pa (not including depreciation or cost allocations) for the Town with no 

negative feedback from customers. Percentages shown alongside each classification exhibit 

the 2010/11 percentage of hire for each classification. There are no changes proposed for the 

classifications. 

1. Community (non-profit charity) 16.8% 

2. Agency (non-profit organisation) 31.5% 

3. State & Federal Government 15.9% 

4. Commercial & Function 35.8% 

Room Hire Fees Analysis 

The following graph (GRAPH 1) shows the TBC’s similar major competitors, The UWA Club, 

Challenge Stadium and Technology Park and their hire rates against various room capacities. 

GRAPH 1 - Room Size Vs Hire Fees Comparison 

$1,000.00 

$900.00 

$800.00 

$700.00 

TBC ‐ Commercial 

$600.00 

$500.00 

Technology Park 

$400.00 

UWA Club 

$300.00 

Challenge Stadium 

$200.00 

$100.00 

$0.00 

250 Pax 120 Pax 40 Pax 20 Pax 



28 JUNE 2011 

The TBC room rates compare reasonably well against its major competitors which are The 

UWA Club, Challenge Stadium and Technology Park. This comparison shows that the UWA 

Club is the most expensive overall. However, the TBC remains a close second with Technology 

Park being the most competitive of all. Challenge Stadium is difficult to compare as it adopts a 

different strategy by having a fixed price for all rooms (except the smallest room) and relies on 

up-selling internal catering and audio visual "packages". 

The three competitors listed are the only conference or function centres that provide a direct 

comparison to the TBC as they are either run by Government and/or, not connected to a hotel. 

Further, the other venues do not offer tiered discount rates therefore for this comparison above 

the commercial rate is used. 

In addition, the following information needs to be taken into consideration when making a 

recommendation for the TBC 2011/12 fees & charges. 

1. In 2010/11 the TBC lost a few commercial based customers to Technology Park based 

on price alone. One was a long term customer. 

2. The most expensive venue, the UWA Club, did not increase their pricing last year in 

2010/11 and do not intend to increase their pricing in 2011/12. 

3. From GRAPH 2 (below) the TBC has posted operating surpluses of over $110,000 for 

two consecutive years and is projected to maintain a similar surplus for 2010/11. 

Surpluses are transferred to a Reserve and funds for capital works are then derived from 

the Reserve. 

GRAPH 2 - TBC Operating performance 2006 to 2011 

The above figures doe not include depreciation or cost allocations. 

From the competitive analysis provided in Graph 1, and in consideration of the addition 

information provided in dot points 1 to 3 above, it is recommended that there are no room fee 

increases for 2011/12 financial year. This will enable the Town to maintain the TBC's 

competitive position and avoid becoming the most expensive venue among its competitors as 

well as the potential to win business from Technology Park and Challenge Stadium. 

The proposed fees and charges for 2011/12 are listed in Table 1. 



28 JUNE 2011 

TABLE 1 - TBC 2011/12 Fees & Charges 

ROOM 

Boulevard 

North 

Boulevard 

South 

Boulevard 

Hall 

Lake 

Monger 

Perry 

Lakes 

Lakes 

Suite 

Room 

Capacity 130 130 260 40 40 80 20 

Oceanic 

Room 

COMMUNTY RATE 

Hour rate 2010/11 37.00 37.00 50.00 23.00 23.00 33.00 15.00 

2011/12 37.00 37.00 50.00 23.00 23.00 33.00 15.00 

Diff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Day Rate 2010/11 257.00 257.00 364.00 151.00 151.00 230.00 110.00 

2011/12 257.00 257.00 364.00 151.00 151.00 230.00 110.00 

Diff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

AGENCY RATE 

Hour Rate 2010/11 56.00 56.00 89.00 33.00 33.00 46.00 23.00 

2011/12 56.00 56.00 89.00 33.00 33.00 46.00 23.00 

Diff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 

Day Rate 2010/11 400.00 400.00 573.00 243.00 243.00 326.00 160.00 

2011/12 400.00 400.00 573.00 243.00 243.00 326.00 160.00 

Diff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

STATE & FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RATE 

Hour Rate 2010/11 63.00 63.00 96.00 36.00 36.00 50.00 25.00 

2011/12 63.00 63.00 96.00 36.00 36.00 50.00 25.00 

Diff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Day Rate 2010/11 435.00 435.00 635.00 270.00 270.00 358.00 180.00 

2011/12 435.00 435.00 635.00 270.00 270.00 358.00 180.00 

Diff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

COMMERCIAL & FUNCTIONS RATE 

Hour Rate 2010/11 93.00 93.00 137.00 54.00 54.00 79.00 37.00 

2011/12 93.00 93.00 137.00 54.00 54.00 79.00 37.00 

Diff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Day Rate 2010/11 671.00 671.00 940.00 383.00 383.00 520.00 260.00 

2011/12 671.00 671.00 940.00 383.00 383.00 520.00 260.00 

Diff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

OTHER FEES 

Equipment and Ancillary 

The Boulevard Centre has a range of equipment which comes under the normal list of fees & 

charges. Table 2 below highlights the proposed 2011/12 equipment hire fees of approximately 

4% increase (with rounding to lowest dollar). Exceptions to this are tea and coffee which is 

extremely profitable but sensitive to change and some other items that require no ongoing 

maintenance. The last three items are new. 



28 JUNE 2011 

TABLE 2: The Boulevard Centre proposed 2011/12 Equipment Hire Fees 

ITEM 

2010/11 

Hourly 

2011/12 

Hourly Diff 

2010/11 

Session 

2011/12 

Session Diff 

Data Projector & P.A 58.00 60.00 2.00 175.00 180.00 5.00 

Data Projector only 47.00 48.00 1.00 135.00 140.00 5.00 

P.A only 37.00 38.00 1.00 100.00 103.00 3.00 

Electronic W/Board 22.00 23.00 1.00 64.00 66.00 2.00 

Laptop 22.00 23.00 1.00 64.00 66.00 2.00 

Flipchart excl Stationery n/a n/a 15.00 15.00 0.00 

TV/DVD 18.00 18.00 0.00 52.00 54.00 2.00 

Radio Microphone n/a n/a 46.00 47.00 1.00 

Extra Microphones n/a n/a 21.00 21.00 0.00 

Internet per connection n/a n/a 25.00 25.00 0.00 

Continuous Ice n/a n/a 52.00 54.00 2.00 

Wedding decoration pkg n/a n/a 500.00 500.00 0.00 

Table centre pieces (ea) n/a n/a 25.00 25.00 0.00 

Tea & Coffee one serve 2.50 2.50 0.00 n/a n/a 

Tea & Coffee ½ Day 4.00 4.00 0.00 n/a n/a 

Tea & Coffee Full Day 7.00 7.00 0.00 n/a n/a 

Set-up/Cleaning fee 34.00 35.00 1.00 n/a n/a 

Crockery per setting 1.50 1.60 0.10 

Kitchen fee (per head) 52.00 $1 Per head Change 

Preferred Catering 10% of gross 10% of gross 0.00 

High cocktail Bars n/a n/a n/a $25.00 new 

High cocktail bar with linen n/a n/a n/a $50.00 new 

Debt recovery (per month) $15.00 New 

Sat night function cleaning n/a $280.00 New 

Staffing Charges 

Staff employed at TBC are covered under the Town's 2009 Collective Agreement and their 

charges are recouped et via users of the facility and it is proposed for the remain the same as 

last financial year, specifically: 

Setting Up 

$34.00 per hour/per staff 

Additional Cleaning ( Minimum 2 hours) $33.00 per hour/per staff 

Inspection Fee $33.00 per hour/per staff, plus penalties of 15% 

Saturday,25% Sundays and 115% Public Holidays 

Duty Management: 

Weekdays to 5pm 


Saturdays and Weekdays after 5.00pm $36.00 per hour/per staff 

Sundays 


Public Holidays 



The current security call out fee is set at 100% cost recovery per invoice to the Town which is 

the same across all council facilities. No change is recommended. 





28 JUNE 2011 


The adoption of Policy changes and the proposed fees and charges will have an immediate 

impact on the proposed 2011/12 Budget. Although no increases are proposed in the Fees and 

Charges, it is envisaged that the facilities bottom line will continue to improve. 



Towns 2009-2020 Draft Strategic Plan namely: 

 

 

 

Planning for our community 




As per policy 1.2.11 – community consultation is NOT REQUIRED 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Fees and Charges for The Boulevard Centre for 2011/12 as detailed in the 

above report be adopted, effective from 1 July 2011; 




Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.69 

REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - SPORTSGROUNDS AND RESERVES 


To review the current fee structure for Sports Grounds and Reserves for 2011/2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

Each financial year, Council must establish the fees and charges to be levied at its sports 

grounds and reserves. The most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the 

annual budget so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items. 

DETAILS: 

Over the past few years, fee increases for Sportsgrounds and Reserves have been made in 

line with CPI (Perth) movements. The CPI movements for the period March 20010 to March 

2011 is 2.6%, however, the Town's cost of providing the facilities has risen beyond CPI due to 

the wage, utilities and cleaning components. It is therefore recommended to increase the fees 

and charges by approximately 4%. Specific changes are recommended for the categories of 

Weddings, Promotions and Public Sampling, and Seasonal Reserve Charges. 

1. Weddings 

Wedding applications are generally submitted well in advance without actual attendance 

numbers confirmed. It is difficult to administer the exact attendance numbers and it is 

recommended that a flat rate be introduced rather than the previous formulae based on 0-50 

people ($80), 50-75 people ($120) and 75-100($159) people. Previous patterns reveal an 

average of 70 and appropriate flat rate of $125 is recommended. 

2. Promotions and Public Sampling 

The request from companies to promote and provide public sampling has increased in 

2010/2011. Currently, the only stipulation is that groups can only book for a maximum of four 

hours per day. However, there are no restrictions on the number of days a booking can be 

made for. Due to the increasing requests for public sampling, it is proposed to include the 

ruling that a maximum of two days per booking is allowed. The fee will increase from $107 to 

$111(increase of 4%). 

3. Seasonal Reserves/ Seasonal Hire 

A more simplified approach to the fee structure is put forward, with the charge for changerooms 

now only applicable for Town managed facilities i.e. those not leased to Clubs or Associations. 

In 2010/2011, the base seasonal charge per senior player was $70, inclusive of changeroom 

facilties, or $52.50 excluding changeroom facilties. Juniors were charged at 25% of the senior 

rate, and this continues. 

A summary of the proposed fees (including GST) for the 2010/2011 financial year are outlined 

below in Table 1 



28 JUNE 2011 

Table 1 - Proposed 2011/2012 Fees and Charges 

2010/2011 2011/2012Proposed 

(Inc GST) 

Variance 

1. LIQUOR PERMITS 

Charge per day Nil Nil Not Applicable 

2. PHOTOGRAPHY/FILMING LICENCE 

Community rate per hour 

Corporate Low Budget 

$27 

Per Day $120 

Per half Day $60 

$28 

$125 

$62 

$1 

$5 

$2 

3. WEDDING LICENCE 

(i) Booking Fee (Photographs) 

$27 

$28 

$1 

(ii) Ceremony 

0-50 people 

50-75 people 

75-100 people 

$80 

$120 

$159 

remove 

remove 

remove 

Not Applicable 



Flat Rate 

Thereafter additional increments of 25 people 

are charged as follows: 

$39 

$125 

remove 


(iii) Reception 

Per Hour 

½ Day (max 5 hrs) 

Full Day 

$32 

$160 

$320 

remove 

remove 

remove 




4. COMMERCIAL RATES 

Light Commercial Use 

First two hours (per hour) 

Second two hours (per hour) 

Thereafter (per hour) 

Minimum Charge 

Maximum Charge per day 

$249 

$115 

$50 

$249 

$778 

$249 

$115 

$50 

$249 

$778 

$8 

$4 

$2 

$8 

$26 

Heavy Commercial Use 

First two hours (per hour) 

Second two hours (per hour) 

Thereafter (per hour) 

Minimum Charge 

Maximum Charge per day 

$443 

$261 

$146 

$443 

$1554 

$443 

$261 

$146 

$443 

$1554 

$15 

$9 

$5 

$15 

$53 

5. COMMERCIAL GROUP FITNESS LICENCE 

(3 or more people) 

6 months 

12 months 

$304 

$609 

$316 

$632 

$12 

$23 

6. CORPORATE, PRIVATE AND 

NON-COMMUNITY FUNCTIONS ON 

RESERVES (REVISED) 

50+ participants 

Hourly Rate 

½ Day Rate (max 5 hrs) 

Full Day Rate 

Bond is also applicable 

* Not applicable to companies who advertise 

$32 

$160 

$321 

$33 

$166 

$332 

$1 

$6 

$11 



28 JUNE 2011 

materials or petitions on various political 

subjects or religious bias 

2010/2011 2011/2012Proposed 

(Inc GST) 

Variance 

7. DRIVER TRAINING 

Hourly Rate 

½ Day Rate 

Full Day Rate 

8. PROMOTION AND PUBLIC SAMPLING 

Maximum time allocation of 4 hours per day 

for a maximum of 2 days 

9. CHARGES FOR RESERVES 

Seasonal Hires 

(i) Training & Match Play per senior player 

per season (formally Base season charge) 

(ii) Training & Match Play per junior player 

(formally Base season charge) 

(iii) Juniors under 8 years 

(vi) Town managed change room facilities 

per senior player per season 

(vii) Town managed change room facilities 

per junior player per season 

Definition: 

Town managed facilities exclude those 

leased directly to a Club or Association. 

Casual Hirers 

(ii) Town managed facilities 

charge per day 

charge per half day 

(i) Reserve 

charge per day 

charge per half day 

hourly rate (maximum 2 hours) 

$32 

$160 

$321 

$33 

$166 

$333 

$1 

$6 

$11 

$107 $111 $4 

$42 

$10.50 (25% of 

senior rate) 

Nil 

$55 

$14 

Nil 

$13 

$3.50 

$28 $30 $2.00 

$7 (25% of senior 

rate) 

$83 

$41 

$120 

$60 

$20 

$7.50 $0.5 

10. SPECIAL EVENTS 

Special events at any of Council’s venues will 

be at the discretion of Council 

11. RESERVE BOND $200 $200 Does not increase 

with CPI 

12. CITY BEACH TENNIS COURTS (HARD 

COURTS) 

Per Hour (8.00 am – 10.00 pm) 

Use of Lights Per hour 

13. FLOREAT BEACH VOLLEYBALL COURTS 

Public Use 

Court Hire 

Equipment Hire – Ball 

14. CANCELLATION FEES 

Cancellation is made prior to booking: 

$11 

$3.10 

$20 

$5/ball 

-30 days or more Amount Retained 0% 0% 

$90 

$45 

$125 

$62 

$21 

$11.50 

$3.20 

$21 

$5/ball 

-14 to 29 days Amount Retained 25% 25% 

- 7 to 13 days Amount Retained 50% 50% 

- Less than 7 days Amount Retained 100% 100% 

15. STORAGE AT ALDERBURY RESERVE $62 per month $65 $3 

16. HIRE OF HOLYROOD PARK FACILITY 

$7 

$4 

$5 

$2 

$1 

0.50c 

0.20c 

$1 

Nil 



28 JUNE 2011 

Per Hour 

Half day (max 5 hours) 

Full day 

2010/2011 2011/2012Proposed 

(Inc GST) 

$10.50 

$41 

$77 

$11 

$43 

$80 

Variance 

$0.50 

$2 

$3 




This year, a total of $60,000 was budgeted and the Town received $40,000 to the end of May, 

with winter seasonal charges about to be invoice in June. The changes recommended in this 

report do not materially affect the projections for next year and similar revenue is anticipated. 


The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports four of the key priority areas of the 


 

 

 

 

Financial Sustainability; 





As per Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation is not required. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the fees and charges for the sports grounds and reserves within the Town for 

2011/2012 detailed in the relevant report, be adopted, effective from 1 July 2011; 




Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.70 

REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY 


To review the fees and charges structure for the Cambridge Library for 2011/2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town of Cambridge reviews its fees and charges on an annual basis. The most 

appropriate time to establish fees is prior to the adoption of the Annual Budget so that these 

fees can be reflected in the revenue accounts. 

DETAILS: 

Current Fees and Charges 

Benchmarking analysis as outlined in Table 1 reveals that current fees and charges for the 

Library remain competitive with other libraries. 

Table 1: 2010/2011 Comparative Analysis of Revised Fees and Charges 

Service Cambridge Subiaco Nedlands Vic Park Fremantle Scarborough Vincent 

Photocopying 

A4 

Black/White 

$0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.25 

A3 

Black/White 

$0.40 $0.30 $0.40 $0.40 $0.40 $0.20 $0.25 

A4 Colour $2.00 $0.50 $0.50 $1.50 $1.00 $2.00 $2.50 

A3 Colour $3.00 $1.00 $1.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $3.30 

Replacement 

M/ship Cards 

$5.00 

$5.00 (if 

under 2 yrs 

old) 

$5.00 (or 

free card 

every 2 

years) 

$4.40 $3.50 $6.00 $6.00 

Computer 

Disks 

$2.20 N/A N/A $1.40 N/A N/A N/A 

Flash Drives 

1 Gigabyte $15.00 N/A N/A N/A. N/A $5.00 N/A 

2 Gigabytes $20.00 N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A N/A N/A 

Audio Ear 

Buds (pair) 

$2.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1.20 $1.00 

Service Cambridge Subiaco Nedlands Vic Park Fremantle Scarborough Vincent 

Library Bags 

Red $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 

Linen $5.00 N/A N/A N/A $2.50 N/A N/A 

Lost/Damage of Library Items 

SLWA 

Local 

$5.00 

minimum 

$2.50 

$2.20 + $3.00 

non-ref admin 

fee 

$5.00 + $3.00 

admin fee 

$7.50 

$10.00 

Printing Charges 

$0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.25 

(per page) 

Local Studies 

$5.00 per 

Multifunctional 

Scanner 

disc 

machine - low 

(per page) $5.00 N/A 

N/A. $1.00 per N/A N/A 

usage FREE 

image 

thereafter 

$7.70 

$5.00 



28 JUNE 2011 

Service Cambridge Subiaco Nedlands Vic Park 

Frema 

ntle 

Scarborough 

Vincent 

Internet Training 

Temporary 

Membership (Single) 

Room Hire 

Group Studies Room 

$5.00 

$50.00 

2 items 

borrowed 

$10.00 p/h 

commercial 

Only 

offered to 

Healthcare 

/ 

Pensioners 

FREE 

N/A 

FREE - 

seldom 

held 

No charge No charge $35.00 

No facility 

$10.00 p/h 

excludes 

PCs 

$15.00 p/h 

includes 

PCS 

$18.00 not 

for profit 

$35 

commercial 

Reading Room $15.00 p/h No facility No facility No facility 

Interview Room $5.00 p/h No facility No facility No facility 

Non-collected 

Reservation Fee 

Event Attendance 

Introductory 

events 

special 

$2.00 N/A 

Free 

Free 

$2.00 ILLS 

only 

$5.00 

Outside 

performer 

seldom held 

(per child) 

FREE - 

seldom 

held 

No 

Charge 

No 

facility 

No 

facility 

No 

facility 

N/A 

$16.00 

No facility 

$20.00 p/h not 

for profit $35.00 

commercial 

No facility 

N/A 

$50.00 

2 items 

borrowed 

$25.00 

/$12.50 

Community 

groups. 

Rooms not 

comparable 

No facility 

No facility 

N/A N/A N/A N/A 

N/A Free Free Free 

Demand/Extension 

1-2 hours $15.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Per hour over 2 

hours 

$10.00 N/A 

Nonattendance Fee $5.00 No No No No No No 

Service Cambridge Subiaco Nedlands 

Vic 

Park 

Fremantle Scarborough Vincent 

Historical Photographs on disk (Council copyright) 

1 image $5.00 N/A N/A N/A 

2 or more 

images 

Debt 

Collection 

Administration 

Fee 

Overdue Loan 

Fines 

Per day 

overdue 

Maximum 

charge per item 

$6.00 per disc 

up to 5 

images, $1.00 

per image 

thereafter 

Commercial 

$12.00 Freo 

Connection 

$24.00 Non 

Freo 

Connection 

$2.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

$10.00 N/A $3.00 N/A N/A $5.00 $5.00 

$0.20 N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.20 N/A 

$5.00 

$2.50 (after 

3 week 

grace 

period) 

N/A 

N/A 

$0.50 per 

item (1 week 

grace period) 

N/A 

$5.00 

N/A 

$5.00 (after 3 

week grace 

period) 



28 JUNE 2011 

Proposed 2011/2012 Fees and Charges 

Amendments 

Three amendments are proposed. 

Computer discs ($2.20). This product was introduced since 1998/99. The market for this 

product has been superceded by flash drives which are being sold at the library. It is 

recommended this charge be removed for the 2011/2012 Schedule of Fees and Charges. 

Lost/Damaged items. The minimum charge of $5.00 to repair or replace a lost or damaged item 

was increased in 2000/2001. It is recommended this charge be increased to $7.50. This charge 

compares with the average $6.50 (ranges from $2.50 to $10.00) for the six neighbouring 

councils benchmarked. 

Replacement Membership Cards. The charge to replace a lost or damaged card was last 

increased in 2007/2008 from $3.30 to $5.00. It is recommended this charge be increased $5.00 

to $6.00 in the 2011/2012 Schedule of Fees and Charges. 

New charges 

One new charge is recommended for introduction in the 2011/2012 financial year. Door 

hangers for children's rooms encourages children to read. It is proposed the hangers sell for 50 

cents each inclusive of GST. 

Fees and charges to apply in the forthcoming 2011/2012 financial year are as outlined in 

Table 2. 

Table 2: 2011/2012 Proposed Cambridge Library Fees and Charges 

Service 2010/2011 2011/2012 Difference 

Photocopying $0.20 $0.20 Nil 

Black and White A4 $0.40 $0.40 Nil 

Black and White A3 $0.40 $0.40 Nil 

Colour A4 $2.00 $2.00 Nil 

Colour A3 $3.00 $3.00 Nil 

Replacement 

Membership Cards 

$5.00 $6.00 $1.00 

Computer Disks $2.20 $0.00 Delete 

Flash Drives 

1 Gigabyte $15.00 $15.00 Nil 

2 Gigabyte $20.00 $20.00 Nil 

Audio ear buds 

(pair) 

$2.00 $2.00 Nil 

Library Bags 

Red $1.00 $1.00 Nil 

Linen $5.00 $5.00 Nil 

Children's Reading 

Door Hangers (New) 

$0.00 $0.50 $0.50 

Lost/Damage of Full replacement Full replacement 

$2.50 

Library items cost. $5.00 minimum cost. $7.50 minimum 

Printing Charges 

(per Page) 

$0.20 $0.20 Nil 

Local Studies 

Scanner (per page) 

$5.00 $5.00 Nil 

Internet Training $5.00 $5.00 Nil 

Word Processing FREE FREE Nil 

Service 2010/2011 2011/2012 Difference 

Temporary Membership Deposit 

Single $50.00 $50.00 Nil 

Room Hire 



28 JUNE 2011 

Group Studies Room $10.00 per hour $10.00 per hour Nil 

Reading Room $15.00 per hour $15.00 per hour Nil 

Interview Room $ 5.00 per hour $ 5.00 per hour Nil 

Reservation 

Cancellation Fee 

$2.00 $2.00 Nil 

Event attendance 

Introductory/ Special 

Events 

FREE FREE Nil 

Demand/Extension 

1-2 hours $15.00 $15.00 Nil 

Per hour over 2 hours $10.00 $10.00 Nil 

Non Attendance Fee $ 5.00 $ 5.00 Nil 

Historical Photographs on Disk (Council copyright) 

1 image $5.00 $5.00 Nil 

2 or more images per 

image 

$2.00 $2.00 Nil 

Debt Collection 

$10.00 $10.00 Nil 


Overdue Loan Fines 

Per day overdue $0.20 $0.20 Nil 

Maximum charge per 

item. 

$5.00 $5.00 Nil 




The adoption of the proposed fees and charges will have a direct positive impact on the 

2011/2012 budget. 


The Annual Review of fees and charges for the Cambridge Library is consistent with the Town's 

Strategic plan key priority area of capacity to deliver and its goal of financial sustainability. 


In accordance with Policy 1.2.11 Community Consultation is not required as statutory 

advertising is considered sufficient. 




That:- 

(i) the fees and charges pertaining to the Cambridge Library for the 2011/2012 

financial year, as detailed in the above report be adopted, effective from 1 July 

2011; 



28 JUNE 2011 

(ii) 




Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.71 

FEES AND CHARGES - CAMBRIDGE YOUTH CENTRE 


To review the current fee structures for the Cambridge Youth Services. 

BACKGROUND: 

Each year, as part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges are reviewed. Such a 

process encompasses the review of various services and programs provided within the Town’s 

Youth Service. The most appropriate time to set and review these fees is prior to adopting the 

Budget so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items. 



2011 was only 2.6% it is recommended to increase the fees and charges in relation to the 

Cambridge Youth Services by approximately 4%. This can be justified as it takes into 

consideration the increases in staff wages, utilities and building costs. 

DETAILS: 

The Town’s Youth Services facilitate and deliver a wide range of programs and services, 

predominantly from the premises at 86 Cambridge Street, West Leederville. In addition to the 

programs offered at 86 Cambridge Street, a number of activities are offered at other locations 

within the Town. Participating in these activities attracts a small fee and monies collected from 

participants are offset against the overall cost. As well as the costs associated in participating 

in an array of activities and programs, the Youth Services also offer limited photocopying and 

telephone usage, which attract a nominal cost recovery charge. It is recommended that no 

increase is made to photocopying. 

Tables 1 below highlight the costs for the activities and other available resources: 

Table 1 

Item 2010/2011 

(GST Inclusive) 

Entry Fees-gigs and music 

events 

Entry Fees-activities and 

workshops(dependent upon 

material cost) 

Proposed 2011/2012 

(GST Inclusive) 

Increase 

$5.80 per event $6.00 per event 0.20.20 

$5.80 -$35.00 per 

activity/workshop 

$6.00 -$40.00 per 

activity/workshop 

0.20- 5.00 

Photocopying $0.20 per page $0.20 per page nil 

Telephone $0.55 per call $0.60 per call .05 





28 JUNE 2011 


The adoption of the proposed fees and charges will have an immediate impact on the proposed 

2011/12 Budget. 


The annual review of fees and charges supports three of the key priority areas of the Town’s 

2009-2020 Strategic Plan namely; 

 

 

 





In accordance with Policy 1.2.11 Community Consultation is not required as statutory 

advertising is considered sufficient. 




That:- 

(i) the fees and charges pertaining to the Cambridge Youth Services for the 2011/2012 

financial year, as detailed in the above report, be adopted, effective from 1 July 

2011; 

(ii) 



special circumstances arise. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.72 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - WEMBLEY COMMUNITY CENTRE AND 

THE LEEDERVILLE TOWN HALL 


To review the current fees and charges for the hire of the Wembley Community Centre (WCC) 

and the Leederville Town Hall (LTH). 

BACKGROUND: 

Each year, as part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges of all Council facilities are 

reviewed. This report relates to two service areas, Wembley Community Centre and 

Leederville Town Hall. Each of these facilities has a number of income sources which are 

identified below:- 

Service Area 

Income Source 

Wembley Community Centre Administration 

Programs 

Equipment hire 

Room Hire 

Special events 

Leederville Town Hall Hire fees 

Leases 

Both the Wembley Community Centre and the Leederville Town Hall have been operating on a 

tiered fee structure. Historically, fees and charges have increased in line with CPI (Perth) 

movements (usually range from 3.4+ %). Although the CPI (Perth) movements for the period 

March 2010 to March 2011 was only 2.6% it is recommended to increase the fees and charges 

by approximately 4%. This can be justified as it takes into consideration the increases in staff 

wages, utilities and building costs. 

DETAILS: 

1. Wembley Community Centre Room Hire Fees 

Table 1 below illustrates the proposed room hire fees for the Wembley Community Centre for 

2011/12. 

Table 1: 

Proposed 2011/12 Room Hire Fees – per hour 

Main Dining Kitchen Activity Craft Board Playgroup 

Hall Room Room Room Room 

COMMUNITY RATE - Non profit charitable or benevolent organisations where there is no charge to participate. 

Before 

6pm 

2010/11 25.00 22.00 20.00 20.00 15.50 14.50 15.50 

2011/2 26.00 22.50 20.50 20.50 16.00 15.00 16.00 

Difference 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 

After 

6pm 

2010/11 28.00 26.00 23.00 23.00 22.00 20.00 22.00 

2011/12 29.00 27..00 23.50 23.50 22.50 20.50 22.50 

Difference 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 



28 JUNE 2011 

ACTIVITY RATE - Non profit and Government organisations 

Before 

6pm 

2010/11 33.00 30.00 28.00 28.00 27.00 25.00 27.00 

2011/12 34.00 31.00 29.00 29.00 28.00 26.00 26.00 

Difference 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

After 

6pm 

2010/11 36.50 33.00 31.00 31.00 29.00 27.00 29.00 

2011/2 38.00 34.00 32.00 32.00 30.00 28.00 30.00 

Difference 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

FUNCTIONS - Any private function, includes fundraising and celebration events by not for profit organisations. 

Per 

hour 

Per 

hour 

2010/11 62.00 55.00 49.00 49.00 46.00 41.00 46.00 

2011/12 64.50 57.00 51.00 51.00 48.00 42.50 48.00 

Difference 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 

COMMERCIAL - Where the sole purpose of hire is to generate a profit for an individual or company 

Per 

hour 

Per 

hour 

2010/11 100.00 89.00 81.50 81.50 76.00 70.00 75.00 

2011/12 104.00 92.00 84.50 84.50 79.00 73.00 78.00 

Difference 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 32.00 

Amenity Hairdressing Room (Per Day) Podiatry Room (Per Month) 

Rooms 

2010/11 37.00 155.00 

2011/12 38.50 161.00 

Difference 1.50 6.00 

Programs 

The Wembley Community Centre conducts some seniors' activities. The fees for programs are 

proposed to be increased by 4% (rounded to the nearest 10 cents) for the 2011/2012 financial 

year. 

Session 

Session 

Difference 

Cost 

Cost 

Minor Programs 2010/2011 2011/2012 

Seniors Programs: 

cards, bowls, mah-jong 

and concerts 

$2.90 $3.00 $0.10 

Other Income 

The centre also generates income from photocopying, telephone charges and the recouping of 

utility charges. Various equipment items are hired and it is proposed to increase the hire fees 

by 4% with rounding. The recouping of telephone charges is equal to the bill for identified 

phone lines. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Other Income 2010/11 2011/12 Difference 

Photocopying - per copy $0.25 $0.25 NIL 

Re-imbursement phone and electricity Equal to bill 

Equipment Hire - 

2010/11 2011/12 

Per Session Per Session 

Difference 

TV and Video $18.00 $18.50 0.50 

Multi-media Projector including audio $119.00 $123.00 4.00 

Additional Microphone $12.50 $13.00 0.50 

Crockery 0.50 0.50 NIL 

2. Leederville Town Hall 

A table illustrating the proposed changes to fees at the Leederville Town Hall is detailed below:- 

LEEDERVILLE TOWN HALL (Main Hall) – per hour 

COMMUNITY RATE - Non profit charitable or benevolent organisations 

2010/11 2011/12 Difference 

Before 6pm 25.00 26.00 1.00 

After 6pm 29.00 30.00 1.00 

ACTIVITY RATE - Non profit and Government organisations 

Before 6pm 35.00 36.00 1.00 

After 6pm 39.00 40.00 1.00 

FUNCTIONS - Any private function, includes fundraising and celebration events by not for profit organisations. 

Before 6pm 68.0 70.50 2.50 

After 6pm 79.00 82.00 3.00 

COMMERCIAL - Where the sole purpose of hire is to generate a profit for an individual or company 

Hourly 92.00 95.50 3.50 

Day Rate 312.00 324.00 12.00 

3. Miscellaneous Fees – Relating to Halls and Community Centres 


The current security call out fee is set at 100% cost recovery per invoice to the Town which is 

the same across all Council facilities. No change is recommended. 

Bonds 

Bonds are a financial deposit held by the Town to insure against breakage and damage to the 

Community Facilities. These functions are determined in accordance with Policy No. 2.1.50 - 

'Access to the Town’s Community Facilities'. There are no recommended changes to the 

current bonds taken as detailed in the following table. 

Hire Category: 2010/2011 2011/2012 

Community and Activity $200.00 $200.00 

Functions - without alcohol $500.00 $500.00 

Functions - with alcohol $1000 - $5000 $1000 - $5000 

Commercial Use $1000 - $5000 $1000 - $5000 

High risk user $1000 - $5000 $1000 - $5000 

Key Bond $50.00 $50.00 



28 JUNE 2011 

Storage 

Storage space is available to regular hirers and a fee only applies to those facilities where 

storage space is available. It is calculated on the size of storage space allocated to the group 

and the room hired. For example, one group may pay $24.00 per hour for use of a room before 

6pm, they may have one area (calculated by square metre) for storing their equipment 

therefore they would be charged $24.00 per month for storage. Another group may pay the 

same room fee per hour but have twice the storage space therefore they would be paying 

$48.00 per month storage:- 

(a) Minimum storage fee: 1 hour room hire per month 

(b) Maximum storage fee: 5 hours room hire per month 

Cancellation Fees 

Where a cancellation of a booking occurs without sufficient notice, a cancellation fee will be 

levied. There is no change to the cancellation fee structure. 

Cancellation fees - % of bond retained 2010/11 2011/12 

30 days or more 0% 0% 

14 to 29 days 25% 25% 

7 to 13 days 50% 50% 

Less than 7 days 100% 100% 

Penalties 

There are a number of penalty fees in place that relate to hirers that do not appear in the 

normal list of fees and charges but still may be applied in certain instances. They are:- 

2010/2011 2011/2012 Difference 

Additional Cleaning 100% cost recovery per 100% cost recovery per invoice Varied 

–min of 2 hours invoice to the Town. to the Town. 

Loss of keys Forfeiture of bond plus the Forfeiture of bond plus the cost NIL 

cost of having necessary of having necessary locks 

locks replaced. 

replaced. 

Non-payment of 

invoices resulting in 

debt recovery. 

The hirer will be reclassified 

as a high-risk 

user and will be required 

to pay in advance. On 

second instance hire will 

be revoked. 

The hirer will be re-classified as 

a high-risk user and will be 

required to pay in advance. On 

second instance hire will be 

revoked. 

Inspection fee $34.00 $35.00 $1.00 

Setting Up Fees 

The primary purpose of the setting up time is to move furniture and equipment to the desired 

configuration or to decorate the room or prepare the room for the activity. 

NIL 

Setting Up 2010/11 2011/12 

First 15 minutes before 

Free 

Free 

booking commences. 

Thereafter Half the Relevant hourly rate Half the Relevant hourly rate 



28 JUNE 2011 




The adoption of the proposed fees and charges will have immediate impact on the proposed 

2011/12 Draft Budget. 




 

 

 






Policy No. 1.2.11 - community consultation and no community consultation is required as 

statutory advertising is considered sufficient. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the fees and charges for the Wembley Community Centre and the Leederville Town 

Hall for 2011/12, as detailed in the above report, be adopted effective from 1 July 

2011; 




Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.73 

QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE - TWO YEAR MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND 

FUTURE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 


To provide Council with a management review of the Quarry Amphitheatre for the period 

August 2009 to June 2011 and a recommendation for the future management of the venue. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town previously had a contract with Starlight Theatre Lighting (STL) for the management 

of the Quarry Amphitheatre and the lease for the operations of the Quarry Café for a five (5) 

year period from 1 June 2006. However, upon the contractor's request (and in accordance with 

the Management Agreement) the Town agreed to release STL effective from 13 August 2009. 

A report was presented to Council in June 2009 which provided four options for the future 

management of the venue which included: 

1. Re-tender management and lease of café; 

2. Expressions of Interest for facility lease; 

3. Take management in-house and contract out café and support staff; and 

4. Not to provide the service and close the venue 

Council decided that the management of the venue be brought in-house and the Quarry Café 

including support staff (ushering) be contracted out for a two year period with a further 

management review of the venue to be undertaken in September 2011. A copy of the June 

2009 report (GC09.48) is provided as an attachment. 

Subsequent to the June 2009 Council decision, a request for quotation for a hospitality contract 

for the Quarry Café and ushering was developed and publicly advertised. Following an 

evaluation process of received submissions (4), the Quarry Catering Company (QCC) was 

selected as the preferred contractor for a two year period, with a further 1 year option (Town's 

option). 

DETAILS: 

Since the Town took over the management of the Quarry Amphitheatre, a number of processes 

were followed to ensure appropriate procedures were implemented and the venue operated in 

an efficient and professional way. These included: 

1. Recruitment and appointment of qualified staff 

2. Development of procedures 

3. Staff inductions and training including RSA 

4. Successful application of Joint Liquor Licence; and 

5. Building professional relationship with the QCC. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Comparison 

In- House Management 

The last two years have been very beneficial in that a comparison can be made between the 

previous arrangement (when the management of the whole venue was contracted out) and the 

current management model of managing the facility in-house. Table 1 below highlights the 

financial net costs (excluding capital expenditure, depreciation and internal cost allocations) to 

the Town for the operations of the Quarry Amphitheatre for the last 10 years: 

Table 1: 

Summary of Nett operating costs of Quarry Amphitheatre 

2001/2002- 2010/2011 end of April 2011) 

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/0/7 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 

2010/11 

at 30 April 

Revenue 100,372 83,422 101,911 105,414 112,248 134,961 155,800 147,949 47,655 190,246 

Expend 180,818 161,158 204,950 174,285 205,299 192,901 24,316 251,335 36,489 201,519 

Nett (80,446) (77,736) (103,039) (68,871) (93,051) (57,940) (68,516) (103,386) (88,971) (11,273) 

It is evident that during the 2009/2010 financial year, expenditure increased significantly which 

was due to the costs associated with commencing the in-house management including Liquor 

Licence requirements, legal expenses and asset replacement items. However, the revenue 

also increased considerably, with the net cost to Council reduced by approximately $15,000. 

The financial figures above indicate strongly that by the end of the current financial year, the 

net cost will be less than $12,000. This represents a significant improvement in comparison 

with previous years when the facility management was out sourced. 

It is envisaged that a similar trend (as highlighted in Table 2 below) will continue if the Town 

manages the venue (excluding the Quarry Cafe) in the future. Consequently, a draft budget for 

the 2011/2012 financial year has been completed which highlights a net cost to Council of 

approximately $9,000 (this figure excludes depreciation, cost allocations and capital works). It 

should be noted that there will be some significant capital costs during the next 5 years that 

have been indentified as part of the Quarry Amphitheatre feasibility study (yet to be endorsed 

by Council). 

Table 2: 

Quarry Amphitheatre 2011/12 Draft Budget 

Revenue $210,000 

Expenditure $219,000 

Nett ($9,000) 

In summary, while the previous two years have verified that direct management has been 

positive, this trial of operating with a different management model has highlighted areas that 

can be modified and improved to streamline processes and improve efficiencies. Since the 

Town has taken management of the Quarry Amphitheatre in-house, financial management has 

had a more favourable outcome, management practices have improved significantly and the 

standard of customer service has been enhanced enormously. Several positive letters have 

been received by hirers and patrons of the venue during the past two years, specifically in 

relation to customer service and presentation. 

The fact that there have been many operational improvements and legislative requirements 

implemented that resulted in a lot of unplanned expenditure without a greater amount of 

financial loss strongly proves that continuing to manage the Quarry Amphitheatre directly (with 

the cafe/hospitality services contracted out) would be the best business decision for the venue. 



28 JUNE 2011 

This will also ensure that the venue continues to provide the balance of use between 

community and commercial users. 

Hospitality Contract 

The Quarry Catering Company (QCC) has provided hospitality services for the Quarry Café 

and ushering services to the main amphitheatre from middle of September 2009 until 

September 2011. At the Town's option, the contract to the QCC can be extended for a further 

1 year period, i.e. up to September 2012. If the Town does not extend the contract period by 1 

year, the QCC requires to be given written notice between 3 - 6 months before the end of the 

contract period (i.e. June 2011). 

The QCC, as compared to the previous contractor, has operated well and provided a far 

greater service to the patrons. There have, however, been some issues in relation to 

administrating ushering and the standard of the picnic hampers. One change that the Town 

would request from the QCC contract is to bring ushering in-house. Experience gathered during 

the past two years is that ushering is not a core service of the hospitality but a core service of 

the venue. It would also allow greater management control by the Town, streamline 

administrative processes and improve service delivery. A number of casual staff are working at 

other facilities within the Town and after appropriate training would have the capacity to 

undertake ushering services from the Quarry Amphitheatre. Staff employed will be paid in 

accordance with the Towns 2009 Collective Agreement and costs recouped from hirers. 

In addition, the opportunity to engage more volunteers from not-for-profit organisations that hire 

the Quarry Amphitheatre can be further examined. Potential funding sources for any 

redeveloped works at the Quarry Amphitheatre would also be looked upon favourably by the 

Lotteries Commission if staff of the venue (excluding the café) are employed by the Town. 

Discussions with the QCC have been ongoing and, if this change of direction in relation to 

ushering staff was introduced, they would not be interested in continuing (mainly due to 

revenue derived from ushering). In addition to removing ushering from their contract, the QCC 

would also prefer longer tenure (rather than a one year extension). It is the intention therefore 

not to offer a 1 year extension to the QCC. If ushering is removed from the contract and no long 

term tenure is offered, the QCC have indicated (verbally) they will not continue after 17 

September 2011. 

The Quarry Amphitheatre and cafe is currently closed to ticketed events. Therefore this is an 

opportune time to start the process of engaging another contractor for the cafe/catering 

services in readiness for when peak season returns in November 2011, under similar terms of 

the previous contract (with the exception of ushering services). It would be the intention to 

delegate the authority to appoint the new contractor to the Town's Chief Executive Officer. 




The 2011/12 Draft Budget predicts a net cost to Council of approximately $9,000 (excludes 

capital works, cost allocations and depreciation) if the Town continues to manage the Quarry 

Amphitheatre, including ushering. The Quarry Café will continue to be out sourced. 



28 JUNE 2011 


The recommendation to continue with the in-house management of the Quarry Amphitheatre 

(include ushering) on a permanent basis supports a number of key priority areas and goals of 

the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, specifically: 

 

 

 

 

Planning for Our Community 

A wide range of quality, accessible recreation facilities 

Delivering Our Services 

Community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained 

Economic 

Financial Sustainability 

Strategic Asset Management 

Governance 

Sound management practices 


In accordance with Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation is not required. 

SUMMARY: 

The two year period of directly managing the Quarry Amphitheatre is almost complete and the 

Town is in a position to provide an objective review to Council. As can be concluded from this 

report, the model of managing the venue in-house has been beneficial from a financial and 

service delivery perspective. This will continue to evolve and improve. 

In relation to the Hospitality contract with the Quarry Catering Company, it is the intention to 

remove ushering services from the contract and bring this aspect of the venue in-house. The 

QCC have indicated that they would not be interested in extending the contract for a further 1 

year period if ushering was removed and longer tenure at the venue was also sought. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. GC09.48 - Quarry Amphitheatre - Future Management Options (June 2009) 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Quarry Catering Company be advised that it will not be offered the option to 

extend the Hospitality Contract, and that the contract will effectively terminate on 

17 September 2011; 

the Town acknowledges the service provided by the Quarry Catering Company Pty 

for the period 17 September 2009 until 17 September 2011; 



28 JUNE 2011 

(iii) the Quarry Amphitheatre (with the exception of the Quarry Café) continues to be 

managed by the Town; 

(iv) in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief 

Executive Officer be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to contract the right 

to operate the Quarry Café to a suitable operator at 10% of the gross takings 

payable to the Town. 

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.74 ACCESS AND INCLUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - 19 MAY 2011 


 

 

 

To present the minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) 

meeting held on Thursday, 19 May 2011; 

Seek support for the new Access and Inclusion - "Caring in our Community Award" 

category as part of the annual Volunteer of the Year Award; and 

Seek support to relocate two ACROD bays and build an additional bay at a location 

closer to the Administration entrance (dress circle). 

BACKGROUND: 

The Terms of Reference for the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) state that the 

minutes of meetings are to be presented to Council so as to form part of the public record of 

Council business. The Advisory Committee is constituted as a Council Committee with an 

Elected Member as Chairperson. 

DETAILS: 

The Minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee held on Thursday, 19 May 2011 

are attached. 

ACROD Bays 

This issue has been ongoing with complaints received from the public regarding the location 

and distance from the existing ACROD bays to the front reception. The kerbing around the 

bays are also inaccessible, with high kerbs making it impossible for someone to access the 

footpath directly from their car. Relocating these two bays to the closest parking bays in the 

visitor's carpark and creating appropriate access from the bays to the footpath will greatly assist 

accessibility. The creation of an ACROD bay in the dress circle will also assist people with a 

disability gain closer access to the Town's Administration building. This project supports the 

Town's Disability Access and Inclusion Plan (DAIP) and has the full support of the Access and 

Inclusion Advisory Committee. 

The final design of the ACROD Bays at the circle area near the reception area will be designed 

by the Town's Infrastructure staff. 

Access and Inclusion - "Caring in our Community Award" 

Another initiative tabled through the AIAC is the creation of an award to recognise businesses 

and community groups within the Town who are actively promoting and supporting access and 

inclusion for people with a disability. It is proposed to link in to the Volunteer of the Year Award 

as a separate category, with the process of nominations being the same as the Volunteer of the 

Year Award. The AIAC have requested they be involved in the review of the nominations and 

therefore would not be eligible to nominate. 

The committee has recommended a framed plaque be presented to the winner at the annual 

Volunteer of the Year breakfast and that no cash prize is given, instead the Town funds the 

placement of an advertisement in the Post Newspaper promoting the business/community 

group who is the recipient of the award. 



28 JUNE 2011 


 

 

Policy No. 2.1.5 – Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms of Reference. 

Policy No. 2.1.2 - Access to Services and Facilities for People with Disabilities, their 

families and carers. 

Disability Services Act (1993). 

Policy 2.1.30 - Volunteer of the Year Award. 

Policy 2.1.30 has been amended (Attachment 2) to reflect the new category of Access and 

Inclusion - "Caring in our Community Award. 


The new Access and Inclusion - "Caring in our Community Award" category at the annual 

Volunteer of the Year Award, will require a small budget allocation to pay for the winner's prize 

of approximately $1,000. These funds can be allocated from the 2011/2012 Welfare Budget. 

There is currently $11,000 on the Welfare Budget for the new ACROD bays at the 

Administration Building. If the works can not be undertaken prior to 30 June 2011, these funds 

need to be carried forward to the 2011/2012 Budget. 


The Disability Access and Inclusion Plan strongly supports a number of the business 

philosophies of the Town’s 2009–2020 Strategic Plan, namely:- 

 

 

 

Community Centered; 

Sustainability, and; 

Enhanced Services. 

It further supports a number of the Town’s priority areas:- 

 

 

 

Planning for your Community; 

Delivering our Services, and; 

Capacity to Delivery. 


In accordance with Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation is not required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Minutes of Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Meeting – 19 May 2011. 



28 JUNE 2011 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

the minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee meeting held on 

Thursday, 19 May 2011 be received; 

the new category of Access and Inclusion - "Caring in our Community Award" be 

included in the annual Volunteer of the Year Award; 

the preferred option to relocate two ACROD bays and build and additional 

ACROD bay at a location closer to the administration entrance (dress circle) be 

supported; 

Policy number 2.1.30 - Volunteer of the Year Award be amended to include a new 

category of Access and Inclusion - "Carry in our Community Award". 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.75 

2011 ACCESS AND INCLUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - COMMUNITY 

REPRESENTATIVE NOMINATIONS 


To select five community member nominees to serve on the Access and Inclusion Advisory 

Committee (AIAC) for a term of two years. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Disability Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) was formed in September 1996 and was 

renamed the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) in April 2009. The Committee 

aims to play an important role in ensuring that people with disabilities have the same 

opportunities in gaining access to the Town’s services, functions and facilities. Council 

endorsed a Disability Access and Inclusion Plan (2009-2012) at the December 2009 Council 

meeting, which will guide planning for future years. 

In April 2009, as well as the change of the committee name, it was also decided to increase the 

community membership from three to six members. Unfortunately, we have not received the full 

quota of six nominations. Therefore three existing community member's term of service has 

expired, with a further two vacancies available, totalling five. All retiring members are eligible 

for renomination. Five nominations have been received. 

Policy No. 2.1.5 'Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms of Reference' states that the 

membership of the Advisory Committee shall consist of at least one Elected Member, six 

community members and one member of the Administration. 

DETAILS: 

In April 2011, expressions of interest for five community members for the AIAC were called. An 

advertisement seeking nominations for the AIAC was placed in the local newspaper and 

displayed on the Town’s notice boards. Furthermore, correspondence was disseminated to 

disability services agencies within the metropolitan area, including the Disability Services 

Commission. Applications closed at 4.00pm on Friday, 13 May 2011. 

Interested individuals were requested to complete an application form, stating details regarding 

their interest in the Town, what they would be able to offer the Advisory Committee and to 

outline their experiences, both personal and professional in relation to disability services. In 

accordance with Policy No. 2.1.5 (Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms of 

Reference), an invitation for nominations was also forwarded to the retiring AIAC Community 

Member. 

Nominations were received from five applicants, who have extensive professional and personal 

experience, and all should be endorsed as a community representative for the AIAC. The 

endorsement of the five nominations plus the existing one community member, whose two year 

term does not expire till May 2012, will total six community members for the AIAC. The 

summary of the applicant and nomination is included as a confidential attachment. 


Policy No. 2.1.5 - Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms of Reference. 



28 JUNE 2011 


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. 


The Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee strongly supports a number of the Business 

Philosophies of the Town’s 2009–2020 Strategic Plan, namely:- 

 

 

 

Community Centered; 

Sustainability, and; 

Enhanced Services. 

It further supports a number of the Town’s priority areas:- 

 

 

 

Planning for your Community; 

Delivering our Services, and; 

Capacity to Delivery. 


In accordance with Policy 1.2.11 Community Consultation is not required 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Summary of Nominee for Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (Confidential). 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

applicant 'A, B, C, D and E' be selected as a community member on the Access and 

Inclusion Advisory Committee for a term of two years, until May 2013; 

the newly appointed community members be made aware of their responsibilities 

as appointed member to a Council Committee. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.76 

SURF CLUB AND WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENTS - PROGRESS 

REPORT 


To advise on progress on works for the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club and Wembley Golf 

Course developments and seek delegations to progress the projects. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council considered a report on the development of the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club in 

September 2010. The following decisions were reached: 

"That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club Commercial Facility Feasibility Study and 

Market Analysis from Integral Planning Creation and Pracsys be received; 

the comments for the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club be noted and 

arrangements for the inclusion of the Club in the project’s development be 

formalised; 

consultation on the surf club redevelopment concept be initiated; 

(iv) a commercial leasing consultant be engaged to provide specialist advice on 

appropriate commercial tenancies not limited to, but including: 

a. Tenancy mix, size and design; 

b. Commercial Operator business models; 

c. Market conditions; 

d. Risk and return; 

(v) 

(vi) 

a tender for architectural services to carry out the detailed design of the project be 

advertised; 

future actions in addition to the above be noted, including further detailed financial 

modelling, the preparation of a business plan, and engagement of other key 

stakeholders during the design phase; 

(vii) the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club be advised that: 

a. the initial feasibility phase of the redevelopment project has been completed; 

b. whilst the Town is moving to the next phase of the business case, it will not commit 

to the project until it is satisfied with the project’s viability and the ability of the Surf 

Club to meet its obligations under the Town’s leasing policy (currently being 

drafted); 

c. the Town believes that due to the potential investment of ratepayer funds in the 

project, it is reasonable that the name of the Surf club reflects the locale and that the 

Surf Club membership be canvassed on this view." 

It has become apparent to deliver the best outcomes for the Town required a staged approach 

to items (iv) and (v) of this decision. 



28 JUNE 2011 

It is also relevant that similar commercial developments for hospitality offerings at the Wembley 

Golf Course, which were outlined in the Master Plan report for Wembley Golf Course which 

was adopted by Council in June 2008. Economies of scale could exist if the planning for these 

subsequent works were taken in parallel. 

The Town has conducted Expressions of Interest processes for Architects and Hospitality 

Leasing Specialists to undertake these works and is moving forward to the Select Tender 

phase. 

DETAILS: 

1. Proposed Process 

It is proposed to undertake the following actions: 

Tender and engage Architects to develop schematic level planning for each project 

Tender and engage Hospitality Leasing Specialists to develop commercial space 

requirements, tenant mix and proposed operators for each of the Surf Club commercial 

space and Wembley Golf Course hospitality expansion 

Tender and engage Quantity Surveyors to develop robust cost plans 

Tender and engage necessary Engineering consultants to support the design process 

These outcomes will be consolidated into a business case for each project. 

It is proposed to appoint the same Hospitality Leasing Specialist and Quantity Surveyors for 

both projects to achieve economies of scale given regard to the similarity of services 

required. 

It is proposed to separately tender for the Architectural and Engineering given that both 

projects are unique in this regard and depending on outcomes of tender, may require 

individual teams to attend to these works. 

At this stage it is believed that these will be the necessary separate consulting teams to be 

engaged, however, approval to engage further specialists as and when needed will be 

necessary. 

2. Project Plan 

Each project is proposed to have the following indicative phases - 

Consulting team to develop concept plans February 2012 

Consulting team to complete stakeholder consultation April 2012 

Develop business case & schematic plans May 2012 

Council approval to proceed to full design & construct May 2012 

Completion of s3.59 Business Case July 2012 

Engagement of commercial operators October 2012 

Completion of detail design, tender for construction December 2012 

Council approval to award construction contracts April 2013 

Completion of construction April 2014 

3. Tender Process 

a. General 

The select tender process for each consultant will include a fee basis to undertake 

works up to the business case phase and a fee basis to conclude detail design 

completion and other services commensurate with a construction phase. The contracts 



28 JUNE 2011 

will be developed such that if a decision is reached not to approve the business cases, 

the services of the consultants can be terminated with no penalty. 

b. Expressions of Interest - Architects 

Expressions of Interest (EOI) were sought in May 2011 from architectural firms by 

advertisement in the press and Town's website. The intent of seeking EOI was to 

ascertain the types of firms that could undertake the work and give regard to the need 

for supporting consulting firms and contractual structures prior to seeking formal 

tenders. 29 submissions were received from a large variety of architectural studios. 11 

firms were interviewed to better understand their capability with an aim to determine the 

4 firms most likely to provide suitable tenders for either project (ie 4 for the surf club and 

4 for the golf course). There was provision that the some firms may be invited to tender 

for both projects. 

c. Expressions of Interest - Hospitality Leasing Specialist 

Expressions of Interest (EOI) were sought in May 2011 from Hospitality Leasing 

Specialists firms by advertisement in the press and Town's website. The intent of 

seeking EOI was to ascertain the types of firms that could undertake the work in both 

identifying the hospitality needs, assessing market viability, lead the business case 

development and then market and engage the relevant operators of each facility. Three 

firms were short listed for interview and two are to be invited to tender for both projects 

in one contract. 

d. Tender Process - Architects 

The selection of the right architect is important for either project. The Town is seeking 

innovative, iconic and timeless designs which are able to be constructed within a budget 

that meets the financial viability of the project. Seeking select tenders will support this 

process and within the tender process for the architects will be a requirement for each 

to submit an initial design response to each project. Assessment of tenders will have a 

large weighting attached to how well the Architects can respond to the criteria set out. 

The Town will be seeking the support of an independent architect to assist in the 

assessment of these tenders. 

e. Select Tender - Hospitality Leasing Specialist 

It is anticipated that the Hospitality Leasing Specialist select tender will exceed 

$100,000. It is proposed to seek Council approval by absolute majority to grant the 

Chief Executive Officer delegated authority to appoint this consultant. This will allow the 

project's early phases of business case planning to proceed in timely fashion. 

f. Open Tender & Quotes - Other Consultants 

It is proposed to seek tenders and quotes (in line with procurement policy) for 

Engineering and Quantity Surveyor services. It is intended to appoint the Engineering 

teams after the Architect is appointed to ensure that the team created can function 

together. 

It is anticipated that some consultant tenders will be below $100,000 and will be 

appointed by the Chief Executive Officer in line with current delegated authority. 

It is anticipated that the larger engineering consultancies will exceed $100,000. It is 

proposed to seek Council approval by absolute majority to grant the Chief Executive 

Officer delegated authority to appoint these consultants. This will allow the project's 

early phases of business case planning to proceed in timely fashion. 



28 JUNE 2011 

4. Budget Costs 

It is anticipated, subject to approval of the business case for each project, the consulting 

fees will be in the order of: 

Architects $400,000 

Hospitality Leasing Specialist $90,000 

Services Engineer $120,000 

Civil & Structural Engineers $160,000 

Quantity Surveyors $90,000 

Depending on the outcome of the tender processes, some of these firms may be appointed 

to both projects and will exceed $100,000 in contract value. 


Policy 3.2.1 Contracts and Procurement 


Necessary funding for these projects has been identified in the draft 2011/2012 budget. The 

Surf Club project is budgeted at least 75% funding from loans with the Golf Course project 

100% loan funded. 


The development of the Surf Club and Wembley Golf Course continue to support the overall 

vision contained in the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan. 


During the development of the business case, consultation with stakeholders, including the 

community will be undertaken. 

SUMMARY: 

The development of the business cases to support the growth in facilities and commercial 

opportunities requires the tender and engagement of consulting teams. A proposed process for 

authorising the Chief Executive Officer to engage these teams will provide efficient 

procurement and meet proposed project time plans. 

The main teams (Architect, Hospitality Leasing Specialist, Quantity Surveyor, Services and Civil 

Engineers) will need to be engaged, however as the design process commences; some further 

specialists may also need to be engaged. 



That by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: 

(i) 

subject to confirmation of the necessary budget funds, the Chief Executive Officer 

be delegated authority to engage the necessary Architects (up to a maximum sum 

of $900,000) , Hospitality Leasing Specialist (up to a maximum sum of $180,000) 



28 JUNE 2011 

Engineering (up to a maximum sum of $350,000 per Consultant) and Quantity 

Surveying consultants (each up to a maximum sum of $200,000) necessary to 

undertake the development of the Business Case phase for each of the Surf Club 

and Commercial Development and Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development; 

(ii) 

the terms of engagement for these consultants will also include continuation of 

services subject to approval from Council to proceed to design and construction 

for either project. 

Amendment 

That clauses (i) be divided into two parts as follows:- 



(i) 

(ii) 

the engagement of the necessary Architects for each of the Surf Club and 

Commercial Development and Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development be 

determined by Council; 


be delegated authority to engage the necessary Hospitality Leasing Specialist (up 

to a maximum sum of $180,000) Engineering (up to a maximum sum of $350,000 

per Consultant) and Quantity Surveying consultants (each up to a maximum sum 

of $200,000) necessary to undertake the development of the Business Case phase 

for each of the Surf Club and Commercial Development and Wembley Golf Course 

Hospitality Development. 

Amendment carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 8/0 



(i) 

(ii) 

the engagement of the necessary Architects for each of the Surf Club and 

Commercial Development and Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development be 

determined by Council; 


be delegated authority to engage the necessary Hospitality Leasing Specialist (up 

to a maximum sum of $180,000) Engineering (up to a maximum sum of $350,000 

per Consultant) and Quantity Surveying consultants (each up to a maximum sum 

of $200,000) necessary to undertake the development of the Business Case phase 

for each of the Surf Club and Commercial Development and Wembley Golf Course 

Hospitality Development; 

(iii) the terms of engagement for these consultants will also include continuation of 

services subject to approval from Council to proceed to design and construction 

for either project. 

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.77 

OCEAN GARDENS RETIREMENT VILLAGE - DIRECTOR COMPETENCIES 


To advise the Council of the Board composition and Director competencies identified and 

approved for adoption by the Ocean Gardens (Inc) Board. 

BACKGROUND: 

At its meeting held on 21 December 2010, the Council decided to approve or revise a number 

of constitutional amendments proposed by the Board of Ocean Garden (Inc). The Council has 

now been advised that the approved amendments have subsequently been adopted by a 

Special General Meeting of Ocean Gardens (Inc) held on 8 June 2011. Essentially, the 

amendments removed the requirement for three of the six member Board to be elected Council 

members, but retained the Council's authority, subject to certain requirements, to appoint or 

reject any Board nomination. 

As part of the Council's approval, the Board was requested to notify the Town of the eligibility 

requirements for the selection of persons to be nominated by the Board prior to any new 

nominations being made. It should be noted that the Council's current (or former) 

representatives, Mayor Simon Withers and Councillors Langer and Pinerua will remain as 

Board Members until the expiration of the term of their Board appointment. Any future 

nominations will be subject to the new competency provisions. 

DETAILS: 

The following eligibility requirements for persons nominated for membership of the OGRV(Inc) 

Board of Management have been adapted by the Board from the Australian Institute of 

Company Director guidelines. It is considered that they adequately cover both general and 

specific competencies for prospective Board Members and can be endorsed. 

"Board Composition and Director Competencies 

What shared knowledge and competencies should the Board have across its members 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategic expertise - the ability to review and develop strategy; 

Accounting and finance - the ability to understand the economics of the village (at 

ownership and operational levels), the financial consequences of decisions, financial 

material presented to the Board, financial reporting requirements and some 

understanding of corporate finance; 

Legal - the Board's responsibility involves overseeing compliance with numerous laws 

as well as understanding an individual Director's legal duties and responsibilities; 

Managing risk - experience in managing areas of major risk to the organisation; 

Managing people and achieving change; 

CEO/Senior management/Business experience; 

Industry knowledge - experience in similar organisations or industries including:- 

- house building 

- construction 

- aged care 

- retirement villages 



28 JUNE 2011 

Directors may and are expected to acquire knowledge and competency in these areas through 

their work on the Board. 

The composition of the Board will take into account the need for Board continuity and retention 

of corporate knowledge. 

What personal qualities should Board members have 

While different directors can bring different technical skills and knowledge to a Board, there are 

personal qualities that are desirable in all Directors:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Integrity - fulfilling a Director's duties and responsibilities, putting the organisation's 

interests before personal interests, acting ethically; 

Curiosity and courage - a Director must have the curiosity to ask questions and the 

courage to persist in asking or to challenge management and fellow Board members 

where necessary; 

Interpersonal skills - a Director must work well in a group, listen well, be tactful but able 

to communicate their point of view frankly; 

Genuine interest in the organisation and its business; 

Instinct - good business instincts and acumen, ability to get to the crux of the issue 

quickly; 

Commercial common sense - a Director must be able to make decisions on a sensible 

and commercial basis; 

An active contributor - there is no room on Boards today for those who do not 

contribute; 

Time - Directors must ensure that they have adequate time to devote to the 

organisation's affairs." 


Clause 11(3) of the Ocean Gardens (Inc) constitution requires that Directors shall be nominated 

by the Board and appointed by the Town. 




Not applicable. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. 

Consultation is not required due to this matter being administrative in nature with no external 

impacts envisaged. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Nil. 



28 JUNE 2011 


Prior to consideration of this item, Mayor Withers, Crs Langer and Pinerua, in accordance with 

Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared an interest in this matter and left the 

meeting at 8.59 pm. Cr Bradley took the chair. Cr MacRae then deputised for Cr Langer. 


Prior to consideration of this item, Mayor Withers, Crs Langer and Pinerua, in accordance with 

Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared an interest in this matter and left the 

meeting at 7.28 pm. Cr MacRae took the chair. 



Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That future Ocean Gardens (Inc) Board Member nominations be assessed by the Council 

in accordance with the eligibility requirements detailed in this report. 

Carried 5/0 

Mayor Withers, Crs Langer and Pinerua returned to the meeting at 7.29 pm 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.78 

CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT - REQUEST TO 

RECONSIDER 


To reconsider support for the conduct of a federal referendum on constitutional recognition of 

local government at the 2013 elections. 

BACKGROUND: 

At its meeting held on 19 April 2011, the Council considered and subsequently rejected, a 

request from the Australian Local Government Association to support the conduct of a federal 

referendum on constitutional recognition of local government at the 2013 elections. The 

reasons provided by the Council for this decision were:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

constitutional recognition of local government is merely symbolic and would not 

guarantee additional Commonwealth funding; 

the 1974 and 1988 referenda on this matter were not successful; and 

(iii) the resources of WALGA and ALGA are best directed into matters of more serious 

concern for local government. 

DETAILS: 

The President of the Australian Local Government Association has now responded to advice of 

the Council's rejection of the proposal with a request that the matter be reconsidered. A copy 

of the letter from Mayor Genia McCaffery (President) has been circulated with the meeting 

agenda and can be summarised as follows:- 

 

 

 

 

 

Constitutional recognition of local government has been an objective of the local 

government sector for decades 

Including local government in the constitution will protect the ability of the 

Commonwealth to provide direct funding to councils for local services and infrastructure, 

particularly the Roads to Recovery program 

223 councils have passed resolutions of support to date, with more anticipated. (Note 

there are currently 561 local governments throughout Australian states and territories) 

The campaign is not only for symbolic and institutional recognition but is also based on 

research showing the option for constitutional reform most likely to gain support from all 

sides of politics is financial recognition. 

The wording of the amendment is both practical and simple, involving a change to 

Section 96 of the Constitution by adding the words "and local government body". 


The national policy position proposed is consistent with the Western Australian Association's 

position. Adoption of the recommendation will formalise Council’s position and align it with the 

national campaign. 



28 JUNE 2011 




Not applicable. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. 

Consultation is not required due to this matter being administrative in nature. Any constitutional 

change proposed will be considered as part of a national referendum conducted in conjunction 

with the 2013 federal election. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Copy of correspondence from President, Australian Local Government Association. 


Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr Langer 

That further consideration be given to the proposal put forward by the Australian Local 

Government Association for Constitutional recognition of local government. 


During discussion, Members were not prepared to amend Council's decision made at its 

meeting held on 19 April 2011 in relation to this matter. 

The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5. 




That Council does not support the Australian Local Government Association's campaign 

for the Constitutional recognition of local government for the following reasons: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

constitutional recognition of local government is merely symbolic and would not 

guarantee additional Commonwealth funding; 

the 1974 and 1988 referenda on this matter were not successful; and 

the resources of WALGA and ALGA are best directed into matters of more serious 

concern for local government. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.79 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - MAY 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 April 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 




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: 



28 JUNE 2011 

(i) CHEQUE PAYMENTS 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Municipal Fund 01-May-2011 06-May-2011 40122 - 40191 152,126.43 




Golf Course 01-May-2011 31-May-2011 0117 - 0129 2,782.86 

Trust Fund 0.00 

Total Cheque Payments $707,215.81 

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S) 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Investments 40,664.00 40,694.00 Inv 333 - Inv 338 7,043,059.56 

Direct Bank Charges 40,664.00 40,694.00 Sup 122 - Sup 123 22,880.73 

Accounts Payable 40,664.00 40,666.00 E 4246 - E 4287 166,736.26 





Golf Course 40,674.00 40,687.00 E 0071 - E 0073 43,192.39 

Golf Course 40,689.00 40,689.00 E 0074 - E 0074 19,350.69 

Payroll 40,664.00 40,694.00 Pay 313 to Pay 324 955,545.65 

Sub Total 9,114,618.92 

TOTAL PAYMENTS $9,821,834.73 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.80 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - MAY 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 June 2011 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to continue to leave the cash 

rate at 4.75% for the seventh consecutive month. The four major Australian banks are still 

predicting an interest rate rise of between 0.25% and 0.5% by the end of the calendar year. 

The Reserve Bank stated that the global economy is continuing to expand led by strong growth 

in the Asian economies although Europe is still faced with uncertainty over a resolution of its 

financial debt problems. The US economy is still struggling to show signs of a durable 

economic recovery with job recovery slow. 

On the local economy, the Reserve Bank also noted that Australia is experiencing a two speed 

economy with the mining sector continuing to grow strongly whilst growth for other sectors are 

being revised lower. Employment growth has moderated and the unemployment rate remains 

relatively unchanged. Australian households continue to remain cautious with spending and 

borrowing, and are increasing their savings. Inflation has been affected by the flood and 

cyclone disasters over summer and by higher utility prices, however, it is expected to return 

within the Reserve Bank's two to three per cent target range over the next twelve months. 

In terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term of 

two to three months are around 5.8%. Securities for periods greater than six months are 

achieving interest rates of 6% and above. 

The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day 

period) was 5.02% for May 2011. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of 

future interest rates) was also 5.02% at 31 May 2011. As the Council’s investment portfolio is 

predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 4.75% for May 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 6.01%. The weighted average investment period 

of 147 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates (with the 

major Australian banks) for this period which were an average of 5.95%. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Investment Portfolio Performance for May 2011 

The graph below shows the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 

12 month period May 2010 to May 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 May 2010 to May 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 May 2008. 

Interest Rates 

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance 

For May 2008 to May 2011 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

May-08 Aug-08 Nov-08 Feb-09 May-09 Aug-09 Nov-09 Feb-10 May-10 Aug-10 Nov-10 Feb-11 May-11 

Weighted Avg Interest 

90 UBS Bank Bill Index 



28 JUNE 2011 

The total investment at the end of May 2011 is $21.1 million which consists of Municipal Funds 

of $10.2 million, Reserve Funds of $2.5 million and Endowment Lands Funds of $8.4 million. 

The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from May 2010 to May 

2011. 

Millions 

30 

Investment Portfolio 

28 

26 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

May 10 Jun 10 Jul 10 Aug 10 Sep 10 Oct 10 Nov 10 Dec 10 Jan 11 Feb 11 Mar 11 Apr 11 May 11 

Reserves Endowment Municipal 



28 JUNE 2011 

The investment performance as at the end of May 2011 is as follows: 

Current 

Total % of 

Term 

Interest May 2011 Amount Funds 

(Days) Rating Rate Income Invested Invested 

Floating Rate Notes . 

ANZ Subordinated Debt "AA-" 5.22% $2,217 $498,908 2.36% 

Emerald Reverse 

Mortgage "A" 5.52% $4,480 $957,863 4.53% 

Sub-total $6,697 $1,456,772 6.88% 

Term Deposits and Bank 

Bills 

ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 6.18% $5,249 $1,008,466 4.77% 

BANKWEST - Term 

Deposit 147 "A1+" 6.00% $5,096 $1,023,178 4.84% 


Deposit "A1+" 6.00% $670 0 0.00% 


Deposit 92 "A1+" 6.00% $1,966 $521,884 2.47% 


Deposit 120 "A1+" 5.85% $1,491 $304,760 1.44% 


Deposit 92 "A1+" 5.70% $2,421 $506,637 2.39% 


Deposit 122 "A1+" 5.85% $2,682 $547,062 2.59% 


Deposit 90 "A1+" 5.85% $3,546 $717,697 3.39% 


Deposit 123 "A1+" 5.85% $2,484 $509,376 2.41% 


Deposit "A1+" 5.80% $2,384 0 0.00% 


Deposit 92 "A1+" 6.00% $2,668 $1,016,969 4.81% 


Deposit 154 "A1+" 6.00% $5,096 $1,012,822 4.79% 

NAB - Term Deposit "A1+" 6.19% $1,013 0 0.00% 


NAB - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 6.12% $2,952 $2,204,033 10.42% 

NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 6.26% $4,531 $875,972 4.14% 



NAB - Term Deposit 117 "A1+" 5.83% $5,102 $1,043,958 4.93% 


BOQ - Term Deposit "A2" 6.30% $2,779 0 0.00% 

BOQ - Term Deposit 184 "A2" 6.25% $959 $700,959 3.31% 

BOQ - Term Deposit 180 "A2" 6.45% $1,643 $308,482 1.46% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 5.95% $10,107 $2,013,693 9.52% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit "A1+" 6.48% $4,829 0 0.00% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.00% $2,548 $511,014 2.42% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit "A1+" 6.05% $971 0 0.00% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit "A1+" 5.90% $259 0 0.00% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit 186 "A1+" 6.07% $1,831 $409,590 1.94% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 6.18% $5,587 $2,205,587 10.42% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 180 "A1" 6.45% $2,739 $514,137 2.43% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 153 "A1" 6.15% $2,665 $513,230 2.43% 



28 JUNE 2011 

Sub-total $103,551 $19,703,215 93.12% 

88.26% 

Total Investments $110,248 $21,159,987 100.00% 

Weighted Average 147 6.01% 

POLICY/Statutory implications: 

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 

Actual as 

Budget at May 

Budget at May 

2009/2010 2010 % 2010/2011 2011 % 

General * $383,300 $382,664 99.8% $544,500 $665,546 122.2% 

Reserves $300,000 $367,035 122.3% $304,200 $211,790 69.6% 

Endowment Lands $280,000 $293,383 104.8% $576,400 $515,179 89.4% 

Total Investments $963,300 $1,043,082 108.3% $1,425,100 $1,392,515 97.7% 

5/0 

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $48,412. 


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 - May 2011 




That the Investment Schedule as at 31 May 2011 forming part of the Notice Paper be 

received. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.81 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - MAY 2011 


To review the financial position for the period ended 31 May 2011 and to comment on both 

permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on 

financial results. 

BACKGROUND: 

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 

2010/2011 

($000's) 

YTD 

Budget 

31 May 11 

($000's) 

YTD 

Actual 

31 May11 

($000's) 

Balance Sheet 

Net Current Assets (Working Capital) 23,084 

Investments: 

General 11,240 

Reserves 2,511 

Endowment Lands 8,410 

22,161 

Capital Expenditure (including land acquisition) 16,464 11,102 10,869 

Financial Operations 

Revenue 41,419 36,652 35,432 

Expenditure 36,777 33,386 31,138 

Operating Profit/(Loss) 4,642 3,266 4,294 

Other 

Overall Surplus (from rate setting statement) 3,575 7,296 

Transfers from/(to) Reserves 1,084 479 3,815 

Transfers from/(to) Endowment Lands 374 1,868 1,760 

I. The Balance Sheet 

The following observations are made: 

 

Cash assets at 31 May 2011 are $22 million down from $22.8 million at the end of April 

2011. 



28 JUNE 2011 

 

II. 

Current receivables at end of May are $0.9 million down from $1.3 million at the end of 

April 2011. Rates receivables are now at $0.4 million as compared to $0.5 million at the 

end of April. This amount includes deferred rates from pensioners. 

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 31 May 2011 the following key points 

are made: 

Revenue 

Total revenue is 96.7% of the year to date budget with $35.4 million actual revenue against a 

budget of $36.7 million. The recreation and culture programme continues to be below 

budgeted revenue by $1.2 million. Golf course net revenue is down by $1.2 million against year 

to date budget, resulting from the delayed start of the Range and new Pro Shop and with the 

golf industry (and retail sector generally) experiencing a decline in spend across Australia. 

Corresponding expenditures have also decreased. 

Permanent Differences for Revenue 

There are two new permanent variances above $30,000 to report being planning fees revenue 

and Wembley Golf Course driving range revenue (refer attachments). 

Timing Differences for Revenue 

There are no new timing variances to report on (refer attachments). 

Expenditure 

Looking at the operating statement by program, all areas are under the year-to-date budget 

with the exception of general purpose funding. 

The expenditure for the year is below year to date budget with actual expenditure being $31.1 

million against year to date budget of $33.4 million or 93.3%. 



28 JUNE 2011 

The main areas of under expenditure are the golf course currently $620,000 below year to date 

budget, road infrastructure under budget by $346,000 due to timing differences with non capital 

road works projects, planning and sustainability management under budget by $478,000 due to 

timing differences with programmes which are in progress and waste management under 

budget by $160,000 with refuse site operations expenditure under budget for reasons outlined 

in the attached variation report. 

The operating statement by nature and type indicates all major areas of expenditure such as 

employee costs, materials and contracts and depreciation are below budget. Materials and 

contracts are $1.69 million or 12% below year to date budget due to timing differences. A 

number of projects are at different stages of progress which differ from the schedule anticipated 

when the budget was adopted. 

Permanent Differences for Expenditure 

There is one new permanent variance above $30,000 to report on being "Audit Fees" in the 

Governance area (refer attachments). 

Timing Differences for Expenditure 

There are ten new timing differences over $100,000 to report on as at 31 May 2011 (refer 

attachments". The areas of operation are planning, sustainability management and capital road 

works. 

Overall Cash Surplus from the Rate Setting Statement 

The surplus as at 31 May 2011 is $7.3 million, above the year to date budget of $3.6 million. A 

large portion of this surplus is due to deferred projects or works in progress. Specifically, the 

$1.2 million grant funding for the Perry Lakes Aquifer project remains largely unexpended and 

$1.6 million of funding for capital road works and footpaths, which have been deferred or are 

yet to be completed, is also included in the current surplus. Note that a number of end of year 

reserve transfers are yet to be completed, which will also reduce the surplus noted above. 

At this point in time, a small surplus after allowing for carried forward works is still predicted. 

Cash Surplus 

20 

16 

Millions 

12 

8 

4 

0 

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 

Budget 

Actual 



28 JUNE 2011 

III. 

Capital Works Programs 

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program, excluding land 

acquisitions of $3 million, for the period ended 31 May 2011 is $7.8 million against budget of 

$11.2 million, a variance of $3.4 million. 

As mentioned previously in the mid year budget review report, presented to Council in February 

2011, $1 million of road and lanes infrastructure projects will be carried forward into the 

2011/12 financial year. A list of carry forward works for the 2011/12 is currently being compiled 

for inclusion in the 2011/2012 draft budget, which is to be submitted to Council on 28 June 

2011. The current listing will be tabled for the Committee meeting. 

A brief overview of the capital works programs to date shows that Parks and Reserves spent 

$0.8 million against a year to date budget of $1.4 million, the golf course spent $3.7 million in 

line with year to date budget of $3.7 million, $1.3 million on roadworks against a year to date 

budget of $3 million and footpaths spent $1.1 million against year to date budget of $1.3 million. 

VI. 

Budget Reallocations or Amendments 

No budget reallocations have been requested: 


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 - May 2011 

2. Extract of Management Financial Statements - 31 May 2011 

3. Variation Report 



28 JUNE 2011 




That the report on the Financial Statements as at 31 May 2011 be received and the 

variances to the budget be noted. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.82 

REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - GENERAL FEES AND CHARGES 


To review the current fee structure for miscellaneous Council services. 

BACKGROUND: 

Fees and Charges are reviewed annually in accordance with the Local Government Act 

sections 6.16 and 6.17 of the Local Government Act. 

DETAILS: 

The fees and charges pertaining to miscellaneous services for the 2011/2012 financial year 

have been assessed and, to keep our fees in line with other local authorities, the following 

changes are proposed:- 

Rates: Special Payment Arrangement Fee - Increase fee from $30.00 to $35.00 

Settlement Agents Enquiries – An increase of $5 to reflect increase in costs. 

All other fees and charges to remain unchanged. 

1. 

Details of Fees and Charges 

Electoral Rolls (non commercial purposes) 

Hard Copy (Per Ward) 

Disc Copy (Per Ward) 

2010/2011 

Amount 

(GST inc) 

$45 

$110 

2011/2012 

Amount 

(GST inc) 

$55 

$130 

2. 

Street Directory (non commercial purposes) 



$55 

$170 

$55 

$170 

3. 

Settlement Agents Enquiry Form 

Rates, Orders and Requisitions 

Rates Only 

* $80 

* $20 

* $85 

* $25 

4. 

Payment of Rates 

Instalment Option - Administration Fee (per instalment) 

Special Payment Arrangement 

$6 

$30 

$6 

$35 

5. 

Photocopying Charges 

A4 (Per copy) 

A3 (Per copy) 

A0, A1 and A2 (Per Copy) 

Two to Five copies (Per Copy) 

Six or more copies (Per Copy) 

$0.55 

$1.10 

$11 

$8.25 

$5.50 

$0.55 

$1.10 

$11 

$8.25 

$5.50 

6. Council Minutes and Agendas 

Access to Council Minutes and Agendas is available on the 

Council's website. 

Charges applicable for the provision of hard copies of items are 

as follows:- 

Notice Paper/Agenda (available at Meetings) 

Single Item 

Nil 

$0.55 

$0.55 per item 

Nil 

$0.55 

$0.55 per item 



28 JUNE 2011 

 


More than one item (per item) 

2010/2011 

Amount 

(GST inc) 

or $30 per hour 

(pro-rata) 

2011/2012 

Amount 

(GST inc) 

or $30 per hour 

(pro-rata) 

7. 

NOTE: Excludes confidential items 

Freedom of Information 

Access Application (Non-personal information) 

Access Applications (Personal information) 

Photocopying (Per Copy) 

Staff Time (Per Hour) 

* $30 

Nil 

* $0.20 

* $30 

* $30 

Nil 

* $0.20 

* $30 

*GST Not Applicable 


Fees must be set in accordance with the Local Government Act sections 6.16 and 6.17, and 

associated regulations. 

The issue of street directories or electoral rolls for 2011/12 will be impacted by new regulation 

29B of the Local Government (Administration Regulations 1996) which restricts the supply of 

these documents to those customers where the information is to be used for non commercial 

purposes only. 


The adoption of the fees and charges will have a direct impact on the revenue received in the 

next financial year. This will impact on the 2011/2012 budget which is currently in draft form 

and will be incorporating the proposed fees as mentioned in the report. 


The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports a number of key priority areas of the 

Town's 2009-2020 Draft Strategic Plan namely: 




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. 




That the following General Fees and Charges for 2011/2012 be approved for inclusion in 

the 2011/2012 Budget: 



28 JUNE 2011 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 


Electoral Rolls (non commercial purposes) 



Street Directory (non commercial purposes) 



Settlement Agents Enquiry Form 

Rates, Orders and Requisitions 

Rates Only 

Payment of Rates 

Instalment Option - Administration Fee (per instalment) 

Special Payment Arrangement 

Photocopying Charges 

A4 (Per copy) 

A3 (Per copy) 

A0, A1 and A2 (Per Copy) 

Two to Five copies (Per Copy) 

Six or more copies (Per Copy) 

Council Minutes and Agendas 

Access to Council Minutes and Agendas is available on the Council's website. 

Charges applicable for the provision of hard copies of items are as follows:- 

Notice Paper/Agenda (available at Meetings) 

Single Item 

More than one item (per item) 

NOTE: Excludes confidential items 

Freedom of Information 

Access Application (Non-personal information) 

Access Applications (Personal information) 

Photocopying (Per Copy) 

Staff Time (Per Hour) 

*GST Not Applicable 

2011/2012 

Amount 

(GST inc) 

$55 

$130 

$55 

$170 

* $85 

* $25 

$6 

$35 

$0.55 

$1.10 

$11 

$8.25 

$5.50 

Nil 

$0.55 

$0.55 per item or $30 

per hour (pro-rata) 

* $30 

Nil 

* $0.20 

* $30 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.83 COMMUNITY FACILITIES LEASE - LEEDERVILLE SPORTING CLUB; PERTH 

NETBALL ASSOCIATION; CITY OF PERTH SURF CLUB 


To seek an amendment to the area to be leased to the Leederville Sporting Club. 

BACKGROUND: 

In April this year, the Town adopted a policy for community facilities leased to Clubs and 

Associations. Previous leases operating on holdover provisions are to terminate on 30 June 

2011 and the new standard lease is to be implemented from 1 July 2011. 

Part of the decision of Council was to remove the ‘disused bowling green’ on the eastern side 

of the premises from the area leased to the Leederville Sporting Club. 

DETAILS: 

Leederville Sporting Club 

Prior to the Council decision, the Club was advised of the Town’s intent, but because this was a 

late recommendation of the Advisory Committee, there had been no opportunity to discuss the 

matter in depth with the Club. 

Subsequently, the Club has objected strongly to the removal and a number of meetings have 

been held with members of the Advisory Committee and Club representatives. 

It has come to light that the Club is heavily reliant on this area for car parking. The car park 

area to the south is used by the Town for paid (ticketed) parking leaving a limited area available 

to the Club’s patrons. The Club runs a successful corporate bowls season throughout the year 

and more critically, the Club is promoting its function room hire, which is a major source of 

revenue, and car parking for attendees is required. 

The Advisory Committee have now formed the view that this area should be incorporated in the 

lease and a recommendation to Council as such, is made. 

The Club will be limited to using the parking for its members actively attending the Clubs 

premises, i.e not as a defacto paid parking area for employees of surrounding businesses. 

Note that a revocation motion is not required as the effect of the change does not substantially 

change the previous decision of Council. 

Perth Netball Association and City of Perth Surf Lifesaving 

It is also opportune to advise on further discussions with the Town’s legal advisors and review 

of the project planning for the Matthews Netball Centre and City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club 

redevelopment. 

Up until the time that the Town is certain of the developments for each project (given the 

current status of planning and/or negotiations), it is recommended that a holdover period be 

enacted, including certain terms to reflect the Town's need and if redevelopment is to be 



28 JUNE 2011 

undertaken, that an "Agreement to Lease" will be executed as a precursor to the standard 

lease adopted by Council, until the projects are complete. If either project is not proceeding to 

redevelopment, the agreement to Lease is not necessary and the new lease can be enacted. 

The Agreement to Lease will essentially commit the two groups to the terms of the standard 

lease, but will enable the administrative, legal and technical aspects of the redevelopment to be 

more effectively managed given there will be ongoing changes to leased areas and occupancy 

conditions during the staged works. 


The recommendation will assist in the implementation of the recently adopted Community 

Facilities Leasing Policy. 

Regulations 10 of the Local Government Administrative regulations relating to revocation of 

decisions does not apply. 




Town is aiming to provide community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and 

maintained. Its intent is to develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and 

environmental assets to ensure their sustainability for future generations. 


Recent consultation with Leederville sporting Club has been undertaken. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan of Leederville Sporting Club 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

part lot 97 and 98, denoted as the red hatched area shown on the attached plan, be 

included in the area leased to the Leederville Sporting Club; 

the information regarding the Agreement to Lease for the Perth Netball Association 

and City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club be noted and Chief Executive Officer be 

authorised to alter the agreements as proposed. 



28 JUNE 2011 

Amendment 


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

(iii) the Leederville Sporting Club be limited to using the parking for its members 

actively attending the club's premises, ie not for employees of surrounding 

businesses and football patrons; 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

part lot 97 and 98, denoted as the red hatched area shown on the attached plan, be 

included in the area leased to the Leederville Sporting Club; 

the information regarding the Agreement to Lease for the Perth Netball Association 

and City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club be noted and Chief Executive Officer be 

authorised to alter the agreements as proposed. 

(iii) the Leederville Sporting Club be limited to using the parking for its members 

actively attending the club's premises, ie not for employees of surrounding 

businesses and football patrons; 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

CR11.85 

WEMBLEY DOWNS SUBSTATION - WESTERN POWER EASEMENT 


To seek direction from Council with respect to a proposed easement in favour of Western 

Power adjacent to the Wembley Downs substation. 

BACKGROUND: 

The existing Wembley Downs Substation is located in the North Western corner of the 

Wembley Golf Course site on Empire Avenue and is approximately 200 metres from the corner 

of Durston Road. The substation site was established in 1967, is 3,187m² in area and is 

situated in close proximity to residential housing. 

A history of previous dealings with Western Power with respect to the site was reported to 

Council at its meeting held on 24 November 2009. The reported noted that in 2001, Western 

Power sought a larger area for the substation expansion at the existing site or a new site. 

In April 2006, Western Power indicated to the Town that it had reviewed its land requirements 

and decided that the existing Wembley Downs had adequate area to cater for the increase in 

equipment needs to service the system. However, in June 2009 Western Power made a 

request for a large easement around the Wembley Downs substation area, based on the 

Energy operators (Powers) Act 1979, to cater for Heavy Voltage Cables located underneath the 

ground. 

Council's decision in response to Western Power's request for an easement was to advise 

Western Power that: 

(i) 

(ii) 

relocation of the Wembley Downs substation to “Site B” identified in the Wembley 

Golf Course Masterplan is still the Town’s preferred option; 

the Town does not agree to the easement proposed and suggests that Western 

Power: 

(a) reconsider the option for an alternative site; 

(b) review the size of the easement required; 

(c) review the proposed compensation on a valuation basis as previously 

discussed (highest and best use - Residential R20) 

(iii) 

Western Power to be encouraged to undertake community consultation with nearby 

residents on their future plans for the substation. 

DETAILS: 

As requested by the Town, Western Power has reviewed its land area requirements and 

created an internal technical document which recommends optimum/minimum dimensions for a 

land area surrounding the existing Wembley Downs substation (the proposed easement). This 

is required to accommodate the entry and exit of current and future transmission and 

distribution of high voltage underground electric cables. 



28 JUNE 2011 

These revised dimensions are represented on the attached Deposited Plan 57684 showing the 

existing substation site and the proposed easement area of 1,825m². This meets (ii)(b) of the 

previous decision of Council. 

With respect to the valuation (compensation), Western Power has rejected the valuation basis 

put forward by the Town on the basis there is no evidence to suggest that the land will be 

rezoned or utilised as residential land in the near future. A Valuer General's report to Western 

Power has suggested that the current use and zoning lends itself to a valuation of $2,000 plus 

GST as compensation for the easement, particularly given that the Town is still able to place 

infrastructure on the land (footpaths etc). 

With respect to the proposed easement documentation itself, the Town has sought legal advice 

and a number of changes are recommended - generally of a minor nature. To date, the Town 

has incurred legal costs of approximately $2,000. 

The proposed easement encumbers the land and, in the future, may cost the Town in 

reinstatement works depending on what could possible occur on the land (roads, kerbing etc). 

On this basis, and because the Town has already spent $2,000 on legal fees, it is 

recommended that a more appropriate amount of $7,000 be paid by Western Power to reflect 

costs incurred to date and as compensation for the loss of future development 

potential/reinstatement costs on the site. 

The following section deals with the legislative powers under which Western Power operates. 


The easement registration is based on the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979. The Act 

states: 

"(5) Where in the performance of its functions an energy operator determines that 

any land, or any estate or interest in land, is required to be acquired by the energy 

operator otherwise than by agreement the power to do so shall be exercised under and 

in accordance with, and any compensation payable by the energy operator in 

pursuance of such powers shall be assessed, determined and recovered under, Parts 9 

and 10 of the Land Administration Act 1997, as read with this section." 

The Land Administration Act 1997 states: 

"11. Minister may acquire land in public interest 

(3) The Minister must, after consulting the Valuer-General, determine the value of 

any estate, interest or other right in or to land — 

(a) to be purchased under this section; or 

(b) to be acquired by exchange under this section, and the value of the 

estate, interest or other right in or to land to be transferred in exchange 

for the estate, interest or other right to be so acquired." 

Section 3.58 (5) (d) of the Local Government Act 1995 relieves the Town from disposing of 

assets in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.58 if a disposition is excluded by the 

Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. The disposition of land is an 

exempt disposition if the land is disposed of to a department, agency, or instrumentality of the 

Crown in right of the State or the Commonwealth 



28 JUNE 2011 


If agreement is reached on the terms of this report, the Town will receive $7,000 for any 

inconvenience or perceived loss of amenity due to the presence of the underground cables and 

associated easement. 


The Strategic Plan 2009-2020 provides strategies that are relevant to this issue in the 'Planning 

for Our Community' and 'Capacity to Deliver' priority areas as follows:- 

Goals 

Financial Sustainability 

Strategies 

Identify opportunities for commercial development and revitalisation 

Ensure strategies are in place for maintaining the Town’s wealth and revenue capacity 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with 

the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Deposited plan 57684 version 2 

2. Map of Subject Area 




That:- 

(i) 

in response to Western Power’s request for an easement over Town land adjacent 

to the Wembley Downs and offer of compensation, Western Power be advised 

that: 

(a) 

(b) 

the Town rejects the offer of $2,000 for the granting of a 1,825m² easement 

over the its land adjacent to the Wembley Downs substation in favour of 

Western Power; 

the Town would agree to granting an easement as requested by Western 

Power with an amount of $7,000 compensation payable to the Town; 

(ii) 

subject to agreement by Western Power to the Towns terms in (i)(a) and (b) above 

the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to prepare the easement documentation 

to his satisfaction and grant the easement accordingly. 

Carried 8/0 



28 JUNE 2011 

8. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS 

CR11.84 

CARPARK LICENCE - GAYTON ROAD SHOPPING CENTRE 

Refer to Item 13.1 


COUNCIL 

28 JUNE 2011 

10. COUNCIL REPORTS 

Nil 

11. URGENT BUSINESS 

11.1 PERRY LAKES AQUIFER REPLENISHMENT PROJECT - FUNDING 


To advise Council of the response from the Minister for Environment and Water relating to the 

Town's decision to require the State Government to meet all the regulatory costs and the costs 

for the provision of treated waste water to allow the Perry Lakes Aquifer Replenishment Project 

to proceed. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Council has been progressing the Perry Lakes Aquifer Replenishment Project for some 

time and was successful in receiving a Federal Government grant of $2.589m to fund the 

construction costs of the project. The Town has requested that an equitable cost sharing 

arrangement be entered into relating to the ongoing operation and maintenance costs and at its 

meeting held on 24 May 2011 decided as follows: 

"That if the State Government fails to agree by 30 June 2011 to fund all 

regulatory costs and costs for the provision of treated waste water as detailed 

in the Council's decision dated 22 February 2011, the $2.589m Federal 

Government Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program - 

Strategic Projects Grant be relinquished and any funds unspent at that date be 

returned." 

A copy of this report and decision is attached. 

DETAILS: 

Since the above decision was made, the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer met with the 

Minister for Environment and Water to further put forward the Town's position in relation to 

funding the operational costs. 

Correspondence has now been received from the Minister, which is attached. The Minister's 

letter offers marginal financial support for the project with $85,000 for three years (Total 

$255,000) to cover the monitoring component of the project's ongoing costs. At this time, the 

final monitoring costs are not known as it is subject to the risk assessment and adaptive 

management plan being completed. The cost will be determined by the amount of resources 

required to meet any conditions imposed by the regulatory authorities (Department of Water 

and Department of Environment and Conservation) to mitigate the risks involved in the project. 

The Minister has previously been informed that the offer presented is not sufficient from the 

Town's perspective for it to commit to the project and absorb the remaining operating costs. 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\11 MINUTES\June 2011\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 218

COUNCIL 

28 JUNE 2011 




The Town has secured a federal grant of $2.589m to fund the proposed works. Half the funds 

have already been paid to the Town. 

The annual operational costs are estimated to be: 

a. Infiltration gallery operations and maintenance $78,000 

b. Filtration and delivery of wastewater $73,000 

c. Water quality monitoring $85,000 

$236,000 

The Town has committed to meet the annual gallery costs of $78,000pa. 


This project is consistent with the Town's strategic plan for the development of sustainable 

water and resource management practices and the provision of quality open space and leisure 

facilities. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. In 

accordance with the assessment criteria, no consultation is required as this report is purely 

administrative in providing information to Council. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Extract from Council Meeting Minutes 24 May 2011 - Item 10.1 Perry Lakes Aquifer 

Replenishment Project - Funding. 

2. Letter dated 23 June 2011 from Minister for Environment; Water to Mayor Simon Withers. 


(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 

Moved by Cr Watson, seconded by Cr Langer 

That the State Government's position, as detailed in the correspondence from the 

Minister for the Environment and Water in relation to the operational funding for the 

Perry Lakes Aquifer Replenishment Project, be noted. 

Carried 8/0 


COUNCIL 

28 JUNE 2011 

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 

Nil 

13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 

Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr Watson 

That the following matter be regarded as confidential in accordance with Section 

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

Carried 8/0 

13.1 CARPARK LICENCE - GAYTON ROAD SHOPPING CENTRE 


That in relation to Part Lots 10 and 12, Gayton Road, City Beach, being 1,985m 2 of 

freehold land owned by the Town (the subject of previous Agreements between the 

Town and past owners of the Gayton Road Shopping Centre); 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the Town makes an Application to the Supreme Court to confirm the rights 

and obligations of the Town and that of GPA Pty Ltd (the current owner of the 

Gayton Road Shopping Centre); 

the proposal from GPA Pty Ltd, as detailed in the confidential attachment, be 

noted and further considered by Council once it has received advice from its 

Licensed Valuer; 

an amount of $70,000 be included in the Draft 2011/2012 Budget; 

(iv) the Town advises GPA Pty Ltd that at this point in time, it does not wish to 

sell any part of its freehold Lot 10 and/or Lot 12 Gayton Road, City Beach. 

Carried 8/0 


COUNCIL 

28 JUNE 2011 


As no member moved a motion to declare the following item confidential, the Mayor advised 

that the meeting would continue as an open meeting. 

13.2 BOLD PARK AGREEMENT (AREAS F & G, MT CLAREMONT) 

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY 

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 

1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following: 

(c) 

(d) 

a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and 

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; 

legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and which 

relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting 


To approve the Deed to vary the 1995 Bold Park Agreement to reflect the intent of the 

variations agreed in 1996 and 1997 in relation to the financial arrangements for the sale of 

Areas F & G, Mt Claremont. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town has been in dispute with the State Government since the year 2000 concerning the 

financial arrangements related to the sharing of the nett proceeds for the sale of Area F & G in 

Mt Claremont. 

The Town negotiated amendments to the 1995 Bold Park Agreement in 1996 and 1997 with 

Ministers of the State Government. In September 1997, the Minister for Local Government 

advised that Cabinet had approved various arrangements in relation to Bold Park. Under those 

arrangements (amongst other things), the Nett Proceeds were to be shared as follows: 

Advance payment to the Town $6.5m 

Kings Park Board $5.0m 

All amounts above $11.5m to be shared equally. 

The Town received the first tranche of funds in May 1998. After this, Landcorp sold the 17 lots 

comprising Area F in July and October 2000 with gross proceeds of $8.9 million being realised. 

After GST, development costs, sales fees and marketing costs were deducted, it is estimated 

that the nett proceeds were $7.5 million. At this time, the Town became aware that the State 

Government proposed to apply the internal government transfer price of $3.75 million based on 

the englobo value that was paid by Landcorp to the Department of Land Administration to the 

amount being attributed to the financial arrangement with the Town. 

The Town did not believe that this was ever the intention or in the spirit of the 1996 and 1997 

negotiations with the Ministers of the State Government and a dispute arose as a result. 

This dispute has remained unresolved with the continuation of discussions with the current 

Premier, Colin Barnett who was elected in September 2008. The Premier is also the Member 

for Cottesloe and participated in the negotiations with the Town in 1996 and 1997 and was 


COUNCIL 

28 JUNE 2011 

familiar with the context and intent of the negotiations. The Premier confirmed the Town's 

understanding of the financial arrangements and in September 2010 advised that Cabinet had 

agreed to vary the 1995 Bold Park Agreement to reflect the correct financial position related to 

the sharing of the Nett Proceeds. 

The Town prepared a draft deed to document this arrangement in a binding agreement 

between the Town and the State, and provided it to the Government in May 2010 to consider. 

A copy of the draft deed has previously been circulated to Elected Members. 

DETAILS: 

Since September 2010, the Town has been pursuing the various government agencies to 

finalise this agreement. Due to the nature of the agreement, various government agencies 

have been involved as follows: 

 

 

 

 

Landcorp 

Department of Regional Development and Lands 

Department of Treasury and Finance 

State Solicitors Office 

Each agency has reviewed the deed and required various adjustments to meet their specific 

needs. This has delayed the finalisation of the document. None of the changes requested have 

altered the intent of the document and relate more to the various arrangements between the 

government agencies. At the time of writing this report, the final version of the Deed has not 

been provided although the Town has reviewed the proposed drafting changes in conjunction 

with the Town's legal advisors and we are now in a position to recommend approval of the 

Deed. The State Government agencies have indicated the Deed will be provided on Monday, 

23 May 2011 for distribution to Elected Members for endorsement at the Council Meeting the 

following evening. 

The main terms of the Deed are: 

1 the agreement is based on amending the original 1995 Agreement; ie all of the provisions 

of the 1995 Agreement are maintained and are varied in accordance with this 

correspondence. 

2 the area commonly referred to as “Banksia Farm”, (Lot 87) within Area G is excluded from 

development due to the existence of a trust and a previous decision of Government to 

retain the bush area. “Banksia Farm” is then to be included within Bold Regional Park to 

be managed by the Botanic Gardens & Parks Authority if the Trustee on the title can be 

transferred to the Botanic Gardens & Parks Authority. Should the changes to the Trustee 

not be able to be made, the land will revert back to the Town. 

3 the balance of Area G (Lot 13409) will be subdivided into residential housing lots in 

accordance with the original Clause 4.2 of the 1995 Agreement. The Town will also 

support the rezoning of the land from R12.5 to R30. 

4 the Nett proceeds of the sale of Area F are taken to be $7.5m which is the sale price less 

development costs. These proceeds have been distributed with the first $6.5m received 

by the Town in May 1998 and the remaining $1m to the State Government. 

5 the Town will receive an equal share of the Nett Proceeds of the sale for Area G above 

$4m (ie $11.5m threshold less $7.5m nett proceeds raised from Area F sale). 


COUNCIL 

28 JUNE 2011 

6 the definition of Nett Proceeds is: 

(a) 

all money received by the State on the sale of residential lots; 

minus 

(b) 

all costs incurred by the State in developing and subdividing the land into 

residential lots and in selling those residential lots, but excluding internal 

administration costs of the State and payments under the State Enterprises 

(Commonwealth Tax Equivalent Act 1996). 


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. Legal advice has previously 

been obtained in relation to the possible application of Section 3.58 and 3.59 of the Local 

Government Act related to the disposal of land and major land transactions. This was reported 

to Council in July 2010 and the advice determined that neither of these provisions were 

applicable to the variations proposed in this Deed. 


An estimate of the financial return based on the development of the land comprising Area G 

(35,019m 2 ) is detailed below. 

Gross Land Sales 

Less Cost of Sales 

GST 

Marketing & Sales 

Nett Sales Income 

Less Development Costs* 

Net Profit 

Less State Government Balance of Initial Instalment 

$3.92m 

$1.83m 

$43.07m 

$5.75m 

$37.32m 

$7.98m 

$29.34m 

$4.00m 

$25.34m 

50% State Government Share $12.67m 

50% Town of Cambridge Share $12.67m 

*Development Costs include construction, design, approvals and regulatory fees, project 

management and holding costs. 

Note: the timing of receipt of these funds will be subject to the development and sale of the 

Area G land and is expected to take a number of years. The development will be undertaken 

by Landcorp in liaison with the Town. 


The commercial arrangements related to the Bold Park Agreement support the Town's goal 

related to financial sustainability and the strategy to ensure strategies are in place to maintain 

the Town's wealth and revenue capacity. 


COUNCIL 

28 JUNE 2011 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix with no specific 

consultation required as it relates to an agreement with the State Government to re-establish 

the Town's position related to a previously negotiated position. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Bold Park - Areas F & G Deed 


That the attached Bold Park - Areas F & G Deed be approved and that the Mayor and CEO be 

authorised to sign and seal the Agreement. 

Council Meeting 24 May 2011 

The Chief Executive Officer advised that the Town received the final version of the Deed late 

today and it had not been assessed. It was therefore agreed that the item be deferred. 


That the item relating to the Bold Park Agreement (Areas F and G, Mt Claremont) be deferred 

to enable the final Deed received by the Town on 24 May 2011 to be assessed. 


Since the last Council meeting, negotiations on a small number of variations have continued 

and all matters are now agreed for incorporation in a final document. At the time of circulating 

this agenda, the final document had not been received, however, it is anticipated that it will be 

available prior to the Council meeting. 

The Bold Park Variation Deed was received on Friday 24 June 2011 and was circulated to 

Elected Members. 


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That the attached Bold Park - Areas F & G Variation Deed be approved and that the 

Mayor and CEO be authorised to sign and seal the Agreement. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae 


(ii) 

the definition of Area 'F' be included in the Bold Park Variation Deed. 



COUNCIL 

28 JUNE 2011 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the attached Bold Park - Areas F & G Variation Deed be approved and that the 

Mayor and CEO be authorised to sign and seal the Agreement; 

the definition of Area 'F' be included in the Bold Park Variation Deed. 

Carried 8/0 


COUNCIL 

28 JUNE 2011 

14. CLOSURE 

There being no further business, the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance and 

declared the meeting closed at 8.02 pm.

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?